Top Ten Things I Love About Not Being A Mormon Anymore: A Response

[Senator]

Senator,

 

The job of an apologist is to understand and then to respond. It is also to explain the other side of the interpretation. It is also to challenge what seems to be correct in order to show its own contradiction. An apologist is someone who may quite often play the black pieces and also quite often can play white. But it should all be done with respect for the other where respect is not necessary, especially when the other side is hostile and aggressive.

 

Uh huh...

[why me]

This is what an apologist is in any faith, They defend and promote their faith against people who are opposing it. This can happen in normal conversation over lunch or on the internet. In person is always better because people are more genuine when faces can be seen,  The internet can distort behavior.

[omni]

There seems to be a cultural tendency these days to capitulate to and justify the whiners and complainers as if their whines and complaints are by default valid and warranted.

 

I don't happen to adhere to this tendency, and believe instead that there are institutions that are inherently good for one and all, and that there are also spoiled and immature and misbehaving brats, and we really ought to not conflate the two.

 

This doesn't mean that I don't see good cause for people to leave the Church. I do. In fact, I think it wise for Jen to have left the Church because, in her immature frame of mind, she will, instead of looking inward, will view the Church as if through a funny house mirror, and make herself miserable from all the cognitive distortions.

 

But, as indicated above, we do her and the Church a disservice by countenancing rather than condemning her bad behavior. Spoiled brats need to be called out.

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

 

Is this part of the new "kinder, gentler apologetics" I keep hearing about?

[seriously honestly]

· Most people wear undergarments. Mormons do too.

 

LDS garments are not the same thing

 

· Coffee does not provide nutrition nor serve any useful function. By not drinking it, I have more money to spend on other things, plus I don't have coffee breath. The same applies to alcoholic beverages, tobacco products, and drugs.

 

Neither does cake, or cookies, or ice cream.  I know Mormons who have a Mt. Dew or Pepsi addiction and they spend way more on those beverages than I do on coffee.

 

· By shopping on Sunday, one insures that many workers do not get a two-day weekend. All shopping could be done on any of the other six days of the week, giving everyone a day off.

 

“Weekend” is subjective. A standard weekend in the US may be Saturday and Sunday, but some in countries it’s Friday and Saturday.

Also, and this may come as a surprise, but a lot of people aren’t as concerned with having to work on Sunday (some even prefer it), and it’s not like Sunday is a day someone has to have off in order to have a two day weekend. Their weekend could be Monday and Tuesday, for example. Just because Sunday is a day or worship and rest to you doesn’t mean it is for someone else.

 

· If you ask me as a Mormon who I am, I would respond, "I am a child of a Heavenly Father and Mother (God) who are compassionate, involved, caring, loving, providential, benevolent, intelligent, cognizant, corporal, connected, passionate, generous, authentic, purposeful, trustworthy, and independent."

· The knowledge that my Heavenly Parent's only purpose is to provide the way for me to be like them motivates me far beyond anything I can imagine that would come from earthly motivations, including quotes from Bob Mouwad.

 

This is nothing personal, but I hate when Mormons give this kind of answer.  It’s a stock answer. Very cookie-cutter, and tells me nothing new about the individual or anything that would distinguish them from the next person who’s going to give me the same response.  Not that all Mormons give this kind of an answer, but when they do, I feel like they’re trying to impress other’s with their spiritual-ness, and it always comes across as phony.

[why me]

Is this part of the new "kinder, gentler apologetics" I keep hearing about?

I think that apologetics can be aggressive in any faith, especially since it seeks to defend the faith against undue criticism. Of course, if a critic is aggressive and unkind, it can be difficult to answer with a kinder and gentler apologetics. Apologetics

should be about debate and discussion and when it is face to face it can be. Nut the internet can change people into something that does not resemble a human being.

[thesometimesaint]

Is this part of the new "kinder, gentler apologetics" I keep hearing about?

 

This part of MDDB is for those that have thick skins. If you don't the Social Hall is a better fit.

[omni]

Ha ha, I've got a pretty thick skin, if I didn't I would have left long ago.

[thesometimesaint]

Ha ha, I've got a pretty thick skin, if I didn't I would have left long ago.

 

We all have to. I stick around because despite our occasional disagreements I really do like the people here.  

[Teancum]

Yes, and that would be a very clueless and immature view of the gospel. Young children tend to view their parents in the same way, and in their teens they end up rebelling and thinking they know better than their parents, but when they hopefully grow up, they finally get what their parents were all about, and develop a whole new perspective, particularly when they become parents themselves.

 

In spiritual terms, I see Jen as a rebellious teen for whom I wish all the best and hope that she one day grows up.

