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

[Bernard Gui]

I think it would be dishonest for the club to NOT post the standards expected of their members on their official web site.  People should know what rules they will be required to abide by before deciding to join the club.

 

You are acting as if the church should hide or some how be ashamed of it's standards and that people should not find out what those standards are until AFTER they have joined the church.  It is this kind of not being forthright that is causing many to go through a faith crisis.  Why do you want to perpetuate such a culture on such trivial issues?  If you felt that further clarification of my post was necessary then instead of attacking it and claiming that my statements were false, you should have clarified them yourself if you felt that was necessary. For example, you could have said, the church counsels against tattoo's.  But it is a personal choice whether one follows that counsel.  No one is going to inspect you and bar you from attending meetings if you have one.  Instead, this was your response

 

Nothing there about the fact that the church does indeed counsel AGAINST having tattoos.

You seem not to understand the analogy with the gun club. So, if one can freely choose not to follow guidelines or counsel or rules or whatever, then one is not controlled by the organization that supports them. That is the problem I have with your original post.....that and your taking a singular or specific event or rule and extrapolating from it to claim the church controls your facial hair, your shirt color, or....fill in the blank. This is disinformation. It is propaganda. If I and my 6 sons can have facial hair and we can all wear whatever we want to church, then the church does not control us. I believe we don't agree on what constitutes control. I don't believe giving counsel is the same as taking control or exercising control. You seem to believe that. I don't agree.

 

In your original post you wrote:

 

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.

 

 

Who is "you" and "men" and "women?"

Edited April 22, 2014 by Bernard Gui

[Bernard Gui]

Does the gun club tell you that you will be with family for eternity if you do all of those things?

You are missing the point. Of course not.

Are you seriously suggesting the church teaches that to be with your family for

all eternity men can't wear colored shirts, beards, or long hair? 

 

Are any of these issues pertinent to exaltation?

 

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.

 

Edited April 22, 2014 by Bernard Gui

[Bernard Gui]

Yes you can......Yes they can.

 

Again, I never said you, they couldn't.

So, are you saying that I can honestly and in good conscience misrepresent the rules and behavior of the gun club

and portray it as something it is not? The issue is not what standards the club or the church hold, but how one portrays them

and how Jen in the OP portrays them.....oppressive, secretive, vindictive, unchristian, with the intent to pull down

the church and its standards and teachings. That's the problem with spreading disinformation.

Edited April 22, 2014 by Bernard Gui

[Tacenda]

You are missing the point. Of course not.

Are you seriously suggesting the church teaches that to be with your family for

all eternity men can't wear colored shirts, beards, or long hair? 

 

Are any of these issues pertinent to exaltation?

Not on those things, but on others.  That aren't pertinent to being a Christian. 

[Bernard Gui]

Not on those things, but on others.  That aren't pertinent to being a Christian. 

But those are the things we are debating here.

[Tacenda]

But those are the things we are debating here.

I'm saying that's how she felt controlled with that hanging over her head. 

[Bernard Gui]

I'm saying that's how she felt controlled with that hanging over her head. 

 

These things were hanging over her head? Or more important things? I'm not understanding you. Could you explain more?

 

 

10. Right out of the gate I'm going to cheat and cram lots of reasons into one thing. These are all little things, but they're still pretty awesome:

two-day weekends,

not paying tithing,

not wearing garments,

coffee,

rated R movies,

tattoos,

shorts and tank tops,

playing with face cards,

shopping on Sundays,

loud laughter,

swearing if I feel like it,

eating 3 meals on the first Sunday of every month,

more time to read great books (instead of scriptures),

and the list goes on..

 

Edited April 22, 2014 by Bernard Gui

[Ahab]

The job of the apologist isn't to understand.

It is first to contradict

....then belittle

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

[Thought I would save Wade a post]

With my device it's just s flick of s finger instead of hsving to wave my whole hand, and at least I don't belittle out loud. Sometimes my lips don't move any at all.

