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

[seriously honestly]

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

 

^{You know what I meant: LDS garments are not the same as nonLDS undergarments.}

 

^{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.}

 

^{I personally don’t know anyone who has left the Mormon church and immediately ran to buy coffee.  I’m sure someone somewhere has, but I don’t anyone who’s done that. I can imagine someone running down to a bakery or Basking Robbins to celebrate, though. But that’s not really what this is about.  Nutritional value and price is what you were talking about, wasn’t it?  When you think back over an entire lifetime of birthdays, weddings, kids’ graduations, acceptance letters, farewell parties, how many doughnuts have been consumed after returning from doing baptisms for the dead, or after cleaning the church building Saturday morning, or what you buy at the concession stands at the movies, and you see that we eat a lot of things have little to no nutritional value.   So you can’t chide someone for drinking something that doesn’t provide nutritional value when you’re perfectly ok with someone eating cake.}   

 

^{And how long do you think a 6 pack of Mt Dew last? You could definitely make the argument on wasting money by going to Starbucks every day, but I buy the coffee you make at home.  I don’t know the price of a 6 pack of soda, but I’m willing to bet I spend significantly less on coffee than someone with a Mt Dew addiction.}

 

^{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 they are not Mormon (either because they left the church, or never were LDS) then why be concerned with what day they go shopping at all?}

 

^{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.}

 

^{Sure I am, just as you are entitled to your judgmental opinion of me.  However, for clarification sake, I’m not anti-Mormon. I love the Mormon people, like most aspects of the Mormon church, and I like and appreciate the promotion of family and clean living. Besides, it would be pretty hard of me to be anti-Mormon and be as close as I am to my LDS family and friends.} 

^{I just don’t like those overly fluffy answers.  And I don’t like it when non-LDS people give those answers either, so when I say “it’s not personal”, I mean it.  If I ask someone who they are as a Mormon, I expect some LDS doctrine to be involved, but also hope they give me an answer that displays some level of the unique individual creativeness that God created them with that tells me about them.}   

Edited April 17, 2014 by seriously honestly

[teddyaware]

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. 

Though I'm quite sure you know what I'm about to say is true, for the sake of accuracy, you're statement is not exactly correct. D&C 76 tells us,

77 These are they who receive of the presence of the Son, but not of the fulness of the Father.

78 Wherefore, they are bodies terrestrial, and not bodies celestial, and differ in glory as the moon differs from the sun.

79 These are they who are not valiant in the testimony of Jesus; wherefore, they obtain not the crown over the kingdom of our God. (D&C 76)

 

So those who obtain the terrestrial glory will enjoy the immediate presence of Jesus Christ, who is God. But the full presence of the Father will be withheld. So it's erroneous to say those who obtain the "middle level" will not enjoy the immediate presence of God, for Christ is both the Father and the Son -- the Son by birth and the Father by divine investiture of the Father's power and glory.

 

Interestingly, the terrestrial kingdom correlates well with a non-LDS Christian view of heaven. In the non-LDS understanding of heaven, the Son, who  is material, is more like us and is therefore easier to relate to; while the Father, who is immaterial, ineffable and "totally other" remains more or less in the background. Additionally, it seems all one needs to do in order to obtain the blessing of the eternal presence of the Son in the terrestrial kingdom of heaven is to accept Christ and His Gospel, but there seems to be no need to be valiant in the testimony of Christ. This last part correlates somewhat with the Evangelical doctrine that belief in Christ is enough to be saved, with no specific need to do anything else beyond continuing to believe in the Saviour in order to live with Him eternally. 

Edited April 17, 2014 by teddyaware

[Bernard Gui]

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.

Boy Scouts are not the topic of this thread.

[Bernard Gui]

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.

Jen's manifesto is not in the same league with King, Ghandi, Chavez, Luther, or anyone else who made a difference in the world. Note that your last two sentences

do precisely what Jesus counseled us not to do.

Edited April 18, 2014 by Bernard Gui

[Bernard Gui]

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.

As usual, spot on. I taught in the public schools for 42 years, but you could not pay me enough to be a school administrator. I was happy in the trenches.

"Inasmuch as men do good, they shall in nowise loose their reward."

