The Subversive Nature of Emily Dickinson

I agree wholeheartedly with this Emily Dickinson poem.  If there is a God or Higher Power, I believe he/she/it/they would agree with this sentiment.

*I had a great hike this morning!

Part Two: Nature
LVII

SOME keep the Sabbath going to church;
I keep it staying at home,
With a bobolink for a chorister,
And an orchard for a dome.
Some keep the Sabbath in surplice;	5
I just wear my wings,
And instead of tolling the bell for church,
Our little sexton sings.
God preaches,—a noted clergyman,—
And the sermon is never long;	10
So instead of getting to heaven at last,
I ’m going all along!

Banned book list - almost finished!

I'm close to finishing all the books on my banned book list, with the exception of Ulysses.  The last book on my list is An American Tragedy by Theodore Dreiser.  I'm not making any promises on that one. 

I wanted to write a few short reviews of three of the books.

A Prayer for Owen Meany by John Irving

Despite my feelings towards organized religion, I liked this book.  I appreciated the symbolism and heavy foreshadowing.  John Irving often writes dark satire, and this work was no exception.  It was a sad book, parts were very sad.  Irving is an astute observer of human nature. 

I loved the irony of the main character's grandmother, who denounced television at every opportunity; but when she got a tv, she watched it all the time.  She spent her time vociferously commenting and criticizing everything she saw.

Brideshead Revisited - Evelyn Waugh

I didn't realize that Evelyn was a male writer. I'm familiar with Evelyn as a female name, so that was my first assumption.  I don't think it changes my experience of the novel whether or not the author was male or female.

I think this was a banned book because it hints at a gay relationship among some of the main characters. I was disappointed that Sebastien ended up an alcoholic and homeless.  If Sebastien was gay, as is aluded to, the novel follows the classic pattern for gay characters. 

Many people have written about this before, but typically gay characters (pre-Stonewall) could not be portrayed as being happy, well-adjusted and successful. LGBT characters could not ultimately find love or find acceptance.  So in that sense, although a product of the time, I found that part of this novel disappointing.

Rabbit Run by John Updike

I have to admit, David Foster Wallace wrote a great review of John Updike's  Toward the End of Time.  It's no secret that I admire Wallace's work. 

I think I fit straight into this category that Wallace observed:

Most of the literary readers I know personally are under 40, and a fair number are female, and none of them are big admirers of the postwar G.M.N.'s.[Great Male Narcissists] But it's Mr. Updike in particular they seem to hate. And not merely his books, for some reason-mention the poor man himself and you have to jump back:
"Just a penis with a thesaurus."
"Has the son of a bitch ever had one unpublished thought?"
"Makes misogyny seem literary the same way Limbaugh makes fascism seem funny."
These are actual-trust me-quotations, and I've heard even worse ones, and they're all usually accompanied by the sort of facial expression where you can tell there's not going to be any profit in arguing or talking about the esthetic pleasure of Mr. Updike's prose. None of the other famous phallocrats of his generation-not Mailer, not Frederick Exley or Charles Bukowski or even the Samuel Delany of Hogg -excites such violent dislike. There are, of course, some obvious explanations for part of this dislike-jealousy, iconoclasm, P.C. backlash, and the fact that many of our parents revere Mr. Updike and it's easy to revile what your parents revere. But I think the major reason so many of my generation dislike Mr. Updike and the other G.M.N.'s has to do with these writers' radical self-absorption, and with their uncritical celebration of this self-absorption both in themselves and in their characters.

I have to agree.  I'm sure this novel has been critiqued in the past from a feminist perspective. 

But the female characters of Rabbit Run in particular lack any depth.  Each fits neatly into the Madonna/whore dynamic (where women are either mothers or whores, not able to be anything but). In this work, each female character can't be seen as an autonomous character in their own right, they are devices for Rabbit to learn more about himself.  Chanson wrote about the manic pixie dream girl, a similar concept here. Each of the female characters (even Rabbit's mother and mother in law) seem to be stuck and simply react to Rabbit and his choices. 