[why me]

Not on those things, but on others.  That aren't pertinent to being a Christian. 

And what is pertinent to being a christian? I would think that it is following what christ said and following his prophets, especially the words of Paul. I see no conflict in how mormons are instructed to do life and on being chrisitan.

[The Nehor]

Top 1 Reason I am glad you are no longer a Mormon:

1. You sound insufferably smug and dull.

[Senator]

So, are you saying that I can honestly and in good conscience misrepresent the rules and behavior of the gun club

and portray it as something it is not? The issue is not what standards the club or the church hold, but how one portrays them

and how Jen in the OP portrays them.....oppressive, secretive, vindictive, unchristian, with the intent to pull down

the church and its standards and teachings. That's the problem with spreading disinformation.

 

Ah! But now you've moved the goal posts. You changed your original wording complain to misrepresent.  These are not synonymous. I can't say that she was intentionally trying to misrepresent. Yes, her viewpoint may not represent your viewpoint, but she wasn't trying to represent any else's experience.

 

I think your original "complain" was actually more applicable to what Jan is doing.

 

Look, she's had a change in thinking, even a paradigm change, if you will. She apparently really values her new life and way of thinking a lot more than she did when she was a Mormon and she wants to tell why. That's fine.  I'm also fine with you wanting telling us why you think being a Mormon is wonderful.

[california boy]

Of course you didn't type any fine print. That's the point....that's what you leave out....the necessary explanatory fine print. You paint with a very, very broad brush, citing some obscure or restricted bit of information, such as one person who may or may not have had an unfortunate encounter with a single stake president, or a BYU policy on beards, or whatever, and imply it is indicative of church-wide control over the members. This is the very definition of disinformation.

 

Unfortunately, we only have one side of the temple recommend story. There is not much information about who and what his association with gay friends was or what kinds of activities they participated in or what went on at the events to which he took his child. Or the fact that he deceived his wife and abandoned his family yet wants to work for the church. This is not an example of oppressive church control, but it is an excellent bit of disinformation.

 

http://utahcybersluts.blogspot.com

http://www.cityweekly.net/utah/article-10327-the-utah-cyber-sluts-at-sundance.html

You asked for a CFR, I provided you with one.  I can also tell you both my bishop and stake president told me also that I should not hang around gay friends.  They in fact wanted me to stay as far away from them as possible.  I don't know if this is church policy, but it certainly is direction given by some leaders in the church.  Now if you can provide a CFR that such a policy does not exist, then you have a point.  Until then, you do not.  

 

Maybe you could explain why you posted links to a charity group and why that is pertinent. 

[california boy]

You seem not to understand the analogy with the gun club. So, if one can freely choose not to follow guidelines or counsel or rules or whatever, then one is not controlled by the organization that supports them. That is the problem I have with your original post.....that and your taking a singular or specific event or rule and extrapolating from it to claim the church controls your facial hair, your shirt color, or....fill in the blank. This is disinformation. It is propaganda. If I and my 6 sons can have facial hair and we can all wear whatever we want to church, then the church does not control us. I believe we don't agree on what constitutes control. I don't believe giving counsel is the same as taking control or exercising control. You seem to believe that. I don't agree.

 

In your original post you wrote:

 

 

Who is "you" and "men" and "women?"

you men and women are church members.  

 

It is interesting to me that you did not ask for a single CFR on ANY of the other points I brought up.  And there is good reason for that.  You know that what I wrote is accurate.  And YES, I fully admit that I did not list the circumstance when all of these rules take affect.  Quite frankly that was not the point of my post.  If that is important to you, and you are not aware of any specific things that I mentioned, I would be GLAD to tell you the restrictions the church puts on any of the items.  Or you are free to clarify the conditions yourself so that they fit your agenda.

