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

[why me]

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

I am an old school inactive. It has nothing to do with church but with how I do life. We were a dime a dozen back in the day. Now it is usually assumed that one is inactive because of church history etc. Nothing amazing in it.

Edited April 18, 2014 by why me

[Senator]

I am an old school inactive. It has nothing to do with church but with how I do life. We were a dime a dozen back in the day. Now it is usually assumed that one is inactive because of church history etc. Nothing amazing in it.

I have no idea what you are talking about. But this is getting a bit personal, so I'll let it go.

[why me]

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.

Well, in most Christian churches a person who sins and does it knowingly may end up in hell. At least the lds church as 3 kingdoms of glory. However, if one lives righteously and attempts to obey the commandements and is church member, one just may be in the CK.

Edited April 18, 2014 by why me

[seriously honestly]

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

 

I did read her manifesto; read it before I commented the first time. Some of her feelings I understood, most of it seemed like a kid who was just told they no longer have a curfew

 

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.

 

And what you can wear…and I’m not talking like something you’d see Kesha wearing. Some of my sisters’ clothes had to be tossed after their endowments even though they’re considered modest because the sleeve or neckline styles didn’t cover their garments completely. Not an issue they had when they were wearing regular undergarments.

 

 

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.

 

What makes you think that a complete weekend is always Saturday/Sunday? That isn’t the case. Someone in retail may have Tuesday/Wednesday “weekend”, or a Friday/Saturday “weekend”. And if someone works somewhere that is open 7 days a week (grocery store, gas station, retail, movie theaters), requesting that they have every Sunday off isn’t a guarantee they’ll get a Saturday or Monday off to accompany it. They could get Sunday and Tuesday off.

 

Do people like to get out and do thing, or relax on their weekend (whatever two days that may be)? Yes. I’ve heard Mormons complain before that after meetings and church it doesn’t feel like really had a day off, so understand her feeling of being able to relax or go shopping if she needs/wants to that day, but do you really think the person she’s buying groceries from is being denied two days off work because they are there on a Sunday? That cashier’s weekend could be Monday/Tuesday, or maybe they just got back from having Friday and Saturday off.

 

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.

 

I can’t expect something I never asked for. I was just explaining why I don’t like the “fluffy” answers (never have)

 

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.

 

I agreed you can make the argument for spending too much money by going to Starbucks every day (which is why I don’t. I buy the stuff you make at home and it last me for months). But the amount spent on coffee isn’t the only variable when to comes to seeing who spends more/less on something that’s not really necessary. You could save money by never eating out or going to the movies just as easily.  Take someone who avoids those things because they think it’s a waste, but goes to Starbucks once or twice a week and compare them to someone who doesn’t drink coffee, because they think that’s a waste, but dines out or goes to the movies (or both) once week. It just comes down to personal priorities and what you want to spend your money on. 

[canard78]

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.

I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you didn't read my post properly. Or, if you did, please give me another chance to explain.

I wasn't excusing my friend leaving because she had a specific bad experience with her bishop. I was talking about the fact that our perspectives and understanding of the gospel are largely influenced by the people who teach us the gospel.

[why me]

I have no idea what you are talking about. But this is getting a bit personal, so I'll let it go.

Nothing personal at all. What I was aaying was that years ago people were inactive because they chose a different life. It wasn't because of church history etc. It was free agency. And even though they believed in the church, they chose to have their free agency to live life as they wanted to live it. So, why wouldn't they defend the church? That was my point.

[why me]

I wasn't excusing my friend leaving because she had a specific bad experience with her bishop. I was talking about the fact that our perspectives and understanding of the gospel are largely influenced by the people who teach us the gospel.

And that was my point. Why limit our understanding and influence to those who taught us? Much better to see the church much more broadly. People who teach classes in sunday school really don't influence me in what they say. I know that they have their own interpretations.

Edited April 18, 2014 by why me

[mormonnewb]

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-

You gave two reasons why someone might leave the Church, but left out a third reason -- they were abused in some way. Certainly, we could all understand the person who leaves their religion because they were sexually abused by their clergy. We don't call those people "brats" or "whiners."

Of course, we could say that they shouldn't judge the religion by one bad actor. But they have every right to question the efficacy of any institution that puts such a person in a position of authority.