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

 

 

I see this as very problematic Wade.  Someone has a different experience and makes different conclusions than you.  And thus they are simply wrong, immature, clueless, childess, etc.  You see her are a rebillious teen.  Perhaps she sees you as as stiff necked stuck in your way old man.  Who knows?  Can't good decent people expereicen similar things and come to different conclusions withour being all the labels you give this person? 

 

To each their own I guess.

[Teancum]

I understand the reason why she bashed the Church. It is because she doesn't get the Church and in accordance with her immaturity. If she did rightly get the Church, she would have no cause to bash it even if she continued not to believe. And, if you correctly understood the Church as well as her, you would have known this. You do her and the Church a disservice by indulging her bad behavior.

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

 

 

THere is no point is discussing things with Wade.  He is right and anyone who disagrees is wrong and just does not get it.

 

Carry on. Nothing new here.

Edited April 17, 2014 by Teancum

[Bernard Gui]

The goal of the Boy Scouts is to shape young boys into good men. Any parent that would force by threat their own vain ambitions really does need to repent. They remind me of "Stage Moms", though it really is both sexes that do it.

Please start another thread where you can rag on parents and Scouts.

[Bernard Gui]

For all the shining beauty that apologetics could be, it always has to get around the imperfection of humans.  The feelings expressed in her post are real, and many other people share those feelings.  I think the question of why so many people feel that way is a very good question to consider.

 

Regarding the post itself, it unfortunately is a very sad (and nearly literal) case of throwing out the baby (Son of God) with the bathwater.  So many of her concerns could have been handled better within the framework of the gospel, in my opinion.  Be the change that you want to see, and all that.

It is also good to consider why so many people have positive feelings about the Church.

[Bernard Gui]

· Most people wear undergarments. Mormons do too.

 

LDS garments are not the same thing.

 

Not all undergarments are the same. For example, there are boxers and there are briefs.

 

· Coffee does not provide nutrition nor serve any useful function. By not drinking it, I have more money to spend on other things, plus I don't have coffee breath. The same applies to alcoholic beverages, tobacco products, and drugs.

 

Neither does cake, or cookies, or ice cream.  I know Mormons who have a Mt. Dew or Pepsi addiction and they spend way more on those beverages than I do on coffee.

 

But ex-Mormons don't run immediately to a bakery or Baskin/Robbins to celebrate their freedom from Mormonism.

One can buy a six pack of Diet Dew for the price of one Starbucks latte.

 

· By shopping on Sunday, one insures that many workers do not get a two-day weekend. All shopping could be done on any of the other six days of the week, giving everyone a day off.

 

“Weekend” is subjective. A standard weekend in the US may be Saturday and Sunday, but some in countries it’s Friday and Saturday.

Also, and this may come as a surprise, but a lot of people aren’t as concerned with having to work on Sunday (some even prefer it), and it’s not like Sunday is a day someone has to have off in order to have a two day weekend. Their weekend could be Monday and Tuesday, for example. Just because Sunday is a day or worship and rest to you doesn’t mean it is for someone else.

 

But we are talking of the sabbath as observed by Mormons on Sunday, which is Sunday, which some ex-Mormons feel liberated from when they leave the church.

 

· If you ask me as a Mormon who I am, I would respond, "I am a child of a Heavenly Father and Mother (God) who are compassionate, involved, caring, loving, providential, benevolent, intelligent, cognizant, corporal, connected, passionate, generous, authentic, purposeful, trustworthy, and independent."

· The knowledge that my Heavenly Parent's only purpose is to provide the way for me to be like them motivates me far beyond anything I can imagine that would come from earthly motivations, including quotes from Bob Mouwad.

 

This is nothing personal, but I hate when Mormons give this kind of answer.  It’s a stock answer. Very cookie-cutter, and tells me nothing new about the individual or anything that would distinguish them from the next person who’s going to give me the same response.  Not that all Mormons give this kind of an answer, but when they do, I feel like they’re trying to impress other’s with their spiritual-ness, and it always comes across as phony.

 

I hate it when anti-Mormons say thoughtless things about Mormons and then claim they are not personal.

 

Well, you are entitled to your opinion, no matter how rude, offensive, judgmental and bigoted it may be. 

 

Nothing personal, mind you.

Edited April 17, 2014 by Bernard Gui

[why me]

It is also good to consider why so many people have positive feelings about the Church.

And this is hardly considered by those who left. In fact, I have to wonder if it ever considered by those who leave. It seems that when a person leaves the church and begins to post on the internet on exmember forum, the idea that people may actually love the church seems to be missing. Or if they do consider it, they relegated it to adults enjoying to be treated like kids. Sad.

