Polecat, I think you were more or less correct on all of your points. Now, where you lost the readers (and where all is often lost) is the framing. It's not nice to accuse people of being in the cult--the negative connotations are far too powerful in this day and age. It's a non-starter for Progressives, and the people who truly believe he's a cultist are already making their peace with that.
Though I do want to address claims that it's not a cult because you can leave...well...they sure don't like it when you leave. In fact, "You can check out but you can never leave" might as well be the LDS Corp's slogan. It's extremely difficult to have your name officially removed from the records. It requires a request in writing to the Main Office, which you can leave to your bishop to send, but he probably won't get around to it. Of course, they'll make sure that the Bishop will get in touch with you, and they insist an exit-interview is required. Of course, that's their last chance at the hard sell. My sister refused to participate in the interview, though, and they did eventually send her another letter letting her know she was removed from the roll.
They'll be coming for her again soon, though. That's how they work. They're still after me, even going so far as acquiring my personal cell number I never gave out to anybody (how? I still don't know) and calling to harass me on a regular basis. They aren't shy about it, either, and they'll send children over on a regular basis to guilt me back into returning to church. I haven't been an active member for eleven years and I just got a phone call from the local relief society (on my private number of course) asking if they can come over for a chat.
My best friend was once a member--the missionaries won't leave him alone.
Oh, and people who leave the LDS Corp as adults often lose their families in the process. Bishops encourage spouses to divorce spouses who are no longer believers, thus separating families, and anybody disfellowshiped or excommunicated is a pariah. Until very recently, people who requested their membership be terminated were brought to a "kangaroo court" in front of the Stake Presidency to be publicly condemned--kind of a "You can't break up with me, I'm breaking up with you!" move.You may be able to imagine what this might do to members in their community--they're no longer part of the community. Simple as that.
Leaving the LDS Corp is often a trying, lonely, depressing ordeal.
There's a recent study produced by whymormonsquestion.org that addresses the questions of why people leave and what they experience.
Comment from Respondent 548 (Male): Please make sure the Church encourages its believers to avoid ostracizing a fellow member for such member's disbelief.
Comment from Respondent 394 (Female): Please create a place in the church for women like me. I love the gospel and desperately want it to be true, but I have a hard time believing in a church that rejects critical thinkers and
feminists as "too willful" or "dangerously intellectual."... Thanks for all the good you do. I don't hate the church, and I truly believe that its leaders have the best of intentions... I'm just having a hard time seeing how I fit into it, and
don't see how God could possibly create a church that doesn't have a place for all of his children.
Please allow members that are trying to believe as much as they can to
attend the temple, baptize their children, etc. Please don't treat doubt as a sin.
Respondent 1732 (Female): Please help stop vilifying former members. Most of us are good, honest, ethical people just trying to live honest lives. We are not out to ruin anyone else's faith and we love our LDS friends and family and the last
thing we want to do is cause them pain. I have not come out to my family, mostly because I do not want them to think I am some sort of vile sinner, being deceived by Satan. I also do not want them to be devastated by the news, and they would be.
Maybe if the leaders of the church made sure to inform members that people leave for many legitimate reasons that have nothing to do with sinning or being offended, it would make it easier for people like me to be authentic with our families
Respondent #438 (Male): “Stop hurting marriages by driving a wedge between spouses on this issue. I have gone through hell and back and nearly divorced. We desperately need a General Conference address telling spouses
to not divorce an otherwise good spouse over non-belief. I have several friends who have been divorced over primarily this issue, and my own marriage is still on the rocks due to it, even though I am fully active.”
Read through that study, at the responses, consider what is being said, and ask yourself if it sounds like the Mormon church is a healthy environment. A cult? I don't know. After all, it is possible to leave it behind. Officially. Eventually.
What does all of that have to do with the ladies? Well, they're leaving. And with good reason.