Fortunately, sexual abuse is somewhat rare in our Church but, even as a newb, I know that abuse of priesthood authority or unrighteous dominion is not unheard. We all know of legalistic bishops, stake presidents, etc. who believe that the Gospel is a four-letter word -- obey.

Therefore, I'm not willing to belittle and degrade the person who feels that their decision to leave the Church has allowed them to escape this type of domination. Perhaps, in time, they will see that they experienced just a sliver of what the Church had to offer.

Of course, that assumes that they never happen upon this board to see the invective hurled at them from some of the "vanguards" of the faith.

[mormonnewb]

You gave two reasons why someone might leave the Church, but left out a third reason -- they were abused in some way. Certainly, we could all understand the person who leaves their religion because they were sexually abused by their clergy. We don't call those people "brats" or "whiners."

Of course, we could say that they shouldn't judge the religion by one bad actor. But they have every right to question the efficacy of any institution that puts such a person in a position of authority.

Fortunately, sexual abuse is somewhat rare in our Church but, even as a newb, I know that abuse of priesthood authority or unrighteous dominion is not so rare. We all know of legalistic bishops, stake presidents, etc. who believe that the Gospel can be condensed to a four-letter word -- obey.

Therefore, I'm not willing to belittle and degrade the person who feels that their decision to leave the Church has allowed them to escape this type of domination. Perhaps, in time, they will see that they experienced just a sliver of what the Church had to offer and "come join with us."

Of course, that assumes that they never happen upon this board to see the invective hurled at them from some of the "vanguards" of the faith.

[california boy]

You have to admit that for people outside the church, some view the Mormon church as being incredibly controling.  That alone can be a reason for feeling relief for leaving to those outside the church.  Most nonmembers know that Mormons don't smoke, drink alcohol, coffee or tea.  But the church also controls what soft drinks you can drink, whether you can have a tattoo, males can't have piercings, women only one in each ear, how long their sleeve is, how long their skirt length is, how much of a neckline they wear, men can't have beards or long hair, can't wear colored shirts, what movies they can watch, what video games they play, whether they can go to a restaurant on sunday, etc.  Women are not allowed to ride in a car with someone who is not their husband after meetings, Missionaries are not allowed to enter the home if the husband is not present.  The list is pretty long.  And if you are gay, you can't date, kiss, or even friendships with other gay men are not allowed.  

 

I explained that not all of these are commandments.  Some are standards that members are expected to follow.  Some are strongly worded directives, and some are traditions.  But yes, they all have been addressed in one way or another.  

[Bernard Gui]

You have to admit that for people outside the church, some view the Mormon church as being incredibly controling.  That alone can be a reason for feeling relief for leaving to those outside the church.  Most nonmembers know that Mormons don't smoke, drink alcohol, coffee or tea.  But the church also controls what soft drinks you can drink, whether you can have a tattoo, males can't have piercings, women only one in each ear, how long their sleeve is, how long their skirt length is, how much of a neckline they wear, men can't have beards or long hair, can't wear colored shirts, what movies they can watch, what video games they play, whether they can go to a restaurant on sunday, etc.  Women are not allowed to ride in a car with someone who is not their husband after meetings, Missionaries are not allowed to enter the home if the husband is not present.  The list is pretty long.  And if you are gay, you can't date, kiss, or even friendships with other gay men are not allowed.  

 

I explained that not all of these are commandments.  Some are standards that members are expected to follow.  Some are strongly worded directives, and some are traditions.  But yes, they all have been addressed in one way or another.

So much disinformation in such a tiny bit of bandwidth.

[california boy]

So much disinformation in such a tiny bit of bandwidth.

Was there something I wrote that you disagree with?  Or is this just a drive by shooting.

Edited April 19, 2014 by california boy

[Kenngo1969]

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

 

There's a difference between pleasure and joy.  It's easy to find pleasure in many circumstances (including by doing things that are contrary to the teachings of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, but joy comes from living the best one can according to what light one has been given (and hopefully, progressively receiving more light in the process - see Doctrine & Covenants 50:24).

 

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).

 

 

Respectfully, I think you do Dr. King a disservice by equating his dissent with that of the author of this essay. (But then, I'm a racist so whaddo I know? )

 

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

Saying God will give us the maximum reward possible for our obedience is not the same as saying that God rewards varying levels of obedience equally.  The more obedient one is, the more pleased God is with that obedience.