[teddyaware]

It was requested I repost the following from another thread, reason being its content is apropos the subject at hand on this thread:

"The most important godly attribute needed in order to become perfect is love, also known as charity or the pure love of Christ. If any Latter-day Saint attempts to attain perfection without the pure love of Christ serving as the prime motivator in that quest, he will invariably descend into the perverse and soul-destroying obsession known as Sadducaic/Pharisaic legalism -- an ego-driven outward show of piety and apparent faithfulness calculated to gratify the natural man and gain the praise of the world. It is a false form of worship that's a sure road to arrested spiritual development where real growth isn't possible until the practitioner eventually awakes to a sense of his awful situation and repents.

This legalistic approach to living the Gospel without sufficient godly love ministers spiritual death, sucks the life and joy out of Gospel living, and its practitioners invariably become abusive to others. It is this legalistic, souless approach to serving God that caused the religionist enemies of Christ to think they were doing a good deed when they blindly called for the crucifixion of the very God they claimed to worship. This attempt to live the law of God without an abundant outpouring of grace and godly love sufficient to the task was the bane of the Apostle Paul's existence...

5 Not that we are sufficient of ourselves to think any thing as of ourselves; but our sufficiency is of God;
6 Who also hath made us able ministers of the new testament; not of the letter, but of the spirit: for the letter killeth, but the spirit giveth life. (2 Cor 3)

Sadly, it's possible the woman whose top-ten list gave rise to this thread was exposed to this legalistic approach to the Gospel, and it shouldn't be at all be surprising to learn that this spurious system of dead works, crippled emotions and joylessness would turn off and thoroughly disenchant an emotionally intelligent thinking person. In fact, this obsessive compulsive legalistic approach to the gospel is the polar opposite of the joyful Gospel of unfeigned divine love exemplified by Christ and expressed through longsuffering, kindness, meekness, humility, unselfishness, compassion, empathy, respect, courtesy, temperance, gentleness, positivity, joyfulness, selfless-service and uplifting encouragement.

Edited April 17, 2014 by teddyaware

[thesometimesaint]

Please start another thread where you can rag on parents and Scouts.

 

Exactly where did I rag on either? I have nothing but respect for the Boy Scouts and their parents when they live the ideals of the Scouts.

[VideoGameJunkie]

I still can't understand why former members are so happy. What causes that happiness? Is Satan causing their happiness? Is ignorance bliss?

Edited April 17, 2014 by VideoGameJunkie

[omni]

It was requested I repost the following from another thread, reason being its content is apropos the subject at hand on this thread:

"The most important godly attribute needed in order to become perfect is love, also known as charity or the pure love of Christ. If any Latter-day Saint attempts to attain perfection without the pure love of Christ serving as the prime motivator in that quest, he will invariably descend into the perverse and soul-destroying obsession known as Sadducaic/Pharisaic legalism -- an ego-driven outward show of piety and apparent faithfulness calculated to gratify the natural man and gain the praise of the world. It is a false form of worship that's a sure road to arrested spiritual development where real growth isn't possible until the practitioner eventually awakes to a sense of his awful situation and repents.

This legalistic approach to living the Gospel without sufficient godly love ministers spiritual death, sucks the life and joy out of Gospel living, and its practitioners invariably become abusive to others. It is this legalistic, souless approach to serving God that caused the religionist enemies of Christ to think they were doing a good deed when they blindly called for the crucifixion of the very God they claimed to worship. This attempt to live the law of God without an abundant outpouring of grace and godly love sufficient to the task was the bane of the Apostle Paul's existence...

5 Not that we are sufficient of ourselves to think any thing as of ourselves; but our sufficiency is of God;

6 Who also hath made us able ministers of the new testament; not of the letter, but of the spirit: for the letter killeth, but the spirit giveth life. (2 Cor 3)

Sadly, it's possible the woman whose top-ten list gave rise to this thread was exposed to this legalistic approach to the Gospel, and it shouldn't be at all be surprising to learn that this spurious system of dead works, crippled emotions and joylessness would turn off and thoroughly disenchant an emotionally intelligent thinking person. In fact, this obsessive compulsive legalistic approach to the gospel is the polar opposite of the joyful Gospel of unfeigned divine love exemplified by Christ and expressed through longsuffering, kindness, meekness, humility, unselfishness, compassion, empathy, respect, courtesy, temperance, gentleness, positivity, joyfulness, selfless-service and uplifting encouragement.

Great post, I hope we can all take this approach in our lives.

[thesometimesaint]

I still can't understand why former members are so happy. What causes that happiness? Is Satan causing their happiness? Is ignorance bliss?

 

That is probably as varied as the person involved. But it is one just to stop coming to church(lost interest, etc., etc., etc..) and start publicly rationalizing the decision by bashing the Church.

[Anteojito]

There seems to be a cultural tendency these days to capitulate to and justify the whiners and complainers as if their whines and complaints are by default valid and warranted.

 

I don't happen to adhere to this tendency, and believe instead that there are institutions that are inherently good for one and all, and that there are also spoiled and immature and misbehaving brats, and we really ought to not conflate the two.