Religion shouldn't be ignored or swept under the rug in this campaign. Now obviously Obama can't and won't touch it with a ten-foot pole, but there are actually legit reasons not to want a Mormon POTUS. Truly, there are. And it has nothing to do with the fact that Mitt might be a brainwashed cult member and everything to do with how his most sacred, unquestioned beliefs can cause actual harm to people.
Worried about the War on Women? Then perhaps there needs to be some discussion of the eternal War on Women in the Mormon Church. According to the same study I linked to above, the factors most important to women who want to leave the church are
Factors more significant to women:
• Church’s stance on women
• Women and the Priesthood
• Church’s stance on homosexuals
• Polygamy/polyandry
• Abuse
Basically, there are five different ways to say "misogyny."
Contrast that to why males leave
• Losing faith in God / Jesus
•Science
• Anachronisms in the Book of Mormon
• Book of Abraham
What can you extrapolate from that? I'm sure that some would say women are more faithful and less questioning--science is too much for them to think about and they don't even know what "anachronism" means, but that's obviously bullshit. Far more likely is that the Church's overall treatment of women, stance toward women, and beliefs about women are so egregious that they simply overwhelm everything else.
So, maybe we ought to discuss Mitt's religion? Maybe we ought to consider what he's been raised since the cradle to believe about his mother and later his wife?
One of the responders had this to say about gender inequality
• Gender equality. Example: “The status of women in the church is totally depressing. I have a Ph.D. and am a full-time professor at a 4-yr. university. I am also married and have 3 children. My career is deeply satisfying to me. The ONLY place in my life where I am treated as a lesser human being is at church.”
Might that shed some light on Mitt and Ann Romney? I think it does.
This was my favorite point however:
Treatment of women and homosexuals are both insignificant in correlation to church activity. Is there an offsetting factor, such that some may feel some desire to leave (because they’re not comfortable with how people are treated) but also feel a desire to stay (so that they can make a difference, and help people feel more appreciated/welcome)?
I think we can extrapolate some interesting things from that, too. I think the "offsetting factor" is that they don't really believe it's "that important." At least, not when it comes to their relationship with God and standing within the church. Yes, they have a terrible track record when it comes to equal rights, but...that doesn't change anything for their salvation, right? In other words, they don't understand its their own civil rights, their own dignity, their own liberty that's being dismissed here because of the ongoing theme that women just aren't that important. In other words, women don't realize their own importance enough to leave the organization that's been systematically chipping away at their self-worth since they were born.
Here is a great blog about that chipping away
I have always been a feminist on weekdays but not always on Sundays. My innate desire to promote equality in politics, business and family life has usually been encouraged. In contrast, I learned to suppress any concerns about inequity at church because I was usually so quickly hushed. Over time, enough small and insignificant events accumulated that I realized that I was not just a feminist, I was a Mormon feminist; I longed for equality at church just as much as I wanted it in other spheres of life. Here are some of those moments that made me the Mormon feminist I am today....
Age 16: I vented about the church youth calendar to my family as we ate Sunday dinner. “This week, the Young Men are going boating and next week they will go camping. Again. The Young Women will be cleaning an old lady’s house.” My sister chimed in: “And she has six cats.”....
Age 20: My date nonchalantly explained that he hoped to find a wife who wasn’t as smart or spiritual as he was because that would make it easier for him to fulfill his priesthood duty to be leader in the home. Hmm. Did that mean that he considered me intellectually and spiritually weak enough to be worthy of going out with him?
...
Age 30: My sister was removed from her position as seminary teacher for the offense of becoming pregnant within wedlock. When I expressed my shock that the Church Education System actively discriminates against mothers, another woman defended the policy, pointing out that we wouldn’t want youth exposed to working mothers.
A thousand tiny cuts that add up, and every single one of them points to the underlying belief that men are superior to women, by design, and we have only to stay within our God given roles.
These are remarks from Gordon B Hinkley to a room full of boys--women were not invited of course because it was a general Priesthood Meeting. And women don't hold the priesthood.