I had some sympathy for Rabbit at first, but he continuously makes bad decisions - and his bad decisions are more about avoiding responsibility and ownership.  A great example, he refuses to let his girlfriend use birth control, and surprise! she gets pregnant.

I find it hard to believe that Updike is serious about this protagonist (taking a cue from Lolita).  If he was serious about Rabbit, which Wallace seems to think that he was, it's true that the children of the 90s see all this self-centered thinking very differently. 

There is a whole series of Rabbit books, which I have no desire to read. Particularly is they are anything like Rabbit Run.  Of all the banned books I've read, this is one I don't recommend.  I don't agree that it should be banned, but it's difficult to defend the novel as a worthwhile read. 

the prosperity gospel

It surprises me when I hear about people still trying to sell the prosperity gospel.  From my understanding, that means that if a person is faithful, they will be wealthy and have good health.

What strikes me about it is that one can't find much justification for it in the bible.  I'm fairly certain there is a scripture about a camel getting through the eye of a needle being as likely as a rich man getting into heaven.  To my mind, it illustrates that the bible can be interpreted to say or justify just about anything. 

It's not just the bible, of course.  I'm appalled by all the ideas attributed to former U.S. presidents that may or may not be true.   

Perhaps I'm expecting religion to be rational.  But I think of all the devout people I've known over the years, who were not wealthy.  At times, some of the faithful have suffered difficult, painful illnesses.  And children get very sick and sometimes die.  Is the suggestion that somehow a child has committed a grievous sin - that they have brought illness upon themselves? 


It's true that there are some very wealthy people who are also religious.  But their wealth seems to be unrelated to how faithful they are - other people are just as faithful and still poverty stricken.  I don't know that a person's wealth or  health can prove that they are more devout than other people. 

I think it does people an injustice to suggest that they brought catastrophic illness on themselves. 

Bad things happen to good people (see the book of Job).  I don't think that the equation adds up: if you are faithful, you'll have material wealth.

Better Understanding Lolita

 I sent this ( Reading Lolita and Derek) post to feminist mormon housewives a few weeks ago and they actually posted it! 

If my post doesn't say it strongly enough, I highly recommend the book Reading Lolita in Tehran.  It was a poignant, well-written memoir.  It inspired me to read Henry James (Washington Square).   There were great observations about women, society and how women relate to men in patriarchal societies. 

And most of all, I now finally (finally!) have a better understanding and appreciation for Nabakov's Lolita. 

I first read Lolita in college.  To say I hated it with a passion would not have been strong enough.  I intensely disliked it.  I read it on my own, not in a course. I think if I had read it as a part of an English lit course, maybe it would have made more sense to me at the time .

As it was, Nafisi's description of  the novel made so much more sense.  It was her English teacher/ professor's perspective that I didn't have on my own.  I'll admit it, I couldn't see past the evil of Humbert Humbert; the horror of the subject matter.  Yet after reading Nafisi's account, I understand that a reader isn't always supposed to appreciate or identify with the main character. This is the comment I wrote about it (after reading Nafisi's work):

And the novel [Lolita] describes a triumph of the human spirit - that despite everything that Lolita goes through (and she goes through a lot) - we never really see her. Humbert (her abuser) tries to pin her down, tries to capture her but he’s not able to. She has her own way of dealing with her life. She escapes and he is left to flounder. And despite Nabokov’s beautiful words and flowery phrases, we can see evil for how it is. Humbert’s actions speak far louder than his words.

I think this is what some friends were trying to tell me back in college, but I was young.  I  wasn't at a point where I could get it.

I'm not suggesting everyone should go out and read Lolita (by any means).  I strongly support people's right to read (or not read) what they choose - and to limit their own personal contact with various subject matter (including rape, abuse, incest, etc.) Although I admit, I will probably re-read it  after finishing Reading Lolita in Tehran.  