[why me]

You have to admit that for people outside the church, some view the Mormon church as being incredibly controling.  That alone can be a reason for feeling relief for leaving to those outside the church.  Most nonmembers know that Mormons don't smoke, drink alcohol, coffee or tea.  But the church also controls what soft drinks you can drink, whether you can have a tattoo, males can't have piercings, women only one in each ear, how long their sleeve is, how long their skirt length is, how much of a neckline they wear, men can't have beards or long hair, can't wear colored shirts, what movies they can watch, what video games they play, whether they can go to a restaurant on sunday, etc.  Women are not allowed to ride in a car with someone who is not their husband after meetings, Missionaries are not allowed to enter the home if the husband is not present.  The list is pretty long.  And if you are gay, you can't date, kiss, or even friendships with other gay men are not allowed.  

 

I explained that not all of these are commandments.  Some are standards that members are expected to follow.  Some are strongly worded directives, and some are traditions.  But yes, they all have been addressed in one way or another.  

Some can see it as controlling but others can see it as a liberation. Many men and women would have been more liberated if they would have abstained from alcohol. And many lives would have been saved if people would have abstained from tobacco. And many people would have saved some money if they would not have gotten a tattoo that they no longer wanted, thereby attempting to take it off. One person's control is another person's personal freedom.

[changed]

 

Never had a problem with loving to learn.  Sometimes I get a little fanatical about it - like when I brought home armfuls of books about lice, art, food storage. But it's not just me - even the RS says we should "love life and learning." And lds.org is filled with articles like Learning to Love Learning (https://www.lds.org/ensign/2010/02/learning-to-love-learning?lang=eng).

 

Great article, just added it to my blog, thanks!

http://ldslearninghouse.blogspot.com/

(I was asked to create this blog for a Stake conference, a place for learning resources, tips, etc.  Any additions / corrections / comments welcomed!)

 

[changed]

. Why limit our understanding and influence to those who taught us? 

In other words, there's no borrowed light.

[thatjimguy]

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-

 

 

Your lumping things together and assuming one must acccept the whole of all her arguments and actions, which is immature in its own reagrd. Trying to understand someone isn't immature, it's Christ's way.

[changed]

 You do her and the Church a disservice by indulging her bad behavior.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

I'll agree with this - I think the trick is to find enough common ground first - find things they are doing that are good, and you can support them on, and try to build a relationship on that.  If they are not at a point to listen yet,generally just saying you disagree, perhaps with a very short explanation, letting them know that it is ok if people don't agree on everything, and leaving it at that is sufficient.  

Edited April 19, 2014 by changed

[thatjimguy]

I'll agree with this - I think the trick is to find enough common ground first - find things they are doing that are good, and you can support them on, and try to build a relationship on that.  If they are not at a point to listen yet,generally just saying you disagree, perhaps with a very short explanation, letting them know that it is ok if people don't agree on everything, and leaving it at that is sufficient.  

 

If you can do this when angry about a subject, my hats off to you. This woman, however, has a great deal of emotion shes letting out. It's obvious she feels hurt for some reason. People don't act mature when they have deep levels of pain.

 

She could say the very same things in a calm voice, it doesn't make the arguments any more or less valid.

[changed]

If you can do this when angry about a subject, my hats off to you. This woman, however, has a great deal of emotion shes letting out. It's obvious she feels hurt for some reason. People don't act mature when they have deep levels of pain.

 

She could say the very same things in a calm voice, it doesn't make the arguments any more or less valid.

I think generally in a confrontation people either downplay/ignore/blow it off/laugh it off... or they exaggerate/take offence/become hyper sensitive & angry about the matter. ... I tend to be of the first variety, not that being apathetic is good either, but I like the idea of Mathew 5:37

 37 But let your ^acommunication be, Yea, yea; Nay, nay: for whatsoever is more than these cometh ^bof evil.

 

[california boy]

Some can see it as controlling but others can see it as a liberation. Many men and women would have been more liberated if they would have abstained from alcohol. And many lives would have been saved if people would have abstained from tobacco. And many people would have saved some money if they would not have gotten a tattoo that they no longer wanted, thereby attempting to take it off. One person's control is another person's personal freedom.