Edited April 18, 2014 by Bernard Gui

[Bernard Gui]

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

 

^{You know what I meant: LDS garments are not the same as nonLDS undergarments.}

 

^{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.}

 

^{I personally don’t know anyone who has left the Mormon church and immediately ran to buy coffee.  I’m sure someone somewhere has, but I don’t anyone who’s done that. I can imagine someone running down to a bakery or Basking Robbins to celebrate, though. But that’s not really what this is about.  Nutritional value and price is what you were talking about, wasn’t it?  When you think back over an entire lifetime of birthdays, weddings, kids’ graduations, acceptance letters, farewell parties, how many doughnuts have been consumed after returning from doing baptisms for the dead, or after cleaning the church building Saturday morning, or what you buy at the concession stands at the movies, and you see that we eat a lot of things have little to no nutritional value.   So you can’t chide someone for drinking something that doesn’t provide nutritional value when you’re perfectly ok with someone eating cake.}   

 

^{And how long do you think a 6 pack of Mt Dew last? You could definitely make the argument on wasting money by going to Starbucks every day, but I buy the coffee you make at home.  I don’t know the price of a 6 pack of soda, but I’m willing to bet I spend significantly less on coffee than someone with a Mt Dew addiction.}

 

^{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 they are not Mormon (either because they left the church, or never were LDS) then why be concerned with what day they go shopping at all?}

 

^{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.}

 

^{Sure I am, just as you are entitled to your judgmental opinion of me.  However, for clarification sake, I’m not anti-Mormon. I love the Mormon people, like most aspects of the Mormon church, and I like and appreciate the promotion of family and clean living. Besides, it would be pretty hard of me to be anti-Mormon and be as close as I am to my LDS family and friends.} 

^{I just don’t like those overly fluffy answers.  And I don’t like it when non-LDS people give those answers either, so when I say “it’s not personal”, I mean it.  If I ask someone who they are as a Mormon, I expect some LDS doctrine to be involved, but also hope they give me an answer that displays some level of the unique individual creativeness that God created them with that tells me about them.}   

The only difference between LDS garments and your fruits of the loom is what they represent. Other than that,

they qualify as regular underwear, just like your fruits of the loom. I suppose not wearing underwear or just the

stringy bits might feel liberating to some. As for a reason to be happy not to be a Mormon....ehhh.

 

I personally know a number of people (including the author of the 10 List and a large number of my own family)

who love their coffee and used to be Mormons. They brag about it. To be able to drink coffee without guilt as

a reason to be happy not to be a Mormon....ehhh.

 

Jen made the point that now she isn't Mormon she gets a complete weekend and can even

shop on Sunday. By shopping on Sunday, she insures that other people don't get a complete weekend.

Maybe they would like Sunday off, too, so they could go to church.

 

Sorry, you don't get an essay about who I am. Even if you expect one, it is none of your business. 

I'm serious about it not being personal.

 

Before you comment any more, you need to read Jen's manifesto to find out what we are talking about.

 

I was wrong. You can't buy a 6 pack of Mt Dew (caffeine free, of course) for the price of a latte. 

If one drinks one Starbucks Vente Carmel Frappucino a day, for the same price

one can buy a whole bunch of Dew (caffeine free, of course)...10 times as much.

 

Starbucks

Vente Carmel Frappucino, 24 oz (.71 liter)

$4.75 for 24 oz ( .71 liter) =  $.20 per ounce ($6.69 per liter)

 

Costco 

Mountain Dew (caffeine free, of course), 8/2 Liter (16 liters)

Item # 662597

$11.40 for 541 oz (16 liters) = $.02 per ounce ($.71 per liter) 

 

For the price of a Starbucks Carmel Frappucino, one can buy 6.7 liters of Dew (caffein free, of course)

If you drink that much Dew in one day, there could be unpleasant consequences. I have ex-Mormon

friends and relatives who love to buy their Fraps each day. That's ok with me, but I don't see it as

a reason to celebrate not being a Mormon. Not buying the latte every day and pocketing the $5 would

seem to be a greater cause for celebration.

Edited April 18, 2014 by Bernard Gui

[canard78]

Jen's list reads more like the top 10 things she was most clueless about Mormonism. She claims to have discovered that the Church wasn't true, and yet gives every indication that she has no substantive idea what the Church is really all about.

People often talk about the church being the same everywhere. In reality the experience and lessons learned are not. Leaders can have a massively different influence on our perspectives. The LDS books we read or the scripture passages emphasised by teachers or parents will also shape views.

