Why I am not a Mormon

[Guest]

Needless to say, Nightingale, we disagree.

I'm sorry to see that we do. I thought my points were so excellent that you might see your way to understanding Grosskreutz's take on it. (Kinda kidding but...) I would have just left him to enjoy his own space. But yeah, people have different approaches on things.

I'm in a rush too but I wanted to make it clear that DCP's quotes of "Nightingale" actually relate to a list created by Grosskreutz and are not my original thoughts and, indeed, not my reasons or beliefs, other than in those instances where I can somewhat relate to some of Grosskreutz's remarks. For instance, I am not an atheist, so wanted to clarify that for sure.

It's good to know that some Mormons are interested in why people leave the church. I happen to think that the more people of different faiths and interpretations can understand each other the more enriched our own spiritual experience becomes.

Grosskreutz: ”I'm going to share a few reasons with those … whom insist that only sin or contempt contribute to apostasy.”

This is well reflected in Grosskreutz’s dad’s post and I see it frequently. It is dismissive and disrespectful to ex-members in the extreme. It shows that current members think they know better about someone else’s life, experiences, motivations, thoughts and intentions than the person does themselves.

DCP replies:
"May I respectfully suggest that, since you presumably know neither GoodK nor GoodK's father, you're in no position to know whether or not GoodK's father's view of his son has any merit or not? Surely you don't think that you know better about someone else’s life, experiences, motivations, thoughts, and intentions than does a person who is intimately acquainted with him. GoodK's father may be wrong, of course, but it doesn't seem that you're in a particularly good position to make the argument."

You are correct that I do not know the people involved and that is actually one of the primary points I was trying to make - that we cannot know another's thoughts and motivations (translation: I believe we are doomed to gross inaccuracy if we make emphatic statements about what you intended, what Grosskreutz's dad is thinking or what Grosskreutz himself wants, etc., unless these things are specifically stated by the party involved). I wasn't trying to comment in depth specifically about the personal incident itself but rather was saying that I can relate on certain levels to some of what Grosskreutz is saying in his opening post. I can see, from what I've read in various posts by LDS participants, here and elsewhere, as well as in some Mormon literature, that there is a certain "folklore" at least that exists with regard to ex-members and why they leave the church. I can hear some of that attitude in Grosskreutz's father's response on this thread. (Words to the effect that Grosskreutz knows what his "sin" is and etc). It's very reminiscent of the type of remark that other ex-members get and that is more where I was going with that reference.

I think Grosskreutz’s list is a good one:

DCP: It's an okay starting point for a discussion.

Yeah, that's what I said. I think that Grosskreutz being able to articulate his reasons like that at least starts a discussion. That can only be good, as it seems he would welcome one.

"1. Christianity. It can't be true. The Bible, and the existence of God, is easily the biggest reason why I am not a Mormon.

To reiterate, this is Grosskreutz talking, not me. As is the case in all the following quotes. These reasons are not why *I* left Mormonism and, again, I am not an atheist.

6. The prophet of the church seems more interested in meeting with politicians than communicating with the lowly members of his church. …he is out of reach to the average member of the church who would like nothing more than to shake hands with the prophet.

DCP:
In my experience with the leaders of the Church -- I know all of the members of the First Presidency and the Council of the Twelve, and many of the Seventy -- they are very down-to-earth and approachable.

OK, but maybe the perception comes from the facts that (1) the vast rank and file never meet them and (2) the FP has ordered members to refrain from writing to them. Maybe they could at least be like the Queen who receives bagsful of mail constantly and who has staff to deal with it. Most subjects appreciate a response even just from the office or at least don't expect to be instructed to cease writing. It's like when I occasionally write to our PM's office. Within very short order I receive a letter back from an assistant to acknowledge my correspondence. I don't recall a time the PM ever actually responded, although some MPs have done so personally. A form letter isn't that satisfying but at least it's not a cease and desist order so at least the illusion of access is there. Maybe those who have some access can't see how it feels from the side that does not.

Ex-members aren't hopeless apostate sinners just because they have questions like those that Grosskreutz poses.

DCP:
Nor does the fact that they might have questions mean that they aren't hopeless apostate sinners. The two matters are quite separate.

Yeah, true. But. It would help if some/many LDS don't start with that assumption. That is what is so galling. It cuts off any hope of productive interaction.

In my post, I was trying to speak in generalities rather than to the specific situation, as I really don't want to get into a personal family thing, especially concerning people I don't know. I'm just sorry for anyone who got hurt. I guess I didn't make it clear that I was trying to be general. Sorry about that. Basically, I just wanted to say that:

1. I'm sorry Grosskreutz doesn't have his own private space here any more in the way he may have wanted.

2. I relate to some of the ex-Mormon experience of being wrongly seen in a negative light, which causes communication and relationship difficulties.

3. I don't like to see definitive statements from either side about a person's motivations as obviously we can't know them for certain.

