The Best Reason for Sinning....

[_Persephone]

truth dancer:

Hi Persephone,

Welcome to the board. :-)

Thank you so much! Finding this message board has been a life-changing experience in many ways. I’ve been observing in silence for several weeks now and I’ve learned so much!

I disagree with Dude as I had stated earlier, but I am wondering why you think it is necessary to "sin" in order to not believe Mormonism?

I didn’t mean to suggest that it is necessary to “sin” in order to not believe in Mormonism – only that I’ve come to see that embracing “sin” is going to be (for me, at least) the way to finally free myself from the bonds of this ingenious and insidiously designed system of “religion”.

Or why is "sin" necessary to step away from Mormonism?

As The Dude so eloquently put it: “ It shows who is boss, who is in control, who has the right to believe or disbelieve at will.”

I now understand that one of the few truly “inspired” parts of the Book of Mormon is the account of Korihor. (In fact, I’m starting to wonder if – just maybe – the words of Korihor most accurately represent how Joseph Smith really viewed the world. When you consider how enthusiastically he embraced the carnal pleasures of life as he gained power and dominion over his followers, the words of Korihor become the only non-cynical things he wrote in his “Golden Bible”:

Ye say that this people is a free people. Behold, I say they are in bondage. Ye say that those ancient prophecies are true. Behold, I say that ye do not know that they are true.

Ye say that this people is a guilty and a fallen people, because of the transgression of a parent. Behold, I say that a child is not guilty because of its parents.

And ye also say that Christ shall come. But behold, I say that ye do not know that there shall be a Christ. And ye say also that he shall be slain for the sins of the world—

And thus ye lead away this people after the foolish traditions of your fathers, and according to your own desires; and ye keep them down, even as it were in bondage, that ye may glut yourselves with the labors of their hands, that they durst not look up with boldness, and that they durst not enjoy their rights and privileges.

Yea, they durst not make use of that which is their own lest they should offend their priests, who do yoke them according to their desires, and have brought them to believe, by their traditions and their dreams and their whims and their visions and their pretended mysteries, that they should, if they did not do according to their words, offend some unknown being, who they say is God—a being who never has been seen or known, who never was nor ever will be.

WOW!!!

I don’t think there is anything in Joseph Smith’s unexceptional and monotonous novella that approaches the simple eloquence of this statement of “Korihor” (a.k.a. Joseph Smith).

The “Church” has defined for its members those things that it considers to be “sins”. And, almost without exception, those things are the “rights and privileges” that we as human beings are most naturally drawn to; things that feel good to us; things that celebrate the beauty and sensuality of our being.

The “Church” would have us mortify those aspects of our existence. It systematically manipulates our minds and hearts to feel guilt and shame for yielding to our natural desires – even to the point that it has coined a phrase (“the natural man”) to which it has attached the ultimate in negative connotations. “The Natural Man” (or Woman) is, by definition in the Church, something BAD! From our childhood onward, they have inculcated in us this sense that we are supposed to fight against our humanity – our “natural” tendencies. They attempt to make us believe that we cannot make use of that which is our own lest we offend our leaders and the god they have manufactured for our worship.

And what sort of "sin" is necessary?

What is “necessary” is to come to the realization that there is no such thing as “sin”. “Sin”, as used by Mormonism (and most of the world’s religions) is simply a tool of control.

Do you need to break all the rules or just some of them?

You need to reject all the “rules” made by others to control you.

Is shopping on Sunday enough or must one rob a jewelry store? Would using a few F-bombs be enough or would you have to have an affair?

To be honest I do not understand this line of reasoning.

To be honest, I detect in your response a residual effect of Mormonism on your lines of reasoning. It’s not a question of the gravity of specific sins. I have concluded that “sin” -- as a construct and component of our lives -- must be rejected entirely. Our ethos must derive from a radically different source than that provided by religion. It just so happens that much of what is defined as “sin” consists of those things that most humans find gratifying and pleasurable. Rather than hanging our heads in shame as we yield to these desires, we should “look up with boldness” as we enjoy our rights and privileges in life.

