"No" is a full sentence...

There were many reasons why I left the LDS (Mormon) church. One of those reasons was that they just can't take no for an answer.

Take callings. While they'll tell you that callings (jobs in the church) are voluntary, when I was in the church I was taught that turning down a calling was something that a good Mormon just doesn't do. The theory is that it isn't the bishop or the stake president who is doing the calling. It is "The Lord" himself who has decided that you are the correct person for the job, and if you say no, you're saying no to God, which will disappoint him mightily.

When I was a Mormon, I had several experiences with this principle. I usually said yes, even when it wasn't a job I wanted or would be good at. At one point, when I was just out of high school, I was called to teach Sunday School to the three-year-olds. I tried to explain to the bishop that I am not good with toddlers. "Oh," was the reply, "but it will be good practice for when you have your own children." What I wanted to say was that I had already decided that I wasn't having any, but that would have not been wise. Good Mormons don't say no to having children, either. So, being young and inexperienced, I caved and said I'd do it.

I'm not sure why that calling ended, but it didn't last long. It probably had something to do with the little golden boy in my class whose parents thought he was the be-all and end-all of the universe and, as such, should be catered to at all times. Of course, that meant that he was constantly disrupting class activities and being a general butt. I suspect that Mom and Dad didn't like that someone was saying no to their little darling and had me replaced. Fine with me.

Some years later, I was called to work with the little ones again, this time as a Primary teacher. At the time, Primary was held on an afternoon during the week as a teaching and activity day for children to the age of twelve. I can't remember what age I had that time; it seems like it was the five-year-olds, but it was years ago and I can't recall for sure. At any rate, I was put in charge of fairly young children again. Again, when I protested, I was told it would get me ready for my own children. I think I might have rolled my eyes, but again I didn't say anything about being childless by choice. And again, I caved and said yes. I was miserable the whole time I had that calling.

A bit after that I was called to be the Single Adult women's representative for my ward (congregation). Well, I wasn't actually officially extended the call. Instead, one of the stake Young Adult officers, whose mother had been friends with my mother since before either of us was born and before either family had any idea about Mormons, called me up to sound me out about taking the calling. By that time I had fallen into semi-activity in the church. Callings are one of the ways the Mormons use to reactivate members who don't come to church much.

That time, I said no. I wasn't interested. By that time, the Church had been instrumental in defeating the Equal Rights Amendment in the states, and I had no desire to participate in a leadership role in an organization that had done that. I recall there being lots of angst that I had said no to The Lord (you could hear the capital letters in people's voices every time they said that). But, I finally convinced them that I was serious and would not take the job.

But, it isn't just callings. Once I left the church for good (I was in and out a lot before I finally managed to say no to the church itself; for reasons that I can't quite fathom now, I really wanted it all to be true for a long time), I told them that I didn't want any contact from the church. They are supposed to honor that. However, I still get a call or a letter or a knock on the door at least once a year from people from the church, contacting me to see if I really mean that I don't want any contact.

Really?

Who does that? What part of "No" they don't understand is beyond me at this point. Perhaps they think I'm so stupid that if I did decide I wanted to go back to church, I wouldn't be able to find the proper ward to attend. Mormons, as I might have mentioned here before, do not get to pick which congregation they attend, but are assigned a ward based on where they live. Or maybe they think I would start giving them money if I went back. Good Mormons are very serious about tithing ten percent of their increase (which is defined differently by different people) to the church.

I don't wish individual Mormons ill. And I know that as individuals, some Mormons deplore that their church goes out and bothers former members who don't want to be bothered, even if they don't go through the motions of asking to be taken off the church's rolls. But the institution just doesn't get it. They think that if you don't jump through their hoops to resign from the church, that gives them the right to bother you as they see fit.

But, you know. I said no to them. As far as I'm concerned, that's all I need to do. A church is a voluntary organization. If I say I'm not interested any more, I'm not interested. Part of saying I'm not interested is that I am removing my permission for them to contact me. If that bothers their bean-counters, that isn't my fault and it isn't my problem.

