Skip to main content

It's Official

It's official. I am no longer a member of the Mormon church. I received a letter from church headquarters about a week ago saying that my name has been removed from the records of the church.

This was done at my request after the church's leadership refused to respond to my three letters on their policy of encouraging all unwed mothers to relinquish their babies for adoption. I had been playing the Mormon game for several years, but had not really believed the LDS dogma for a long time (if I ever really believed it). I had felt that LDS doctrine was pretty benign it did no harm and actually did some good.

Until I was confronted with the church's policy. This policy is not benign. My research found significant evidence that infant relinquishment is traumatic for both the mother and the child, and the damage caused is lifelong for both. Causing unnecessary harm to these infants by imposing a generalized policy promulgated by a "prophet" is, in my opinion, an institutionalized form of child abuse.

But this false policy of the church doesn't stop there. As I "searched, pondered and prayed" I discovered that the church had published an article in their flagship magazine, The Ensign, in 2002 that claimed that mothers who relinquish experienced better outcomes than those who did not. When I checked the research studies cited in this article, I discovered that it did not support the argument put forward in the article. At best, this article was intellectually dishonest. At worst it was a deliberately misleading of young mothers to provide product for LDS Family Services to sell to their long list of prospective adopters.

Having reached this point, and believing that the church's leaders were honest and sincere men, but perhaps misguided, I wrote to President Monson. I pointed out to him that the policy has absolutely no scriptural support. I provided several passages of scripture that argue against the policy. I discussed the history of adoption since ancient Greece. I covered issues of general ethics, and specific issues of unethical practices, child trafficking, subverting of father's rights, conflicts of interest, deliberately fallacious marketing and other things that are "wrong" with the adoption industry. I pointed out the higher than normal incidence of mental disorders in people adopted as children and the over-representation of adopted people in prison populations. I questioned whether a mother who relinquished a child to be sealed to another set of parents would see reaching the Celestial Kingdom without her child as a blessing or a curse. I challenged the judgmental quality of the policy and asked how it was justified in light of the "doctrine of forgiveness." I asked President Monson to inquire directly of the Lord to see if this policy was indeed His will.

The response I received came from LDS Family Services. In summary it said I should let Lessa make her own decision. I had to do that anyway, but the sheer arrogance of that response from LDS Family Service, and organization that published the lies in the Ensign and that actively uses fallacious appeals to emotion and the "authority" of church leaders to pursue their agenda struck me as the height of hypocrisy. And, of course, the response couldn't possibly address the question I put to President Monson.

A second letter to President Monson received no response at all from church headquarters, but did produce a visit from my bishop. We agreed very quicky that he could not address my issues.

My final letter was mailed to both the First Presidency and to my bishop. In that letter I demanded that my name be removed from the church's records. I made it very clear that I consider the church's policy to be false doctrine and the church leadership's promulgation of it to be blasphemy. I challenged them to defend these charges. I literally called them to repentance.

I did receive a reply. A letter written by some flunky at church headquarters saying that the removal of my name from church records would be referred to my local church leaders. Included in the envelope was a slickly printed bi-fold brochure with the bright and smiling faces of the First Presidency on the front, all inviting me to come back. In the text, it said, among other things, "If we have offended, we are sorry."

Yet another lie. If they were indeed "sorry" they would at the very least send a personal reply to my letter. They are not sorry for offending me... for that I do not care. But they are not sorry for the infants and their mothers who have been "offended" because of their arrogant prejudices either. If the church's policy has harmed only one infant- only one - then the LDS leaders who have pushed it on the memership of the church will "wish that a millstone had been hanged about their necks and they had been drowned in the sea."

The policy has harmed many.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Agregate Demand and the US Savings Rate

In my last post, I touched on the differences between the economic theories of John Maynard Keynes and Ludwig von Mises. Immediately aftward, I was directed to this story in the New York Times. It seems that americans are saving more instead of spending the their money on consumer goods. Up until this downturn, about 70% of the US Economy was consumer spending, and in 2005, the US Savings rate was negative 2.7%. The "stimulus" is supposed to stimulate spending to get money moving again. But it isn't happening as planned. Folks are saving for down payments because they don't expect to get zero down home mortgages; they're saving to replenish their decimated retirement and college funds. The austrians believe that the best way to "fix" the economy is to allow the "malinvestment" created by the false signals in the economy (from the open market ops and deficit spending) to be liquidated and the resources repurposed into better investments. It...

Conventional Wisdom Meets Reality:
There Ought Not to be a Law

The "before" picture of an intersection near Bristol, England: Maximum traffic of 1700 cars per hour and about 300 pedestrians. Commute time for some people using the intersection over 20 minutes in rush hour traffic. The "after" picture: Traffic flow increased to 2000 cars per hour, and still handles the 300 pedestrians. Commute time reduced to just 5 minutes. In the eight months since the change, there have only been two minor incidents, and not a single person (motorist or pedestrian) has been injured in an accident. How did they do it? What new technology did they use to effect this miraculous change? They took out the traffic conrol signals! Yes, you read that right, the traffic lights were removed. By removing all of the red, yellow and green lights, the motorists became more courteous, more cautious, and more sharing of the road way. In complete defiance of the conventional wisdom. This experiment raises a lot of very interesting questions. First, do our pre...

Haiti Adoption Story

Most of us have seen or read stories of adoptions of Haitian children following the earthquake last month. Some of the stories have had a positive slant (the charity has saved children...) other's have had a negative slant (the "missionaries" who kidnapped and tried to smuggle 33 children across the border into the Dominican Republic). At a family gathering yesterday, my wife heard a story about a couple that was "finally" able to adopt a child they've been trying to adopt for about 4 years. As the story was related to me, this couple had originally been matched with this child about 4 years ago, but the adoption was cancelled when the parents of the child took her back and parented her themselves. After about three years of caring for the child, the natural parents returned her to the orphanage because both of them had been diagnosed with tuberculosis; a death sentence in Haiti. (Mortality for untreated TB is about 67%.) The adoption was finalized just befo...