[_truth dancer]

He Persephone,

Thank you for your reply and for clarifying your views.

It is interesting to hear how others experience their disbelief.

I'm glad you found the board and I'm glad it has been helpful for you!

:-)

td

[_Persephone]

You don't reach the point where you can stop repenting. If you stop bad things tend to happen. I make it a daily habit.

This is a prime example of the mindset that Mormonism inculcates. "I'm bad for giving in to urges to do these 'bad things,' therefore I must feel bad for giving in and I must go tell the bishop how bad I have been and I must promise that I will never do the bad things again ..."

OMG! Can't you see how twisted this kind of thinking is?

Ye look forward and say that ye see a remission of your sins. But behold, it is the effect of a frenzied mind; and this derangement of your minds comes because of the traditions of your fathers, which lead you away into a belief of things which are not so.

[_Thama]

It’s not a question of the gravity of specific sins. I have concluded that “sin” -- as a construct and component of our lives -- must be rejected entirely. Our ethos must derive from a radically different source than that provided by religion. It just so happens that much of what is defined as “sin” consists of those things that most humans find gratifying and pleasurable. Rather than hanging our heads in shame as we yield to these desires, we should “look up with boldness” as we enjoy our rights and privileges in life.

While I agree that we need to find a logical basis for morality outside of religion, this does not need to reflect a rejection of the lessons we have learned from religion. Sin often reflects that which is gratifying and pleasurable, but also frequently (though not always) reflects that which is destructive, either to others or to oneself in the long term. Religious proscriptions have generally risen from a social consciousness of what works and what does not work, though they are frequently unnecessarily restrictive.

[_The Dude]

This is perhaps the single greatest quote I have come across on this message board. Reading these words has inspired me to join the conversation here.

The Dude has convinced me that sin (so-called) is the answer to the dilemma I have entertained for so long now.

Thanks Dude![/color]

Thanks for the huge compliment, Persephone. Those quotes from Korihor are good ones too, and fit perfectly with what I think about so-called sin. I know for me there were sins that truly helped me break away from the Mormon mindset.

Of course, it also helped to find information about the church on the internet, evidence that makes it so hard to keep having faith. I understand why critics and ex-mormons like to focus on that information -- it's so much easier to talk and debate those things. (Wow, my head is spinning just to think how much more sinning it would have required for me to leave without information on the world wide web.)

[_truth dancer]

Hi Thama,

While I agree that we need to find a logical basis for morality outside of religion, this does not need to reflect a rejection of the lessons we have learned from religion. Sin often reflects that which is gratifying and pleasurable, but also frequently (though not always) reflects that which is destructive, either to others or to oneself in the long term. Religious proscriptions have generally risen from a social consciousness of what works and what does not work, though they are frequently unnecessarily restrictive.

My experience is very similar to yours. :-)

Letting go of Mormonism for me was more about clarifying what I believe in my mind and heart was healthy and healing OR hurtful and destructive, and not trying to change, alter, or even integrate my personal beliefs into the doctrines of Mormonism.

Some of my personal beliefs are in line with the teachings of Mormonism and many other religions and faith traditions, (helping our neighbors, caring for those in need, etc. etc). Others however, were easily released. ;-)

~dancer~

[_The Dude]

While I agree that we need to find a logical basis for morality outside of religion, this does not need to reflect a rejection of the lessons we have learned from religion. Sin often reflects that which is gratifying and pleasurable, but also frequently (though not always) reflects that which is destructive, either to others or to oneself in the long term. Religious proscriptions have generally risen from a social consciousness of what works and what does not work, though they are frequently unnecessarily restrictive.

I used to have a quote from somebody that went something like "Real sins are things that harm other people and everything else is made-up nonsense." It might have been Kurt Vonnegut. I can't remember.