 

The real  question that you should be answering is WHY the church is so controlling on things that seem to really have no bearing on how Christ-like a person is.  Why does the church not allow BYU students to wear beards?  Why does the church feel the need to exercise such control that they do not allow a student to register at BYU if he has a beard?  How is that even an issue?  We used to joke that both Christ and Brigham Young could not attend Brigham Young University.  That seems like a shame doesn't it?  And it also seems like excessive control.

 

Why does the church counsel against tattoos?  Does it really matter if you have a tattoo?  There was a girl in our ward that had a CTR tattoo on her ankle.  I personally thought it was a great reminder especially in her teen years.  Then the church came out against any tattoos.  How do you think that made her feel?  Do you think that now she forever will be a less worthy member of the church?  No she wasn't kicked out of the ward.  But the question remains, why does the church feel the need to control whether someone has a tattoo. While I personally would not have a tattoo, I see little reason to worry about whether someone else chooses to have one.  

 

I have a daughter that got multiple piercings in her ear.  As a father, I really didn't have strong objections to it.  She is a great kid.  Doesn't do drugs, is saving herself for marriage, attends church, is kind and charitable to others.  While I probably would rather she not get multiple piercings, it seemed like a personal preference and had nothing to do with her worthiness.  Then the church came out admonishing men to not have any piercings and women only two.  How do you think that made her feel?  Unworthy?  And the question is, why does the church feel the need to have any policy on such a personal preference?  

 

The whole point of this post and perhaps this thread is that SOME people feel that the church is a bit controlling.  I get that for you it is not a problem.  But to pretend that it may not be a problem for others is a bit presumptuous of you.  

 

Like the gun club that does probably go over the rules one must abide by to be a member, maybe the church should do the same when someone wants to join.  Certainly if I joined some club and then afterwards was required to keep some rule that I just didn't feel was important and I quit the club because of that rule, then YES I would feel free to blog about what the actual rules of the gun club are rather than what the preception is.  It seems unfair to explain the rules after one has committed.  Perhaps the church would end up with less people angry as the person in the blog seems to be,  Does the church have the right to institute any rule it wants to?  Of course.  But don't blame others for leaving when they find the rules don't work for them individually.

Edited April 23, 2014 by california boy

[Bernard Gui]

Ah! But now you've moved the goal posts. You changed your original wording complain to misrepresent.  These are not synonymous. I can't say that she was intentionally trying to misrepresent. Yes, her viewpoint may not represent your viewpoint, but she wasn't trying to represent any else's experience.

 

I think your original "complain" was actually more applicable to what Jan is doing.

 

Look, she's had a change in thinking, even a paradigm change, if you will. She apparently really values her new life and way of thinking a lot more than she did when she was a Mormon and she wants to tell why. That's fine.  I'm also fine with you wanting telling us why you think being a Mormon is wonderful.

The goal posts remain in their original position. You simply fail to understand the analogy. She leaves the Church, I leave the gun club. We both complain about our experiences but in the process misrepresent the institution and its policies. This is neither honest nor in good conscience. For example, the gun club requires me to wear protective devices when on the range. I quit and say the club controlled me by dictating what clothing I could wear. I misrepresented the club's policy and intention. The Church has no restriction on using playing cards, but she is happy that now she is not a Mormon she can play cards. That is misrepresentation.

 

We are going in circles, which has ceased to be productive. I'm fine with her new lifestyle, too. She's free and welcome to do as she pleases, and I wish her godspeed....oops....all the best, but if she publicly misrepresents the Church (not my experience, but the Church), I also am free to disagree and point it out.

Edited April 23, 2014 by Bernard Gui

[Bernard Gui]

You asked for a CFR, I provided you with one.  I can also tell you both my bishop and stake president told me also that I should not hang around gay friends.  They in fact wanted me to stay as far away from them as possible.  I don't know if this is church policy, but it certainly is direction given by some leaders in the church.  Now if you can provide a CFR that such a policy does not exist, then you have a point.  Until then, you do not.  