As an aside to this post, I have to be amazed at the art of Lolita. It is still an incredibly controversial novel.  Even now, bring it up in polite conversation (if you dare) and almost everyone has a strong opinion about it.  That's saying quite a lot, given the time that has passed and our society in general. 

Nice

On my recent visit with my grandmother, she brought up a relative and their recent break up. 

(No offense to my Grandma meant, but I know exactly where my "in other people's business" gene comes from).

Anyway, her comment to me was, "Well, were they [the former partner] a nice person?" When I admitted they were, my Grandma concluded "well, they should get married then". 

Readers, you would be proud, I did not roll my eyes.

To her mind, if the person was a nice person, that was all anyone needed.  I've mentioned this conversation to a few of my readers already.  My grandmother is very traditional and religious.  I love her, and sometimes she does think outside the box, but not about this issue.


I guess it's progress that the statement is not as simple as "Are they mormon?  Yes?  Well, then they should be able to get married then".

But I think back to everything I know, and there is so much more to marriage and relationships than simply being "nice" (or religious). 

I've known people who have loved one another but couldn't make it work. It happens. 

That's not taking things like money, cleanliness, family, kids, friends, mental illness, addiction, goals, values, etc. into account either.  Life throws quite a bit at most of us.  It's fortunate (for some of us) to just keep our heads above the waves.

To assume that all a couple needs is for one person to be "nice", well, it just doesn't work that way any more.  What if you disagree on monogamy?  Or whether or not to have kids?  What if you disagree about religion and/or raising children in particular religions?  These are difficult issues that couples wrestle with.

A friend wisely observed that perhaps we over-analyze love and relationships now, that perhaps we have too much in terms of expectations.  That may also be true.  But there are quite a few relationships where some of these conversations need to happen long before a couple decides to marry.  And people change.  It happens. 

I certainly won't pronounce anyone's relationship as "doomed to fail".  I'm pretty sure mine was/is pronounced as "doomed to fail" because I lived with my boyfriend before we got married. 

I believe people deserve every happiness.  I believe every couple can figure out what works for them, and some couples are just not meant to be.  Period.  I think believe marriage and relationships are infinitely more complicated than they seem, and I try not to make assumptions about what works and what doesn't work.

I'm not going to argue with my grandmother.  I did sit back and muse about her comment though...I completely disagree with her on it. 

Marriage in and of itself isn't the most important thing in the world.  Better a happy, well-adjusted marriage or person to my mind than a miserable one.

The walk of cultural shame

I heard this npr program about The Scarlet Letter the other day. 

I read Hawthorne's novel back in high school, but somehow I never truly comprehended some of the overarching themes.  I suppose that's why it's important to keep an open mind to literature discussions throughout one's life.

I doubt it was due to my English teacher, however.  It's true that there are some additional things my Junior year English teacher could have mentioned, but I digress. 

I do think the concept of shame and sin are difficult concepts for a teenager to understand.  Granted, sometimes teens are underestimated, but there is life experience that can be necessary to gain true perspective (in my opinion).

Needless to say, on this program, the commentators compared the society of the Puritans with our current society.  One of the things my English teacher missed was that Hawthorne was comparing his society with the Puritans as well. 

I wouldn't have thought that we had a great deal in common. 

The Puritans were a sober bunch, not celebrating holidays, not listening to music, strict laws on the Sabbath.  Most Americans have lavish celebrations, and there are few businesses closed on Sundays or holidays any more. 

But with recent alleged celebrity follies and their public apologies, perhaps there is more in common than initially appears.  Is there a reason we (as a society) need to focus on other people's mistakes?  That we need to feel righteous indignation?  That we feel we need these celebrities to both apologize, and to suffer?  I'm not excusing any mistakes, but is the rancor and venegence really necessary?

I simply agree with the npr panelist about the parallels between that world and some parts of our current world. 

excommunication

A college friend of mine observed that she had known that I had been raised mormon, but at the time she didn't think anything of that.

She mentioned she had thought it was another mainstream religion, much like the Presbyterians or the Methodists. I left mormonism before attending college, although my name was still officially on the LDS/mormon books.

