You can leave the Church, but...

[_Drifting]

Do you think it was ex beauty queen Joni Hilton's intention to make the Mormon Church seem just like Scientology at a time when Mitt The Twit is trying to fulfil the white horse doctrine?

If it was, Bravo Joni, Bravo...

[_Cicero]

The attitude and behavior lauded by this article and the comments to it are precisely what causes differing levels of belief to destroy families. If you can't call or visit a family member without being harassed or told that you're going to be "toast" come judgment day, it won't be long before you start avoiding that family member, and if that family member happens to be your spouse then your marriage is likely not going to last.

But hey, family first right? That's how we roll . . .

[_Mary]

And isn't it interesting that, when pushed to this point, most will not write that letter. I believe it is because deep in their hearts, they know Joseph Smith was telling the truth, and they don't want to take that final, tragic step.

This bit is stunningly silly.

I was christened Church of England and have never asked to have my name removed. Why should I? I don't believe in many of the truth claims of the LDS church, nor in much of the culture or practice...but the day I consider it important enough to have my name removed from the C of E, is the day I'll request my name removed from the LDS church. Part of me will always be C of E and part of me will always be LDS, simply by virtue of the years I spent in them. I'm not ashamed of my life neither do I regret it (mostly!)....

[_Drifting]

From the same author...

I recently received a jury summons. It’s another whole story, but in the course of the jury selection process I was seated in the Pool of the Un-chosen for a day and watched, with 75 other citizens, as the attorneys asked randomly selected prospective jurors questions that would help them stack the jury in favor of their client.

One of the attorneys represented the defendant, a man accused of growing and selling marijuana. The lawyer obviously wanted to ask questions that would help him find the recreational pot smokers who didn’t think selling marijuana was all that big of a deal. He also wanted to see who watched TV cop shows and might be overly sympathetic to the arresting officer.

And so he asked the jurors about their experience using marijuana. Next he asked about the TV shows they watched. And three different women admitted to regularly watching NCIS. This is not terribly remarkable until the attorney asked them why. And it wasn’t because of the legal intrigue, the plot, or the writing. Every one of them giggled and confessed it was because they liked watching one of the stars, Michael Weatherly.

It was all I could do not to jump up and shout, “Are you kidding me? You don’t even know him! And you’re old enough to be his mother! And every one of you are married!” Would a man have confessed that he watches a cop show because of a certain sexy female cop? Would he not have cringed with embarrassment to be so shallow? And are you telling me that, if I were accused of a crime, these are the ninnies who would be deciding my fate?

I desperately wanted to get onto that jury if only to balance the scales and insert some logic and reason into the deliberations. But it was not to be. Though selected, I was promptly dismissed after the defendant overheard me during a break in the hallway, telling another juror I was LDS.

[_Stormy Waters]

And isn't it interesting that, when pushed to this point, most will not write that letter. I believe it is because deep in their hearts, they know Joseph Smith was telling the truth, and they don't want to take that final, tragic step.

I think it's worth noting something I only recently learned. That the reason that you can resign is because someone sued the LDS church in 1985 and basically forced them to accept resignations. Before they would try to force you through the excommunication process.

http://www.mormonnomore.com/legal-precedent

If they had their way it would have been pure harrassment all the way out.

[_Drifting]

And isn't it interesting that, when pushed to this point, most will not write that letter. I believe it is because deep in their hearts, they know Joseph Smith was telling the truth, and they don't want to take that final, tragic step.

I think it's worth noting something I only recently learned. That the reason that you can resign is because someone sued the LDS church in 1985 and basically forced them to accept resignations. Before they would try to force you through the excommunication process.

http://www.mormonnomore.com/legal-precedent

If they had their way it would have been pure harrassment all the way out.

Unbelievable.
Cult.

[_angsty]

Why am I not surprised? So creepy.

Resigning more or less took care of being bothered by the local congregation. It sure was a hassle though-- I had to follow up by phone before they would agree to just put me on the damn list. They gave me the expected "We consider this to be a local ecclesiastical matter" tripe in the initial response. I called them right up and told that when I resigned, my obligations in this matter were fulfilled, that whatever further hoops they created were theirs to deal with, that I wouldn't take any further trouble, and that their obligation was to remove my name from their records and send me a letter of confirmation as-requested. Then, I had to follow up multiple times after that to get the damn confirmation letter because they claimed to have recurring problems with the US Postal Service and my mailing address-- funny how the Postal Service had no problem delivering the stupid form letters they sent trying to prolong my membership and force me to make an appointment with the bishop!

Now the only uninvited Mormonism in my life consists of the occasional intrusion by those "nice young men on bicycles". I wish they'd create a "Do Not Knock" list that would function much like the "Do Not Call" registry. I'd love to opt out of being the object of future missionary opportunities.

They sure don't make it easy for an apostate to leave them alone.

[_Blixa]

From the same author...