My young brethren, you are something special. You must rise above the ordinary. You must put on the whole armor of God and walk with virtue. You know what is right. You know what is wrong. You know when and how to make the choice. You know that there is a power in heaven on which you can call in your time of extremity and need. Pray with fervency and with faith. Pray to the God of heaven whom you love and who loves you. Pray in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ, who gave His very life for you. Stand up and walk as becomes the sons of God.
We love you. We pray for you. We count on you so very, very much. May you be watched over and safeguarded and blessed of the Lord.
Not exactly remarkable, until you remember that again 1) women weren't invited to this particular meeting and these words were
not meant for them and 2) he also said this about the sister missionaries
I confess that I have two granddaughters on missions. They are bright and beautiful young women. They are working hard and accomplishing much good. Speaking with their bishops and their parents, they made their own decisions to go. They did not tell me until they turned their papers in. I had nothing to do with their decision to go.
Now, having made that confession, I wish to say that the First Presidency and the Council of the Twelve are united in saying to our young sisters that they are not under obligation to go on missions. I hope I can say what I have to say in a way that will not be offensive to anyone. Young women should not feel that they have a duty comparable to that of young men. Some of them will very much wish to go. If so, they should counsel with their bishop as well as their parents. If the idea persists, the bishop will know what to do.
I say what has been said before, that missionary work is essentially a priesthood responsibility. As such, our young men must carry the major burden. This is their responsibility and their obligation.
"Who told you girls you could go on a mission instead of getting married?! THIS IS AN OUTRAGE!"
Do you think I'm being facetious?
We do not ask the young women to consider a mission as an essential part of their life’s program. Over a period of many years, we have held the age level higher for them in an effort to keep the number going relatively small. Again to the sisters I say that you will be as highly respected, you will be considered as being as much in the line of duty, your efforts will be as acceptable to the Lord and to the Church whether you go on a mission or do not go on a mission.
We constantly receive letters from young women asking why the age for sister missionaries is not the same as it is for elders. We simply give them the reasons. We know that they are disappointed. We know that many have set their hearts on missions. We know that many of them wish this experience before they marry and go forward with their adult lives. I certainly do not wish to say or imply that their services are not wanted. I simply say that a mission is not necessary as a part of their lives.
Now, that may appear to be something of a strange thing to say in priesthood meeting. I say it here because I do not know where else to say it. The bishops and stake presidents of the Church have now heard it. And they must be the ones who make the judgment in this matter.
That last bit makes my stomach churn. He says it to a meeting where women are not allowed because there is no way for him to address women. Really. And he doesn't even care to try. He's told the other men his beliefs when it comes to sister missionaries, and he's going to leave it to their fathers, bishops, and other priesthood leaders to discourage them from serving a mission so they can instead get married. And that's how it's done. Women are largely without voice and they're not even welcome in the audience.
Is it any wonder that Mitt needs Ann to be his ambassador to Womandom?
Women aren't even allowed to know their husband's heavenly name. Seriously. From the comments in the linked discussion
The first moment I remember (I have an awful memory) was sitting in my seminary class as a senior in high school, hearing my teacher rhapsodize about the temple sealing and how she was absolutely okay knowing she would never be allowed to know her husband’s name, even though he knew hers, because she had faith. I literally felt sick to my stomach, and that sick feeling has never failed to return when I’ve thought about it in the last ten years.
Another great story
My mom never understood what all my fuss was about. She said, “I’m sorry, Honey, I just never thought about those things.”
Well, that changed when she was Stake Young Women’s President. She had organized a Young Women’s presentation/program or something. At the last minute, there was a conflict. The men had planned on playing basketball that night. So, my mother and all the women were told to move the program across town to another church house. It made her feel about an inch tall, and REALLY pissed off.