 

This doesn't mean that I don't see good cause for people to leave the Church. I do. In fact, I think it wise for Jen to have left the Church because, in her immature frame of mind, she will, instead of looking inward, will view the Church as if through a funny house mirror, and make herself miserable from all the cognitive distortions.

 

But, as indicated above, we do her and the Church a disservice by countenancing rather than condemning her bad behavior. Spoiled brats need to be called out.

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

So anyone who leaves the church is immature?

[mormonnewb]

There seems to be a cultural tendency these days to capitulate to and justify the whiners and complainers as if their whines and complaints are by default valid and warranted.

I don't happen to adhere to this tendency, and believe instead that there are institutions that are inherently good for one and all, and that there are also spoiled and immature and misbehaving brats, and we really ought to not conflate the two.

This doesn't mean that I don't see good cause for people to leave the Church. I do. In fact, I think it wise for Jen to have left the Church because, in her immature frame of mind, she will, instead of looking inward, will view the Church as if through a funny house mirror, and make herself miserable from all the cognitive distortions.

But, as indicated above, we do her and the Church a disservice by countenancing rather than condemning her bad behavior. Spoiled brats need to be called out.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Just when I thought there was hope for you. All dissenters are brats, right? Dr. King was certainly such a "whiner and complainer", as were Ghandi, Cesar Chavez (and pretty much anyone who ever made a difference in the world).

As for your self-appointed role as "call outer," perhaps you might want to consider the Savior's counsel to look inwards first. Or was Jesus too much of a "complainer and whiner" for your tastes? Because that is EXACTLY what the righteous of His day thought -- right before they had Him turned over to the Romans for execution.

[Calm]

I still can't understand why former members are so happy. What causes that happiness? Is Satan causing their happiness? Is ignorance bliss?

The idea is that all will be happy with their chosen kingdom in the next life save those in Outer Darkness, that if one would choose a Terrestrial existence, being blessed with a Celestial one would actually be a curse, not a blessing.

God is the one who provides these Kingdoms in all their varieties, so they must all be wonderful, good things in their own way even as we recognise that the higher kingdoms give access to more blessings and a greater closeness to God.

I also think we need to recognise that God did not provide his organised church (in the view of LDS of course) for the vast majority of humanity so far. I don't think God would structure mortality so that the majority of his children would be doomed to wickedness because they didn't have access to the Church. Therefore it seems to me we should be able to expect to see both great goodness and happiness outside of the Church as well as inside.

One could use an analogy of a job promotion. Not everyone wants one even with the added benefits and greater salary because it may take them away from what they enjoy doing most and put them to doing a type of work they are not interested in. Rejecting the promotion doesn't mean that the job they are doing now is wrong.

Assuming that exmembers are not out actively pursuing wickedness (and I see wickedness as something more than sinning in weakness, but actual maliciousness though my interpration may be wrong), then I don't see why they could not be happy. One doesn't have to be a member to do good and if that is the source of happiness, then that should be available to exmembers.

Edited April 17, 2014 by calmoriah

[Calm]

The job of the apologist isn't to understand.

 

It is first to contradict

 

....then belittle

 

...then dismiss with a wave of the hand.

Hey!?!

I would greatly appreciate recognising that apologists are varied just as members and exmembers are.

[Senator]

Hey!?!

I would greatly appreciate recognising that apologists are varied just as members and exmembers are.

 

[Tacenda]

The idea is that all will be happy with their chosen kingdom in the next life save those in Outer Darkness, that if one would choose a Terrestrial existence, being blessed with a Celestial one would actually be a curse, not a blessing.

God is the one who provides these Kingdoms in all their varieties, so they must all be wonderful, good things in their own way even as we recognise that the higher kingdoms give access to more blessings and a greater closeness to God.

I also think we need to recognise that God did not provide his organised church (in the view of LDS of course) for the vast majority of humanity so far. I don't think God would structure mortality so that the majority of his children would be doomed to wickedness because they didn't have access to the Church. Therefore it seems to me we should be able to expect to see both great goodness and happiness outside of the Church as well as inside.

One could use an analogy of a job promotion. Not everyone wants one even with the added benefits and greater salary because it may take them away from what they enjoy doing most and put them to doing a type of work they are not interested in. Rejecting the promotion doesn't mean that the job they are doing now is wrong.

Assuming that exmembers are not out actively pursuing wickedness (and I see wickedness as something more than sinning in weakness, but actual maliciousness though my interpration may be wrong), then I don't see why they could not be happy. One doesn't have to be a member to do good and if that is the source of happiness, then that should be available to exmembers.

The problem with this awesome example of levels, (thank you Cal), is that one would feel slightly guilty (me), if I didn't want the CK life but the middle level.  That would mean I'm deciding not to reside with God. Since that's the only kingdom He will be in.  I just want to be an angel,   that's it, thank you very much.