And it is, of course, partially true. Partially because I believe mormons are sort of like mainstream Christian religions.

And partially because I didn't really want to talk about all that ways that mormonism is NOT like a mainstream Christian religion. And this is definitely a topic I could and still can discuss for hours on end. I will probably post more about that at another time.

I've spoken a little about my attitudes towards mormonism and my own experience here (one thing), here(Mitt Romney and mormon doctrine) and here (to each their own).

One of the ways that mormonism is NOT like mainstream Christian religions is that they excommunicate members for apostasy.

The practice is still alive and kicking, as it appears that my friend John from mind on fire may shortly be excommunicated.

The farther away from faithful mormonism I get, the more that I forget about this type of stuff.

But really - when is the LDS church going to realize that it's a bad idea to "fire" your voluntary members?

It's one thing to take this step when someone is a violent criminal or convicted felon. To request that if they are still an active part of the community - to reduce their activity to protect other members of the community.

It's quite another to request that someone leave a community simply because they're saying something you don't like. And they're not speaking hate speech. They're simply stating their point of view and their experience.

The reasons behind "firing" volunteers who say something you don't like is difficult to discern (and changes depending on who you are talking to). Supposedly, in John's case, he was revealing secrets that he had promised not to reveal.

Honestly, it's hard to imagine the Christ from the King James' Version of the bible acting this way.

From my understanding, Christ's message (i.e. the new commandment) was "love one another".

It really wasn't a message of "keep these secrets, or else".

His message was "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you". Now, whether or not I personally believe Christ was a historical figure is not a factor in this debate - simply that this is my interpretation of what he is quoted saying in the bible.

The theory is that by excommunicating dissidents, LDS church leaders are maintaining discipline within the church.

That sounds strikingly familiar to what happened to Galileo Galilei, who was excommunicated from the Roman Catholic church for suggesting that the earth was not the center of the universe.

This is an article from the pbs special on the mormons about excommunication (for my readers who weren't familiar with the process). This is the wikipedia article about the practice, with other religions noted.

Do I believe the LDS church has the right to excommunicate its members? Yes.

People also have the right to burn books, that doesn't mean I agree with the practice.

Do I think excommunication for free speech stays in line with Christian theory and theology (noted above)? No. Particularly when the free speech is simply vocalizing one's own opinions and experience.

Do I think organizations have a right to protect their trade secrets? Yes.

But again, I don't think this falls into line with the message of Christ from the bible. I'm not sure that Christ (as written in the KJV) would agree that keeping trade secrets are essential for salvation.

Or that keeping secrets are essential for someone to remain in a community or congregation.

And most importantly, that the church leaders could determine whether or not someone should be saved - or if they had sinned.

In the very least, he (Christ) is reported to have said:

(KJV Matthew chapter 7, verse 1 - from the Sermon on the Mount)
1 Judge not, that ye be not judged.
2 For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again.
3 And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother’s eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye?
4 Or how wilt thou say to thy brother, Let me pull out the mote out of thine eye; and, behold, a beam is in thine own eye?
5 Thou hypocrite, first cast out the beam out of thine own eye; and
then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brother’s
eye.

My sympathy to John and his family through this process. I stand behind what I wrote that it takes courage and strength to live with integrity - whatever that means for my various readers.

Greater than myself

As always, this is all just my personal opinion and should be taken as such. I respect that many disagree with me.

As a society, it seems like there is so much focus on a particular demographic (14 - 22 year olds) that I believe we forget that there is a lot that we don't know. And sometimes, it's not the 14 - 20 year olds who are on the cutting edge of this front. It's those who have paid their dues, who have spent lifetimes experiencing, living, studying. (As an aside, I'm not suggesting that older is always wiser).

There is so much that is unknown (period). And there are so many different types of unknowns.

Personally, I can certainly explain a great deal about Russian history during a particular period of time - but would stare at you blankly when asked about quantum physics or advanced calculus.