And, oh yeah - Mormons and ex-Mormons have difficulty seeing eye to eye. That last is a big newsflash I'm sure.

But I enjoy discussing the various issues and enjoy it much more minus a level of acrimony.

[_Nightingale]

DCP:
For several years, I've been editing and publishing Moses Maimonides' Arabic/Hebrew commentaries on Galen's "medical aphorisms."

I knew this and was going to offer it as a possible explanation. Then I saw that DCP had responded already.

To anyone who regularly uses medical or legal language and certainly for someone with second and third languages or who works with ancient texts, there is not so much "foreign" in the other languages. For people who love language, it's all in keeping, I'd say.

On this, we do agree.

I love language(s). The shelves to my right are stocked with lexicons, grammars, etymological dictionaries.

Language is important in my work too. I love my Oxford English Reference, Surgical Word Book and Legal Terminology, among others.

I really don't think that I need to apologize for this to Chap and Marg.

Agreed. In fact, in between reading this thread and writing some responses, I was watching Lady Henrietta Spencer Churchill giving a tour of Blenheim Palace. While standing in a very grand room, she explained that they use it at Christmas time, "en famille". I wasn't miffed that she used a "foreign" term, with appropriate accent but rather was happy for the occasion to dust off my high school French!

A propos of nothing really, "First do no harm" is my motto from my First Aider days and hangs above my nursing mantra:

Have a heart
that never hardens,

A temper that
never tires, and

A touch that
never hurts.

I extrapolate those thoughts to my spiritual life and life in general. Usually. I hope. That's my goal anyway. (The last one is difficult in nursing but the spirit is willing at least).

[_Daniel Peterson]

Thanks, Nightingale. I'm running out of time and out of energy for this particular topic, but it's refreshing to have a conversation with a real human being.

OK, but maybe the perception comes from the facts that (1) the vast rank and file never meet them and (2) the FP has ordered members to refrain from writing to them.

In a church with millions of members, it simply isn't practicable for the First Presidency to meet everybody or to answer all the members' e-mails. That's unfortunate, but I can't think of any way out of the situation.

Maybe they could at least be like the Queen who receives bagsful of mail constantly and who has staff to deal with it.

They do.

[_marg]

If I were the prophet, I’d like to read Grosskreutz’s post and call him up and have a chat. Why not?

The problem Nightinggale is that some of the highly religious individuals can not be reasoned with. In essence they are not dealing from a full-deck, they are quite literally insane when it comes to religious beliefs they literally believe in. They are not able to be objective and rational on those beliefs. Reading GoodK's dad's note to Dan tells me he's quite a bit off his rocker when it comes to his notion of sin, God, worldly things which in his mind equate to sin and of course in general his religious beliefs. Frankly I feel very sorry for GoodK, because GoodK who is young is the one with his head on straight. It's DCP and people in the Mormon tribe who have this "nutty" religious side to them. GoodK's dad unfortunately is obviously acting upon his religious beliefs in forming his opinion of his son.

[_harmony]

2. Joseph Smith Jr is not a saint. …he is not the saint that the church portrays him to be.

Joseph Smith was not perfect, but he seems to have been a pretty good man.

A debatable point. I suppose it all depends on what qualifies as "good" to you.

6. The prophet of the church seems more interested in meeting with politicians than communicating with the lowly members of his church. …he is out of reach to the average member of the church who would like nothing more than to shake hands with the prophet.

In my experience with the leaders of the Church -- I know all of the members of the First Presidency and the Council of the Twelve, and many of the Seventy -- they are very down-to-earth and approachable.

If you know all the leaders as claimed, you are not in the same group as the vast majority of the members. I suspect you are in a group of only a few hundred (if that many) of the 12 million members. I know no one who can claim to know any of our leaders personally, let alone most of them.

That said, being down-to-earth and approachable means nothing, when access is denied. I've seen a prophet in person from a distance once (SWK). I've seen a member of the FP in person from a distance (GBH) once. And this fall, our stake will be visited by DHOaks. I'm actually contemplating reserving my seat for stake conference, just so I can quote him here, because I just know he's going to say something worthy of a thread here. I've never actually met any of these men. We were not and are not allowed close enough to shake hands or "meet" them. I doubt Elder Oaks has any time for us, the unwashed, either.

Politicians and lucky career-Mormons get the chance, but faithful members like my parents (who have likely given an obscene amount of money to the church through tithing) would never get the chance to meet their leader.

President Monson was just down here for the opening of the new library at Utah Valley University (until Tuesday, Utah Valley State College). Some of my ward members got to meet him and shake his hand. They're neither politicians nor "lucky career-Mormons." They're just college students who work at Wal-Mart.