I guess what I'm talking about is that you ought to violate the made up nonsense. DON'T go to church on sunday. DON'T pray. DON'T read the Book of Mormon for the 20th time. DO watch the kind of R-rated movies that you've always wanted to see. DO see if you like coffee and tea, and alcohol if you want. Oh sure, too much alcohol is dangerous but it isn't a sin, and it should be tried at least once. Maybe even a cigarette -- just to show you are free. DO experiment with sex and eroticism, but not foolishly. DO masturbate, and look at pornography if you are curious. DO gamble, but only what you can afford to loose. DO take off your temple garments and talk openly about what went on in the temple, if anyone cares to listen. DO read things that are critical of the church... etc.

These are sins that Mormons will say are spiritually damaging, and liable to harm a person's testimony. And I'm just saying: that's 100% true and it's an important thing for us unbelievers to recognize and admit. We shouldn't get defensive about it. We should even encourage it.

I'm not saying people ought to go overboard and live dangerously. Use common sense. And if you do make a mistake, as long as it doesn't harm somebody else, you have the wonderful opportunity of forgiving yourself because it's nobody else's business!

[_Persephone]

The Dude:
I used to have a quote from somebody that went something like "Real sins are things that harm other people and everything else is made-up nonsense."

Thanks again, Dude, for your well-spoken wisdom that has done so much for me.

For the most part, I can agree with this definition. However, I have come to appreciate that sometimes other people do have to get hurt in the process of one working free from the shackles of “righteousness” (so-called).

Here’s a good example. I have a good friend who had been married to a guy for over twenty years. Four children, one on a mission, she was the YW president in her ward. She is a very artistic and sensual woman, but she had been suppressing these aspects of her being all during her marriage. Her husband is a nice guy, but boring as hell and completely incapable of carrying on a profound conversation about anything.

Not too long ago she took a job (her first since marriage) doing clerical work for a man in the ward (a counselor in the bishopric). In course of time, she began to have meaningful and satisfying conversations with this man. Turns out he was in a marriage that was almost the mirror image of her own. Her husband and his wife both believed that being “righteous” also depended on what you did in your marriage bed. Simply put, both couples’ sex lives were more or less non-existent – mostly on account of the belief (put in their heads by church leaders) that many expressions of sexuality were “worldly” or “unnatural”.

To make a long story short, my friend and the bishop’s counselor commenced an extra-marital affair. She ultimately informed her husband that she was in love with another man; they were divorced, and now she is happily carrying on with the “other man” (even as he awaits the finalization of his own divorce.)

Now, I don’t know if they’ll be “eternally” happy together. In fact, I’ve already seen signs that they probably won’t. But this friend of mine, in the process of “sinning”, has also come to see that the “Church” is just another man-made mechanism of control designed to enslave many for the benefit of a very few. She has escaped its bonds and is enthusiastically exploring the aspects of her humanity that she mortified for all those years.

Have other people – innocent people – been hurt as a result of the “sins” of my friend and her lover? Yes. But what is worse? That she suffer through a life of dissatisfaction and loneliness, or that she act to make the rest of her life as meaningful as possible, despite the ramifications of her choices on those around her? Would it have been better to have “kept it together for the kids”? Or is the joy of sexual gratification and meaningful human interaction worth the price that her former husband and children will pay for her infidelity?

You see, this is where the equation gets complex. Many would say that my friend is much better off for her decisions than she would have been if she had chosen to remain in her dissatisfying marriage, and that her self-interest in this respect Trump's the interests of those affected by her decisions.

[_Ray A]

You see, this is where the equation gets complex. Many would say that my friend is much better off for her decisions than she would have been if she had chosen to remain in her dissatisfying marriage, and that her self-interest in this respect Trump's the interests of those affected by her decisions.

This isn't very complex for me, because it's what happened to me. Ex met someone else (her real soulmate) at work, and just impliment the rest of the story you told above. Of course it's hard at first, but you can adjust to any situation if you try.

Me? Never been happier. Feel like I didn't really start living until after the marriage.

Win - Win.