I don't go knock on their doors, or show up at their church services, or call their members, and make them listen to why I don't attend any more. I expect them to respect me enough to extend the same courtesy to me, and quit bothering me.

Of course, that's probably too much for me to ask of the institutional church.

Autumn is here...and a short review of the history of September 22

It's the first day of autumn. Or, if you are in the Southern Hemisphere, the first day of spring.

So, of course, there are reports of snow in parts of Minnesota and Wisconsin. According to Weather.com, this snow, which is enough to stick in some places, is about a month earlier than its usual first appearance, based on long-term averages. On the other hand, it's sill in the 80s and 90s in the southern tier of states, and the predicted high in Phoenix, Arizona for today was 107 degrees Fahrenheit, with 101 degrees predicted a bit farther south, in Tuscon.

Here in my neck of the woods, it was predicted to hit 99 F today, but I don't think it managed to get quite that hot. I wouldn't know. I was only out briefly during the day, well before the hottest part of the day.

Anyway, with it being the autumnal equinox and all, I thought it would be a good day to see what happened on this day in history. So, I wandered over to Wikipedia (which isn't that bad a place, as long as you aren't using it as a source for academic papers, you fact-check what you find there, and you realize that their philosophy is that anything that has been published is an authoritative source) to see what they had to say about what has happened on September 22 through history.

First of all, I found, it is the 266th day of the year; it would have been the 265th day, but this year was a leap year. There are 100 days left in the year. Just what I needed to be reminded of - that Christmas is right around the corner.

There is quite a list of events that happened on this day. A few stood out. On this day in 1692, the last hangings for witchcraft in what is now the United States took place, which serves as a good reminder that religious extremism isn't anything new. But, it does beg the question of why, all these years later, so many people still go to extremes in their religion.

Those are not the only historically notable hangings that happened a September 22: in 1776, on this day, Nathan Hale was hanged as a spy during the American Revolution. General George Washington had asked for volunteers to go behind enemy lines to try to find out where the British were planning on landing in their invasion of Manhattan Island. Hale was the only volunteer. He was captured by the British and hanged at the age of 21. Hale is now the official State Hero of Connecticut, his home state.

There are also other religious events that happened on September 22. In 1823 (or 1822, depending on the source), Joseph Smith said he found the Golden Plates that he claimed to have used to translate the Book of Mormon. There are a few versions of the story, but the general account is that it was on September 22 in one of those two years that he first found the plates, guided by a vision from an angel who said his name was Moroni. Although Smith did not get the plates when he first found them - he said that the angel prevented him from doing so - several years later, in 1827, also on September 22, he was allowed to take the plates and commence his work with them. After he was finished with the translations, so the story goes, the plates were taken from him. So, you know, no physical evidence of them exists. Additionally, there are also several versions of the story of how he translated them to get the Book of Mormon. Honestly, trying to pin down what really happened in Mormon history is like trying to...well, like trying to pin down what position Mitt Romney really holds on an issue.

Maybe we should ask Mitt about the plates. He's Mormon, after all. He served a mission for his church. He might like to get his mind off his campaign for president, seeing how it hasn't been going that well for him lately.

Not related to either hangings or religion, so far as I know, this is the day in 1888 that the first issue of National Geographic Magazine was published. National Geographic has come in for its share of criticism from time to time in the years since that first issue, and not just for its role as young boys' go-to publication for seeing photos of topless women before Playboy got its start. Personally, though, I like National Geographic. It has fed my inner archaeology and anthropology geek since I was very young.

On September 22 in 1896, Queen Victoria surpassed her grandfather, George III (who, of course, was the monarch that the American colonists rebelled against), as the longest reigning monarch in British history. George III reigned for 59 years and 96 days, while Victoria eventually reigned for 63 years and 7 months and remains the longest reigning British monarch and the longest reigning female monarch in history. Queen Elizabeth II is gaining on her, though; Elizabeth has been on the throne for 60 years and a bit over 7 months as of this writing.