I can go on and on and on. That's just one blog post. I have a million links I've been gathering and reading as Mitt rises in prominence, and it all comes down to the same basic point. Women are barely human in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints. Does that make every member misogynistic? No. Does that make Mitt the Wonder Romney misogynistic? No. I'm sure he thinks he
loves women.
They all think they love women because the Leadership tells them they do. Read the responses here to the question of why women don't hold the priesthood.
First we have Gordon B Hinkley's elucidating account
Women do not hold the priesthood because the Lord has put it that way. It is part of His program. Women have a very prominent place in this Church. Men hold the priesthood offices of the Church. But women have a tremendous place in this Church. They have their own organization. It was started in 1842 by the Prophet Joseph Smith, called the Relief Society, because its initial purpose was to administer help to those in need. It has grown to be, I think, the largest women’s organization in the world... They have their own offices, their own presidency, their own board. That reaches down to the smallest unit of the Church everywhere in the world...
“The men hold the priesthood, yes. But my wife is my companion. In this Church the man neither walks ahead of his wife nor behind his wife but at her side. They are co-equals in this life in a great enterprise.”
1) Because God said so, bitch
2) False equivalency (You don't need the priesthood because we've given you this separate and in no way equal sandbox to play in!)
And the women...they buy it.
Madelyn answered…(my thoughts in italics)
I feel that men and women both have different but equally important roles in getting us back to God (separate but equal?). In God's eternal plan we were spirits in His presence before this life (Yes, we were his children. Why is Heavenly Mother never mentioned? Because she's not important enough to mention?). To progress we needed to get bodies on this earth, then perform specific ordinances (eg baptism, marriage) to return to God after this life.
Women were given the godly power to bring spirits into this world and give them bodies, then nurture and raise these children with God's inspiration and guidance.(Strange, this Godly power. After all, God didn't pump out any of his spiritual children, did he? Once again, I refer you to Heavenly Mother. If it's just a loose parallel between gestating life and speaking the Word to let there be light, then why not say men have Godly power to create life with their semen?) The men were assigned the responsibility (through the God's Priesthood power) to serve others and administer the ordinances that will bring God's children back to His presence after this life (Who others? If women can see to these issues why bother giving men the Priesthood at all? Oh right, because in no way, shape, or form can women wield any power in the church like the Priesthood). Both roles are necessary and equally important to God's plan for us.(She doesn't even question why both roles have to exist! It's a given to her, the most natural thing in the world).
I don't think women need the Priesthood to be powerful influences and to do God's work in their homes and in the church. I see men grow spiritually, and their characters become more godly when they act in God's name through using the Priesthood (This is a favorite trick. Men are simultaneously more worthy than women to hold the priesthood and less worthy at once. In this way, they can have their cake and eat it, too.)
I have never felt the need to hold the Priesthood myself. I can still receive all the blessings offered by the Priesthood, my prayers can be just as powerful, and I still have access to the inspiration of God in my life.
I didn't choose this particular response to pick on this nice lady, only as the perfect example of the sort of rhetoric you'll hear in wards and stakes across this great nation. It's the BS I was spoonfed.
Women aren't given the priesthood (or any functional power within the organization) because they can have babies, and that's their most important role on earth. In fact, it's really the only thing they ought to be doing, because they're so spiritual and nurturing. She doesn't receive all the blessings of the priesthood, and she's never going to be treated like a first class citizen, but that's okay because she's supposed to be having babies anyway.
The Mormons will tell you that women are treated as equals and there's no misogyny. But actions speak louder than words, or as Jesus said, you shall know them by their fruits. And I think these are some increasingly bitter fruits. I don't want any of their fruits (or jams or jellies) showing up in the Oval Office.
The Right makes religion an issue consistently, without fail. Avoiding discussing Romney's religion doesn't make us better than them, it only leaves a void in the already disparate puzzle that is Willard Romney. If President Obama was an active, faithful, tithing member of an organization with so little regard for women, I'd hope we'd be talking about that, too!