 

Maybe you could explain why you posted links to a charity group and why that is pertinent. 

Your CFR is a story about one person, only one side of the story, and with crucial details missing. Not much of a reliable reference. Your bishop and stake president may or may not have told you those things. If you say so, OK. There is more to the story, no? That's the point.

 

Perhaps you should read the article about the man and then you will discover why it is pertinent.

Edited April 23, 2014 by Bernard Gui

[Bernard Gui]

 

But don't blame others for leaving when they find the rules don't work for them individually.

I didn't CFR your other points of disinformation because I know what you were referring to.

For example, if you claim the Church does not allow men to wear colored shirts, the reader will

recoil in shock. "They even tell you what color of shirts to wear! How horrible!" By leaving

out the caveat that the Church recommends Aaronic Priesthood boys wear white shirts when

they administer and pass the sacrament, you have created disinformation about what the

Church actually does. The same is true about each of your points. If your purpose is to

create shock and bias the reader, that is the way to do it...use partial truths out of context

or without explanation. 

 

People are free to come and go, accept and reject, praise and complain as they please.

I wish everyone well. But honesty is the best policy. 

 

Any time an institution or an individual creates expectations, someone is going to be upset

by them. When confronted by the expectation it is natural to question the reason for it.

Some things may chafe one but not another, but that does not justify misrepresentation.

 

It is one thing to find out one loves to read good books. It is another to accuse the Church

of preventing you from reading good books and limiting your reading to just the scriptures.

It is one thing to love learning new things. It is another

to accuse the Church of claiming to have all the answers and controlling what you can and cannot learn. And so forth.

 

That is the point of this thread.

Edited April 23, 2014 by Bernard Gui

[Bernard Gui]

Hey, Sine Saw Square. How's the shrub?

By the way, you've got the best user name on the board.

Edited April 23, 2014 by Bernard Gui

[why me]

You asked for a CFR, I provided you with one.  I can also tell you both my bishop and stake president told me also that I should not hang around gay friends.  They in fact wanted me to stay as far away from them as possible.  I don't know if this is church policy, but it certainly is direction given by some leaders in the church.  Now if you can provide a CFR that such a policy does not exist, then you have a point.  Until then, you do not.  

 

 

I have no idea why someone would take such advice so personal. The way to view such advice is to correlate it to the 'opinion bin'. It really doesn't matter what the bishop or SP thinks on this matter. Of course, if your gay friends were hanging out in gay bath houses where sexual romps take place as they did the 70s, or in gay bars looking for a pickup, I can understand their advice. Such advice would be given to heteros too: stay away from bars, swing joints etc. So, you will need to clarify when this was. For example, in the crazy 70s when gay men were foot loose and fancy free ( I hung out in Geenwich Village in the 70s and so I know what I am talking about) or in the 21st century. And you will need to clarify what kind of friends you were hanging out with.

 

But it is just an opinion that you were given because they were concerned about you.

Edited April 23, 2014 by why me

[mormonnewb]

I didn't CFR your other points of disinformation because I know what you were referring to.

For example, if you claim the Church does not allow men to wear colored shirts, the reader will

recoil in shock. "They even tell you what color of shirts to wear! How horrible!" By leaving

out the caveat that the Church recommends Aaronic Priesthood boys wear white shirts when

they administer and pass the sacrament, you have created disinformation about what the

Church actually does. The same is true about each of your points. If your purpose is to

create shock and bias the reader, that is the way to do it...use partial truths out of context

or without explanation.

People are free to come and go, accept and reject, praise and complain as they please.

I wish everyone well. But honesty is the best policy.

Any time an institution or an individual creates expectations, someone is going to be upset

by them. When confronted by the expectation it is natural to question the reason for it.

Some things may chafe one but not another, but that does not justify misrepresentation.

It is one thing to find out one loves to read good books. It is another to accuse the Church

of preventing you from reading good books and limiting your reading to just the scriptures.