Things would be quite different if we knew all the answers. I certainly don't have them. I don't know why sh*t happens. I don't know why good stuff happens either. (If I did, I certainly wouldn't be sitting around blogging about it!)

Of course, lots of religions (and other things) have evolved to help explain the unexplainable.

I just find the concept of something greater than myself attractive. That thing could be nature, evolution, love, time, physics, a higher power and/or God (whatever you may call God).

Simply the idea that I don't have all the answers - and there is no way, in my human lifetime, I could ever find all the answers.

Not even that there is a design or reason for everything. But that at this given moment, I can't comprehend it all. Sometimes I may just need to talk with friends or loved ones. Sometimes I can find insight from reading what others have written in the past.

The important concept (for me) is, I'm human. I make mistakes. I have insights and faults. I allow others the same freedom and compassion.

Sometimes it just seems like our society or generation is so me/self focused - the idea that any of us could really "get it" at 16 is hard to fathom. There are things that can be understood, but there's a lot that cannot be easily understood as well.

Life is not simple.

The older I get, the more I realize how much I don't know. How life is not black and white (cannot be reduced to simple maxims or theories). I suppose I thought that I would have a better understanding as I got older, and I just don't seem to be any closer to explaining it all.

I'm not suggesting that anyone has been arguing that they know it all or that they have all the answers.

Just that it takes humility to admit I have limits (just like everyone).

If nothing else, I hope I can share that with my kids - the sense of compassion for others and a sense of awe that life can bring.

Eight is not enough

I suppose I'm musing on the mormon thing this week - not sure why. Maybe I'm just trying to get into chanson's "Sunday in Outer Blogness" feature.

One of the things that non Mormons might not realize is that Mormon children get baptized at 8. I don't know who came up with that age. Growing up, I thought it was awfully convenient that seven or eight was the same age for Roman Catholics.

I had NO idea what I was getting into at the age of eight. I got baptized because it was expected. All the other kids in my church class got baptized after they turned eight. My parents and extended family were looking forward to my baptism, it was an "event". Somewhere I have a photo of my Dad and me standing outside the church, I got a brand new dress just for the occasion. My uncle and aunt came just for the baptism. It was a big deal.

Let me state again - I had no idea what I was getting into. I had no idea that it would be possible to say no. I had no idea that I might grow up and NOT be mormon. It was inconceivable. I could read but I was in third grade. I was a Republican, because my parents were republicans. I hadn't read the Book of Mormon (I had tried)- my exposure was through a story picture book (complete with swords and horses).

For this post, I was trying to think of all the things I didn't know about at 8. And I'm having a hard time defending how any eight year old can make a lifetime commitment to a religion - or can make any lifetime commitments period. I am skeptical of any sixteen year old making lifetime commitments - and a sixteen year old is in high school, can sometimes drive and work outside the home. I couldn't make my own food.

These things are traditions, rites of passage. I don't want to sell eight year olds short. I'm amazed at how much my three and a half year olds know and comprehend. I understand that parents take their religion and religious tradition very seriously. They want their children to take an interest and personal ownership in religious faith and spirituality.

But eight is very young. Children are far from independent. I was still actively trying to please my parents at that age. I wanted them to be proud of me. I didn't think rationally about what *I* wanted or where life would take me. When I resigned from the mormon church (officially) some years ago and had my name removed, that's one of the things that was a part of the form letter sent back to me. That whatever eternal protection the baptism had for me had been removed. It seemed so strange to me - because my original decision to be baptized hadn't been my decision.

If religions continue to baptize children at 8, for tradition - I can't argue with that. But at least stop pretending that the decision is a lifetime commitment or that it has eternal consequences. I don't know how to get around that - to honor people who made that commitment at eight and have kept it. Who remember that day (when they were eight and baptized into their church) and still treasure it. That's fine.

It just seems to me there is so much more to church and religious faith and membership. Whatever that is, eight is much too young to fully understand the consequences of one's actions.