For me, her 10 reasons in no way represents my experience of Mormonism. This does not mean it's not an accurate reflection of the way she has been taught.

I have a close friend who has left the church. She talks in very similar ways to the blog. She really has become happier and more fulfilled outside of Mormonism. When you learn more about the approach taken by her youth-era Bishop (a former Irish catholic), her seminary teacher and her parents to teaching the gospel you realise that her experience and mine were entirely different.

Even still, I wish here all the best in her new faith journey.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

I liked this

[why me]

People often talk about the church being the same everywhere. In reality the experience and lessons learned are not. Leaders can have a massively different influence on our perspectives. The LDS books we read or the scripture passages emphasised by teachers or parents will also shape views.

For me, her 10 reasons in no way represents my experience of Mormonism. This does not mean it's not an accurate reflection of the way she has been taught.

I have a close friend who has left the church. She talks in very similar ways to the blog. She really has become happier and more fulfilled outside of Mormonism. When you learn more about the approach taken by her youth-era Bishop (a former Irish catholic), her seminary teacher and her parents to teaching the gospel you realise that her experience and mine were entirely different.

 

But we still have a problem. Why judge a church by one of its leaders? We all need to take a step outside our own experiences and see the experiences of others. For example, if I have a bishop who is strict and severe this doesn't mean that I should leave the mormon faith and then write a blog just how free I am now and how wonderful it is not being a mormon. Likewise, why would a catholic leave the catholic church because of a bad priest? We all must take ourselves outside our box to see our experiences as not being a part of normal mormonism. I think that the blogger seems to be of narrow mind. The big picture is really simple: did joseph have the spiritual experiences that he claimed that he had. If so, one should not leave the church because of a bad this or a bad that.

 

My point: I have been around the block a few times and I know that a mormon life can be a good life. And even though I may choose to live a different way, I still see the value in that life regardless if I am a free bird flying here or there.

Edited April 18, 2014 by why me

[Duncan]

As usual, spot on. I taught in the public schools for 42 years, but you could not pay me enough to be a school administrator. I was happy in the trenches.

"Inasmuch as men do good, they shall in nowise loose their reward."

 

 

I know a person that justifies their inactivity by using this quotation from Pres. Clark

 

I believe that in his justice and mercy [God] will give us the maximum reward for our acts, give us all that he can give, and in the reverse, I believe that he will impose upon us the minimum penalty which it is possible for him to impose. [CR, October 1953, 84]

 

to them Church membership doesn't matter if God will give you the maximum reward so why bother

[why me]

I know a person that justifies their inactivity by using this quotation from Pres. Clark

 

I believe that in his justice and mercy [God] will give us the maximum reward for our acts, give us all that he can give, and in the reverse, I believe that he will impose upon us the minimum penalty which it is possible for him to impose. [CR, October 1953, 84]

 

to them Church membership doesn't matter if God will give you the maximum reward so why bother

I still can't understand why a person would judge an entire understanding of the church on a quotation. I think that members need to do a reality check and understand that the foundation of the lds church is not with Pres. Clark but with the foundational claims made by Joseph Smith.

[Senator]

 

My point: I have been around the block a few times and I know that a mormon life can be a good life. And even though I may choose to live a different way, I still see the value in that life regardless if I am a free bird flying here or there.

 

Which often makes your continued apologetics a bit.....well.......what's the word.........?

[Bikeemikey]

But we still have a problem. Why judge a church by one of its leaders? We all need to take a step outside our own experiences and see the experiences of others. For example, if I have a bishop who is strict and severe this doesn't mean that I should leave the mormon faith and then write a blog just how free I am now and how wonderful it is not being a mormon. Likewise, why would a catholic leave the catholic church because of a bad priest? We all must take ourselves outside our box to see our experiences as not being a part of normal mormonism. I think that the blogger seems to be of narrow mind. The big picture is really simple: did joseph have the spiritual experiences that he claimed that he had. If so, one should not leave the church because of a bad this or a bad that.

My point: I have been around the block a few times and I know that a mormon life can be a good life. And even though I may choose to live a different way, I still see the value in that life regardless if I am a free bird flying here or there.

Oh, I know this one...

We judge by our local direct experience... Not so much by some general experience.

There is nothing wrong with judging a religion (or anything) by your experience of it.

[wenglund]

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

 

It isn't apologetics. It is called common sense. Perhaps you should trying it some day.

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Senator]

This part of MDDB is for those that have thick skins.