It is one thing to love learning new things. It is another

to accuse the Church of claiming to have all the answers and controlling what you can and cannot learn. And so forth.

That is the point of this thread.

Yes, you're right. The Church has very little power to "control" us. It can discipline us for taking certain actions (e.g., adultery). Or as is more common, it can set "guidelines" (e.g., no tattoos, white shirts, etc.).

That being said, one can still be seen as "controlling" even if one has no real power of control. Some mothers of adult children are "controlling" in that they seek to impose their standards upon their children. Even if the adult child follows their own path, the mother can still be seen as "controlling." The same is true for institutions.

For instance, if this Church started setting "guidelines" for how often married couples should be intimate (with each other), that would be CONTROLLING. It wouldn't matter if we all ignored the Church.

Now, obviously the Church hasn't gone that far, but I do see how a reasonable person might find the Church to be "controlling" in some aspects. And I imagine you'd feel the same way if your hypothetical gun club were to, say, pick out your underwear for you. You could ignore them and wear a leopard print speedo if you want, but you might resent that they had the nerve to make the request in the first place.

Edited April 23, 2014 by mormonnewb

[why me]

Now, obviously the Church hasn't gone that far, but I do see how a reasonable person might find the Church to be "controlling" in some aspects. And I imagine you'd feel the same way if your hypothetical gun club were to, say, pick out your underwear for you. You could ignore them and wear a leopard print speedo if you want, but you might resent that they had the nerve to make the request in the first place.

I wouldn't say controlling. But I would say 'guiding'. The church guides us in how we should do life. In some sense, all faiths can be 'controlling' if one needs to look at it in that way. But for religion, I do think that it is not control but a process of guiding people.

[Tacenda]

I wouldn't say controlling. But I would say 'guiding'. The church guides us in how we should do life. In some sense, all faiths can be 'controlling' if one needs to look at it in that way. But for religion, I do think that it is not control but a process of guiding people.

CFR on, all faiths control. Please show me one faith that is Christian, that has our type of guidelines.

[Senator]

The goal posts remain in their original position. You simply fail to understand the analogy. She leaves the Church, I leave the gun club. We both complain about our experiences but in the process misrepresent the institution and its policies. This is neither honest nor in good conscience. For example, the gun club requires me to wear protective devices when on the range. I quit and say the club controlled me by dictating what clothing I could wear. I misrepresented the club's policy and intention. The Church has no restriction on using playing cards, but she is happy that now she is not a Mormon she can play cards. That is misrepresentation.

 

We are going in circles, which has ceased to be productive. I'm fine with her new lifestyle, too. She's free and welcome to do as she pleases, and I wish her godspeed....oops....all the best, but if she publicly misrepresents the Church (not my experience, but the Church), I also am free to disagree and point it out.

 

I understand the analogy. We simply may differ as to her "misrepresentations".

[Senator]

I wouldn't say controlling. But I would say 'guiding'. The church guides us in how we should do life. In some sense, all faiths can be 'controlling' if one needs to look at it in that way. But for religion, I do think that it is not control but a process of guiding people.

 

I can see how that would literally be easy for you to say.

Edited April 23, 2014 by Senator

[why me]

I can see how that would literally be easy for you to say.

Exactly. I have felt no control at all regardless of how I lived my life. The lds church gives us free agency and allows us to make our own choices. So where is the control? All fatihs require their members to live god's commandments. I see no christian faith that allows its members a free for all in how to do life. But of course one can make their own choices on how to do life.

[why me]

CFR on, all faiths control. Please show me one faith that is Christian, that has our type of guidelines.

Show me a christian faith that allows for a free for all and anarchy in how to do life and I will eat my cowboy boots. All faiths require their flock to obey god's commandemts and to live mindful of sin. Do you know an EV faith that allows an eat, drink and be merry for tomorrow we may die but are saved anyway attitude? If one goes to bible study one has the opportunity for control.

Edited April 23, 2014 by why me