So Pres Monson drove to Provo and students got to meet him and shake his hand. Wow. Impressive. When Pres Hinckley (then Elder Hinckley) was here, we were instructed that under no circumstances were we going to be allowed close enough to him to shake his hand. They surrounded him with security people and made sure none of us got close. We are the unwashed masses, you know. And some of actually don't work at WalMart, so I guess that makes us lower on the food chain than college students in Utah. Figures.

Grosskreutz: "…the guys at the top, they should know. And that's who I want to talk to. I want them to know why I am not a Mormon."

Of course, they’re "busy" ‘n all that but I can’t see what is more important or enjoyable than getting in amongst the people.

That's what they spend most of their lives doing!

I'm sorry, Daniel, but this is incorrect. I live in the mission field. Our leaders do not spend most of their lives anywhere near here. They spend their lives avoiding being amongst the people. It's been 20 years since we had an apostle here. Twenty years. We're unimportant unless our tithing contributions drop or our stellar missionary numbers drop; then we're lower than pond scum. Which makes me wonder what we've done to deserve Elder Oaks now. I bet we're going to be hammered for the drop in the number of missionaries we're putting in the field or something similiar.

I cannot stand elitism in any arena and at church it seems even more unjust.

The Brethren are constantly traveling around the world meeting with members. And they belong to wards. There is no real "elitism" here.

Amazing how they've managed to avoid coming here for so long.

[_Moniker]

I am uncomfortable that in a defense (??) of GoodK people are attacking his father.

[_Daniel Peterson]

The problem Nightinggale is that some of the highly religious individuals can not be reasoned with. In essence they are not dealing from a full-deck, they are quite literally insane when it comes to religious beliefs they literally believe in. They are not able to be objective and rational on those beliefs. Reading GoodK's dad's note to Dan tells me he's quite a bit off his rocker when it comes to his notion of sin, God, worldly things which in his mind equate to sin and of course in general his religious beliefs. Frankly I feel very sorry for GoodK, because GoodK who is young is the one with his head on straight. It's DCP and people in the Mormon tribe who have this "nutty" religious side to them.

The World According to Marg, or, Marg 'Splains It All: Her Grand Unifying Theory of Everything.

This is great stuff.

[_Gadianton]

If that's happening Moniker, and I haven't followed this thread too much (seriously) then I agree with you. Just as people joke about not having a manual for raising kids, parents who are members of controlling religions don't have a manual for how to deal with a child when he or she leaves the religion (oh ok, you got me, sometimes they do, but it's a really, really bad manual). And children don't have a manual on dealing with parents when they make the break. So we can have some sympathy for both.

[_Daniel Peterson]

I am uncomfortable that in a defense (??) of GoodK people are attacking his father.

Thank you for saying that.

[_EAllusion]

If that's happening Moniker, and I haven't followed this thread too much (seriously) then I agree with you. Just as people joke about not having a manual for raising kids, parents who are members of controlling religions don't have a manual for how to deal with a child when he or she leaves the religion (oh ok, you got me, sometimes they do, but it's a really, really bad manual). And children don't have a manual on dealing with parents when they make the break. So we can have some sympathy for both.

I wrote, "So this self-professed Mormon is a blowhard. Go figure." But that wasn't in defense of GoodK. That was an ironical statement in reply to FatherK writing of this thread:

" 4. While I normally do not spend time in forums of this sort, I have found the experience of reading through the various posts to be both hilarious and depressing. You, Dan, are hilarious with most of the things you have posted and I have had many a laugh watching you run circles around a bunch of bitter, angry people who think they've vanquished you and yet often betray a deep misunderstanding of your wit or your point. It's also depressing to read what some would consider to be their own contributions to reasoned discourse.

5. As to my relationship with my son, let me say that while I was disappointed in what he wrote -- especially in the fact that he did so in a public forum -- it in no way did any significant damage to our relationship. He is quite young and inexperienced and I think if and when he matures a bit in the next ten to twenty years or so, he will see things quite differently than he does at this time. (One would hope so.) He's not a fundamentally bad person and he's a lot more cocky in print than he is in a face-to-face encounter. This forum is one way for him to vent and work out some of the bigger questions he's wrestling with. I have high hopes for him long-term.

6. Finally, the purpose of this thread, which he titled "Why I am not a Mormon" is a farce. By that I mean that his reasons are a smoke-screen. They are an excuse. I won't confess his sins in public, but at the risk of stating the obvious, let's just say that if he loved God more than the things of the world he would be a very strong Latter-day Saint. As it is, the "world" has his attention at this time. I hope he will, in time, realize the path he is on has only brought him much pain, much sorrow, and much deprivation. God is at the helm and God will not be mocked. Eventually every knee shall bow before Christ and every tongue will confess His Messiahship. And that includes my son and every self-professed atheist on this list. When he finally gets tired of sin, I think he will make the right decisions, repent, and return. And we will welcome him with open arms. And you and he will probably look back on this thread and have a good laugh together. "

I don't know if what Moniker is referring to includes my comment, but I stand by it. It's textbook braggart.