 

Blessed are the thick skinned. For they shall (eventually) be able to see through to the kingdom of God.

Edited April 18, 2014 by Senator

[wenglund]

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.

 

Wrong. I never suggested that they were immature and bratty because their experience differs from mine. Rather, they are immature and bratty on merit.  Some of us are capable of making such distinctions even if you may not, and we get that it is in everyone's interest to publicly draw such distinctions even if you do not..

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited April 18, 2014 by wenglund

[wenglund]

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.

 

One cannot know me very well and say this with any degree of honesty. My interest isn't in being right, but doing and saying what works best for one and all.

 

However, you are entitled to your opinion. To each their own--I say this not to make a mockery of your uncharitable judgment of me above, but because that is my genuine sentiment and something I am oft fond of saying.

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[wenglund]

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.

 

Excellent point, though I hope it doesn't get lost in your legalistic judgment of the alleged "spurious system of dead works."

 

Be that as it may, were the writer of the top ten list in question to have grasped and embraced the message of love you referenced, even if she still left the faith, I don't think we all would be having this discussion.

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[wenglund]

All dissenters are brats, right?

 

Wrong. Bratty dissenters are brats. Mature and respectful dissenters are not. Obviously.

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[thesometimesaint]

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. 

 

If that is what you really want to be happy. Why would God want to make you unhappy?

[wenglund]

People often talk about the church being the same everywhere. In reality the experience and lessons learned are not. Leaders can have a massively different influence on our perspectives. The LDS books we read or the scripture passages emphasised by teachers or parents will also shape views.

For me, her 10 reasons in no way represents my experience of Mormonism. This does not mean it's not an accurate reflection of the way she has been taught.

I have a close friend who has left the church. She talks in very similar ways to the blog. She really has become happier and more fulfilled outside of Mormonism. When you learn more about the approach taken by her youth-era Bishop (a former Irish catholic), her seminary teacher and her parents to teaching the gospel you realise that her experience and mine were entirely different.

I liked this

 

I don't know that it is the Church that is different, but rather the people experiencing the Church who differ. The very same Conference talk can engender very different responses, and this isn't because the talk is said in different ways to different members, but because the members differ in the way they receive it. Think in terms of the different soils in the parable of the seed.

 

If people are happier outside the Church than in, then I wish them well. However, their greater happiness isn't indicative of something wrong with the Church, but instead because either they didn't correctly grasp the gospel of joy, or their joy is in things other than where they Church is designed to take them, or both--as seems evident in the Top 10 list in question.

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited April 18, 2014 by wenglund

[bluebell]

If she's happier outside of the LDS church then that's fine.

 

As long as she doesn't think that her top ten list should matter to anyone who does have a testimony of the church or of God (since leaving God is really the reason that she is happy about some of the changes she has made, and not specifically leaving the church), I don't have a problem with it.

[why me]

Which often makes your continued apologetics a bit.....well.......what's the word.........?

I know that it is amazing that an inactive person can defend the church but it really is not that amazing. How one chooses to live life has nothing to do whether I would think that church false. The lds church grants its members fee agency and free will. And I exercise it well.

However, I do know that exmembers who were 150 percenters when they were members have a hard time in understanding this but then again, they probably did not think well of inactive members anyway as members.

[why me]

Oh, I know this one...

We judge by our local direct experience... Not so much by some general experience.

There is nothing wrong with judging a religion (or anything) by your experience of it.

Not on a local level. Why leave a church because of a rogue priest or bishop or priesthood holder? One would need to take a look at the entire church and the fruit that it bears to leave it or not to leave it. We already see that her experience has not been the experience of many here. So, I think that it does make a good point not to leave the church based on a personal experience.

Edited April 18, 2014 by why me

[Senator]

I know that it is amazing that an inactive person can defend the church but it really is not that amazing. How one chooses to live life has nothing to do whether I would think that church false. The lds church grants its members fee agency and free will. And I exercise it well.

However, I do know that exmembers who were 150 percenters when they were members have a hard time in understanding this but then again, they probably did not think well of inactive members anyway as members.

 

Mmmm......amazing isn't the word I was searching for....

[Senator]

 So, I think that it does make a good point not to leave the church based on a personal experience.

 

What?

 

But it's ok to join the church based upon a personal experience?

 

Should we join or leave the church base on someone else's personal experience?

 

You not making sense.