Thursday, September 2, 2010 Wow, Andy

I wonder what the hell the person from was on when they accepted this profile.

I mean, WOW.

I "met" Andy through his wife who would converse/debate with me on my Liberal Mormon That Could blog and then got to know him a smidge better through an online forum and then as a friend on Facebook.

I don't want to say more than that because I want this profile to remain as long as possible, but man. Nothing he said is untrue, but as we all know thanks to Elder Boyd K. Packer,

"Some things that are true aren't very useful."

and I think he would agree that Andy's response to the question Why did your church previously practice plural marriage (polygamy)?:

Mormons believe in strict obedience to our leaders. One of our highest leaders, a Prophet named the Prophet Ezra Taft Benson said, 'When our leaders speak, the thinking has been done. ... To think otherwise, without immediate repentance, may cost one his faith, may destroy his testimony, and leave him a stranger to the kingdom of God." Leaders in the 19th century told Mormons that they had to practice polygamy to get to Heaven, so they obeyed. Our leaders today tell us that we cannot practice polygamy or we will be kicked out of the church, so we obey. (emphasis added)

...isn't necessarily useful. Or, at the very least, something we say anymore. At least people argued against it a few years ago to me. We're supposed to think for oursel--just...well, uhm. Yeah. Supposed to agree with the prophet.

Don't miss his rather astute (and aggravating) response to the issue regarding "equality" between men and women.

I'm still in a bit of shock this was accepted.

** Added 12/18/2010: You may have noticed Andy's profile has since been removed. As I am told, Andy has contacted the church for explanation but has received no answer.  Nice.


  1. Just reading that crap made me sick to my stomach. I hope he was being subversive and doesn't actually believe that shit.

  2. @Chandelle: Either way, can't say it isn't true to doctrine. And he is rather...sneaky (distant) about some of his answers--read them again and you might be able to decide for yourself whether he's being subversive or yet another robot. Listen for The Spirit.

    The only thing I'd change is his answer to the question as to whether or not the church practices polygamy today.

    Members don't in this life right now, no, but in the afterlife? Hell yes.

    Maybe that would've been a bit too honest, though, for acceptance.

  3. Chandelle,

    this is what he had written about it (among other things):

    So I decided to try answering some of the FAQs with a response that a true believer wouldn't blink at, but that would make investigators squirm a little and think twice about, including incorporating some of the doctrines anti-mormons rant about.

  4. Thanks for the link to my profile. Glad you enjoyed it.

  5. Hi Lisa,

    We were in Andy's ward during graduate school. I didn't know him well but we had a mutual friend so occasionally I would hear about him.

    Indulge me...

    My dad has been an excellent father. He has taught me about Jesus Christ and how love is the fundamental attribute of a disciple of Christ. Realize, I am not talking about tolerance, acceptance, or even kindness. I am speaking about the gift of love; love that is bestowed when sought for diligently. My dad was inactive for more than ten years because he recognized/experienced a lack of Christ-like love in members who had outstanding church resumes (glazed over version). He continues to be disaffected, although he is now going to church, because this fundamental attribute seems to be lacking in so, so many faithful church members, in talks, and in lessons. I think of how he would answer the same questions posed to Andy, how different they would be and how much better they would feel. They would be anchored in truth and teeming with love.

    So, I would have to second your advice, "read [it] again..., listen for the Spirit." I did not feel love in Andy's words. This is not the church I know.


  6. Annalee,

    I'm glad it's not the church you know. Really. Unfortunately it is the church many of us *do* know.

    And, I might add, it was not the church we wanted to know, but it was the church that revealed itself to us. We didn't seek it out, we just stumbled upon it. And it sucked.

    I have a respect for people who remain active in order to help bring what is missing in the church back, if nothing else but into the wards. But when you're a person who not only feels the lack of Christ-like attributes in the members but in the doctrine, it's not as easy as just trying to be the activist.

    But I do wish your dad all the best. And you.

    And while Andy's words may be distant and even cold, they are nevertheless (I feel) honest and true. And honesty and truth doesn't always feel good.

  7. I'm sorry, but Andy got it right, word for word in some cases. Undoubtedly it doesn't "feel good" to see it standing alone instead of bracketed by faith-promoting psychological manipulation. But that it doesn't feel good doesn't mean "the Spirit" is lacking - that's just our old friend cog-dis, baby.

  8. Ugh. I posted a really long response to this blog post, but then it somehow disappeared. Let me just say very briefly that, as Andy's wife, if you want more info on why he wrote the profile the way he did, please check out his blog at You can see there that there were a number of questions where his answers were rejected by the moderators of It seemed strange to us the ones that they let in, compared to the ones that were rejected.

    Andy didn't sugar-coat his answers. That is why they don't "feel good". Personally, I would have preferred to have gotten the "raw truth" about the Church's doctrines about women and polygamous history before I was baptized 11 years ago. Since is supposed to be aimed at investigators, I think it is good to present honest things, even if they aren't feel-good things. Just because something doesn't feel good doesn't mean it isn't accurate.

  9. This comment has been removed by the author.

  10. No,

    When I say that Andy's responses don't feel good and are therefore not true, I am not saying that they are not doctrines of the church. I am saying that I don't believe them to be true. I am so going in a different direction than oppression of women and rigidity in their roles. Yes, that means I disagree with the church on those points (like you, I have that privledge). Does that mean I have to leave the church?

    Not yet...

    Thanks Lisa

  11. I don't think that one has to leave or not join the church if they disagree with even major doctrines. I think someone can read a profile like Andy's and still decide that they want to be Mormon. However, I do think its only fair that they really be presented all of the information - not just the "good parts version" - before making that decision. Which is why i'm glad they let Andy's profile through.

    I'm of the opinion that the Church is a generally a good place and a good institution. On a personal level, it just wasn't good for me.

    I just wish that more church leaders, parents, ward members, etc. could see it that way. It would spare so many so much grief.

  12. Hmmm, it looks like I could make an account even if I'm not a member of record ... but I won't. At least not now. ;)