Life of Pi

At the start of Life of Pi - the main character immediately professes his belief in God. I would typically be skeptical of this type of book and its message. In the end, I have to admit I was pleasantly surprised.

I liked Martel's writing and desciptions. Part of the book describes the main character (Pi) and his study of religion as a teenager. He joins three religions, Islam, Roman Catholicism and Hinduism. He doesn't explain to the three local leaders (imam, priest, pandit etc.) what he's doing. He appreciates the mysticism/spirituality of each religion - ignoring the differences.

At one poignant moment, the imam, priest and the Hindu equivalent (pandit) show up at Pi's family home. They start arguing when they realize that their new prodigy, Pi, has joined all three. "You must choose one" they all say. They criticize one another and point out the differences between their faiths. Pi aptly notes that it was his first experience with interfaith dialogue. And he continues his study of all three despite their protests.

In his philosophizing, Pi brings up chanson's argument that atheists believe something. He denigrates agnostics as not believing anything.

He is suggesting that atheist belief is similar to faith (something I am pretty sure chanson disagrees with). Although he obviously tries to understand different points of view (the older Pi we read about has a degree in theology and zoology), he isn't very tolerant of the agnostic. He doesn't explain his intolerance very well, except that the atheist is (in his mind) a believer, while the agnostic is eternally skeptical.

The bulk of the novel involves the unlikely scenario of a sixteen year old (Pi) trapped on a lifeboat in the Pacific Ocean with a 450 lb. Bengal Tiger. Through the course of the story, he is able to stay alive by convincing the tiger that he is the alpha male. The tiger had already slain a castaway hyena, zebra and an orangutan. The tiger was dangerous, hungry and out of his element on the ocean. Yet Pi is able to exert his dominance, much like a lion tamer in a circus ring.

The author suggests that in reality, freedom is an illusion. Animals in zoos actually prefer the routine of the zoo. He cites examples (who knows if they are real or not) of escaped animals returning to the zoo - the place where they know their territory and are fed regularly. In that sense, I understand his point. Not that zoos don't present ethical dilemmas - I'm not saying that I support zoos. But the theory that an animal would want to be "free" where they were forced to define their own territory and find food is not always true. Who can say that an animal doesn't honestly appreciate knowing where it's territory is and where it's next meal will come from? I don't think he's suggesting that we should add more animals to zoos - I think he's just saying that freeing all the animals in the zoos is not a solution.

And, as far as humanity goes, we too are very attached to our comforts of life. We discuss the concept of freedom, but we have homes to return to, jobs to fulfill - communities to build.

Martel writes "If you went to a home, kicked down the front door, chased the people who lived there into the street and said 'Go! You are free! Free as a bird! Go! Go!' Do you think they would shout and dance for joy? They wouldn't..."(p. 17)

All in all, the book posed many fascinating questions and dilemmas. And put forth a different point of view, one that I don't hear very often. This is definitely a book I would recommend to my parents and in laws, one with moral and ethical questions. In some ways, the novel is savage with in its honesty about animals and human nature.

My legislative suggestion that will never go anywhere

Can someone give me a good, logical reason why U.S. churches are not forced to report how they spend their earnings to their members? They don't have to pay taxes on their property or their income (tithing).

They are forced to report their earnings in other western countries like the U.K. and Canada.

I bring this up because I believe the LDS church (mormons) should have to report how they spend their earnings and tithing to their tithe-paying members. It only makes sense that the people who dutifully give their hard earned money should at least see where those funds go.

In this country, the separation of church and state are treated as pillars - never the twain shall meet. This allows some religions to spend their money however they please.

Which is fine and their right. I just think that in order to remain tax exempt, some of these organizations need to send a report to their contributors each year.

It's not that difficult. Lots of charitable organizations do this all the time. I get a wonderful booklet every year from my alma mater full of all the many ways they spend their contributions. Building upkeep, salaries, scholarships, etc. They could even just post a word document on their website.

So why wouldn't a charitable organization be proud of what they spend their money on? If all the money is going towards helping those less fortunate, or the work of "the cause" - why all the secrecy?