I completely agree.  But then I think that people who see things that way probably tend to stay in the church.

[Bernard Gui]

Was there something I wrote that you disagree with?  Or is this just a drive by shooting.

Pretty much everything you wrote is disinformation, very much like the essay that is the topic of the thread. This is my thread, so it's obviously not a drive by.

Edited April 20, 2014 by Bernard Gui

[Gervin]

Well, in most Christian churches a person who sins and does it knowingly may end up in hell.

if "most" means the majority, I'd like to see some links to specific churches that teach/preach this.  In reality, you can't provide this because - with all due respect to the right to post - you don't know what you're talking about.

[california boy]

Pretty much everything you wrote is disinformation, very much like the essay that is the topic of the thread. This is my thread, so it's obviously not a drive by.

A drive by is when someone makes a statement like the whole quote is disinformation, yet fails to point out what they specifically disagree with.  Unless you think that everything that I wrote is wrong.  In which case, for example. you would be denying that the church forbids the  use of tobacco.  Or that women are not restricted from having bare shoulders.  If that is your poisiton, then I guess you see commandments, standards and policies much different than I do. 

[Bernard Gui]

A drive by is when someone makes a statement like the whole quote is disinformation, yet fails to point out what they specifically disagree with.  

Some things are self-evident.

 

Unless you think that everything that I wrote is wrong.

Yes, I do.

 

In which case, for example. you would be denying that the church forbids the  use of tobacco.

Forbids in what way? You can choose to smoke if you wish.

 

 Or that women are not restricted from having bare shoulders.

Mormon women go swimming in swim suits, not pants suits.

 

 If that is your poisiton, then I guess you see commandments, standards and policies much different than I do. 

Yes, I do see them much different than you. You seem to base your understanding on disinformation. That's the point.

 

You have to admit that for people outside the church, some view the Mormon church as being incredibly controling.  

Who cares what people outside the church think? Especially if they base their thoughts on disinformation such as that provided here?

 

That alone can be a reason for feeling relief for leaving to those outside the church.  

The purpose of this thread is to point out the problems created by disinformation about the church from those who leave it, but then attack it. 

 

Most nonmembers know that Mormons don't smoke, drink alcohol, coffee or tea.

How do you know what most non-members know? Most doctors recommend you don't smoke, drink alcohol, or use excessive coffee or tea.

 

But the church also controls what soft drinks you can drink,

Nonsense. The church doesn't know what soft drinks you drink, no less control what they are.

 

whether you can have a tattoo,

You can have as many tattoos as you wish. If they are under your clothes, how would the "church" know?

What would the church do to a person who got a tattoo? Force them to remove it? Take away their temple recommend?

 

males can't have piercings, women only one in each ear,

Authorities don't count piercings, make women fill up the holes, or inspect men for piercings.

 

how long their sleeve is

Members wear whatever length sleeve they wish, even in violation of their temple covenants, and no one does them harm.

Members willingly and of their own free choice covenant to wear garments and observe the guidelines that go with them.

The "church" does not take people aside and cover them with chastity jackets.

 

how long their skirt length is,

Ditto above answer.

 

how much of a neckline they wear,

Ditto above answer.

 

men can't have beards or long hair,

I have a beard, as do the 6 Gui sons, and many friends. What church do you attend?

 

can't wear colored shirts,

Bull. False. Untrue.

 

what movies they can watch,

You can watch whatever movies you want. Who forces you to watch anything or even knows what you watch?

 

what video games they play,

Ditto above answer. The church does not have monitors on your xbox.

 

whether they can go to a restaurant on sunday, etc.

Ditto above answer. 

 

Women are not allowed to ride in a car with someone who is not their husband after meetings,

A common sense recommendation, but what if you do it? Is the bishop following you in his black SUV?

Can a woman ride with another woman?

 

Missionaries are not allowed to enter the home if the husband is not present.

A common sense recommendation, but.....Well, that's really terrible, isn't it? How more controlling can the "church" be?

 

The list is pretty long.  And if you are gay, you can't date, kiss, or even friendships with other gay men are not allowed.  

CFR. 

In other words, so much disinformation in such a teeny tiny amount of bandwidth.

Edited April 21, 2014 by Bernard Gui