Speaking of queens, as we have been - September 22 is the birthday of Henry VIII's fourth wife, Anne of Cleves. Oh, they weren't married for long - just a bit over 7 months - before Henry had the marriage annulled, and she was never officially crowned as Queen Consort. Which makes sense, as it is difficult to be a consort when the marriage was never consummated. But, by virtue of being married to Henry, she was the Queen in practical terms for that time. And in many ways, Anne was the luckiest of Henry's wives. She never had to sleep with him, which had proved dangerous for his earlier queens. He divorced Catherine of Aragon because she couldn't give him a son. He had Anne Boleyn beheaded, supposedly for high treason, although it had a lot to do that she bore him only a daughter and then miscarried a disputed number of times, including the miscarriage of a son. His third wife, Jane Seymour, died of complications of childbirth less than two weeks after giving birth to Henry's son, Edward. Once Henry decided that Anne of Cleves wasn't really a suitable wife for him, he asked her for the annulment, which she wisely consented to. He gave her a substantial settlement, invited her to court often, and was referred to afterward as "the King's beloved sister". Anne outlived Henry's two latter wives, Catherine Howard, who was beheaded for not having disclosed her previous sexual history to the king in a timely manner, which Parliament arranged to have called treason, and Catherine Parr, who survived Henry.

So, all in all, a fairly interesting day in history. At least for us history geeks.

In which Mitt Romney appeals to (religious) authority...

What is it with Mitt Romney?

According to a story on CNN's website, Romney was asked during a radio interview in Alabama recently whether he believes that "America is the new 'Promised Land'," which the interviewer characterized as something taught in the Book of Mormon. The interviewer asked for a yes or no answer.

But Mitt, being both Mormon and politician, couldn't - or wouldn't - commit. His answer was, according to the CNN story,"You're gonna have to go to the church and ask what they think about that." He continued by saying, "There's no question about the fact that Israel is the 'Promised Land.' That's what the Bible tells us. And my guess is that they're the lands of promise to other people."

Sigh.

Mitt, Mitt, Mitt. The interviewer didn't ask you what the LDS church teaches about the location of the Promised Land. He also didn't ask you what the Bible says about the question (which could actually be two different things). He asked what you believe about it. It doesn't speak well of your independence from your ecclesiastical leaders that you have to depend on them to answer a simple question about what you, as an individual, believe about a question touching on spiritual beliefs.

I suppose it shouldn't come as a surprise that Mitt wouldn't commit. Mormon theology is slippery that way, and oftentimes even the highest authorities in the church won't give a straight answer about the church's beliefs to those who are not LDS themselves. Still, I worry about someone who won't answer a simple question about their beliefs. If you're ashamed of what you believe, maybe you should rethink your belief system. And if you're afraid to say what you believe because it will lose you votes, well, that's just lying for personal gain. It makes people like me wonder what else you might be waffling on in order to win elections. How can I be sure anything you say is what you really think?

Well, I don't trust Mitt anyway. He's a politician. And, as a former Mormon, I'm very familiar with the way that the LDS church, and its members, often have one set of answers for the faithful and another for the members of the church. They call that "milk before meat", and as far as I'm concerned all that means is that they will like about what the church really teaches in order to snag converts. This is not something I'm guessing at; I know this to be a fact because it happened to me when I converted to the LDS church when I was a teenager. But that's another post for another time.

Right now, the issue is Mitt and his reluctance to state his beliefs, deferring to the institutional church when the question clearly asked what he believes, not what his church believes. What his appeal to the authority of the church reminds me of more than anything is how LDS parents will take their toddlers, children who can barely speak a complete sentence, up to the stand on Fast Sunday - usually the first Sunday of the month, when LDS faithful abstain from two meals and give their sacrament meeting over to the congregation to bear their testimonies - and then whisper in the child's ear, for the child to repeat, "I know the church is true..." It is an exercise in ventriloquism. And it isn't attractive when the ventriloquist's dummy is any adult, much less one who aspires to the Presidency.