Some major religious organizations (like the American Presbyterians) actually submit a report to their contributors each year. The membership actually (gasp) votes on what the funds are spent on. In my father in law's church, the majority of the money is spent on heating their building. The important thing is - the process are transparent. Everyone knows all the "good work" that their faith is doing.

My father in law argues, perhaps justly, that since I'm no longer mormon I really no longer have the right to say how they spend their money. So I'm saying this to all active mormons. Demand to know where your 10% (or more) goes. And if they won't tell you, ask why not. Public companies send detailed reports to their shareholders. Why shouldn't churches (and in particular the Utah LDS church) be held accountable for their income and expenses?

My proposal is that tax exempt organizations who make over a certain amount each year have to submit a budget to their contributors. Or they lose their tax exempt status. It's simple.

I'm a realist. My idea will never go anywhere. Religion is a sacred cow - much like parenting. But I'm still going to shout it from the soapboxes until my voice grows hoarse.

Every stake in zion

One of the things I've learned as I've gotten older is that not everyone experiences the same experience the same way.

For example, I had a great time in my women studies class in college. We journaled, we read lyrics from Liz Phair. Yet one of my classmates was so offended by our discussions that she logged an official complaint with the dean.

We were in the same course, same semester, same professor, yet had a completely different reaction.

I've found the same is true for mormonism and people who leave mormonism.

As a mormon, I was told that every "stake in zion" was the same. A person should be able to go to any ward throughout the world and experience the same worship. They would hear the same leadership and the same doctrines.

This was simply not true. I was raised outside the mormon corridor (Utah) - and I believe my experience was radically different than people who were raised in Utah. And my observations in the US seem to be different than others I've talked with raised mormon in other countries (like Canada).

One example of the differences would be the "evil spirit". I remember that I was not supposed to play with Ouija boards and obviously remembered that I was supposed to only engage in activities in which I would be open to the spirit.

But I never remember anyone being accused of having an evil spirit in classes. I don't recall hearing an active member describe feeling an evil spirit somewhere (Don't go there, that house has an evil spirit).

I do remember people saying that they couldn't feel the spirit in a particular place, but that is different than accusing someone of being under the influence of satan.

In the remarkably diverse exmo community, I have heard many people from the western states talk about ward members feeling evil spirits or even accusing surly teenagers of having evil spirits.

My only explanation for this is that the LDS church is actually quite different depending on where you live. The notion that every stake in zion is the same is simply false.

Another example is the bishopric. Every bishop or counselor (outside the corridor) I grew up with was wealthy and well educated. I remember two bishops who were wealthy doctors. One was a well connected businessman in a high position in a local company. There seemed to be a direct correlation between wealth and being called to the bishopric.

Yet in talking with the greater former mo community, many people had bishops who might not have college educations and/or "white collar" type jobs. While most bishoprics in power had wealth and prestige, it wasn't always a given. My stereotype or assumption about wealthy bishops was really only related to my own local observations.

More than anything, I find people are vastly different. And after having been a part of the exmo community for over 6 years now, I think that the only constant I have found is that everyone reacts differently to having been mormon and no longer being mormon.

There isn't one right way to leave mormonism. Some choose to be new order mormons. Some people find other faiths. Others become agnostic or atheist. Still others remove their name through the LDS process. Others refuse to jump through the hoops that the LDS church requires to have your name removed.

Some people participate on bulletin boards or e-mail lists. Some former mormons never join these lists and never want or need to. Others maintain websites and write books and novels about the LDS experience. Some former mormons suffered abuse or had abuse covered up by LDS leaders. Some still live in heavily mormon populated areas and deal with that religion on a daily basis.

I grew wary of being repeatedly told as an active mormon that there was one way to live, one way to be happy.

It seems to me that there is no one right way for people to respond to mormonism and leaving. Just as there were vastly different mormon wards and mormon experiences. I embrace that notion and support the diversity of the former mo community.