I recently received a jury summons. It’s another whole story, but in the course of the jury selection process I was seated in the Pool of the Un-chosen for a day and watched, with 75 other citizens, as the attorneys asked randomly selected prospective jurors questions that would help them stack the jury in favor of their client.

One of the attorneys represented the defendant, a man accused of growing and selling marijuana. The lawyer obviously wanted to ask questions that would help him find the recreational pot smokers who didn’t think selling marijuana was all that big of a deal. He also wanted to see who watched TV cop shows and might be overly sympathetic to the arresting officer.

And so he asked the jurors about their experience using marijuana. Next he asked about the TV shows they watched. And three different women admitted to regularly watching NCIS. This is not terribly remarkable until the attorney asked them why. And it wasn’t because of the legal intrigue, the plot, or the writing. Every one of them giggled and confessed it was because they liked watching one of the stars, Michael Weatherly.

It was all I could do not to jump up and shout, “Are you kidding me? You don’t even know him! And you’re old enough to be his mother! And every one of you are married!” Would a man have confessed that he watches a cop show because of a certain sexy female cop? Would he not have cringed with embarrassment to be so shallow? And are you telling me that, if I were accused of a crime, these are the ninnies who would be deciding my fate?

I desperately wanted to get onto that jury if only to balance the scales and insert some logic and reason into the deliberations. But it was not to be. Though selected, I was promptly dismissed after the defendant overheard me during a break in the hallway, telling another juror I was LDS.

Oh thank you for this, Drifting! That is a gem!

[_son of Ishmael]

And isn't it interesting that, when pushed to this point, most will not write that letter. I believe it is because deep in their hearts, they know Joseph Smith was telling the truth, and they don't want to take that final, tragic step.

That's funny. I just wrote my letter and it was it was awesome. I feel free at last.

[Guest]

In case anyone has missed it...
The title is a twist on Joseph Smiths statement: that once someone leaves the church they just can't leave it alone.
it seems he really did have a gift for understanding and entrapping the human psyche. ( I wonder if it was being said about mobs of ex-mos, who felt they had been duped and wanted some restorative justice? )

It has also been mentioned in Glenn L Pace's 'EXCELLENT' talk found here...https://www.LDS.org/general-conference/1989/04/follow-the-prophet?lang=eng

Or here's the best Excerpt here:

We are strange to nonmembers—until they get to know us.

In this regard, my counsel to members would be to relax, lighten up, mellow out, and not get so huffy. While the gospel is sacred and serious, sometimes we take ourselves a little too seriously. A sense of humor, especially about ourselves, is an attribute worthy of development.

Other criticisms we receive from nonmembers are a little more painful. Criticism always hurts most when we deserve it. There are a few active members who don’t live up to what they have been taught. They can be condescending, intolerant, or clannish. Such characteristics strike at the very heart of the second great commandment, “Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.” (Matt. 22:39.) One can be a friend to all without participating in all of their activities. How shortsighted one is to place church denominational limits on his friendships. How one robs himself when his friendship is contingent upon another’s willingness to listen to the first discussion.

We would eliminate the most painful criticism from responsible nonmembers by simply internalizing and living what the Church teaches.

The second category of critics is former members who have become disenchanted with the Church but who are obsessed with making vicious and vile attacks upon it. Most members and nonmembers alike see these attacks for what they really are. What credibility can possibly be given to a person who mocks beliefs held sacred by another? Anyone who would resort to these attacks unwittingly discloses his or her true character—or lack of the same. As members of the Church, we are appalled by such attacks. Hopefully, however, they make us more sensitive and extra careful not to make light of the sacred beliefs of other denominations.

In addition to attacking our sacred beliefs, some former members speak evil of the Brethren. Joseph Smith received his share of this criticism from the dissidents of his day. The Lord’s revelation to him is applicable to us today:

“Cursed are all those that shall lift up the heel against mine anointed, saith the Lord, and cry they have sinned when they have not sinned before me, saith the Lord, but have done that which was meet in mine eyes, and which I commanded them.

“But those who cry transgression do it because they are the servants of sin, and are the children of disobedience themselves.” (D&C 121:16–17.)

It seems that history continues to teach us: You can leave the Church, but you can’t leave it alone. The basic reason for this is simple. Once someone has received a witness of the Spirit and accepted it, he leaves neutral ground. One loses his testimony only by listening to the promptings of the evil one, and Satan’s goal is not complete when a person leaves the Church, but when he comes out in open rebellion against it.

The last category of criticism I will address comes from within the Church itself. This criticism is more lethal than that coming from nonmembers and former members. The danger lies not in what may come from a member critic, but in the chance that we might become one.

One activity which often leads a member to be critical is engaging in inappropriate intellectualism. While it would seem the search for and discovery of truth should be the goal of all Latter-day Saints, it appears some get more satisfaction from trying to discover new uncertainties. I have friends who have literally spent their lives, thus far, trying to nail down every single intellectual loose end rather than accepting the witness of the Spirit and getting on with it. In so doing, they are depriving themselves of a gold mine of beautiful truths which cannot be tapped by the mind alone.

Elder Faust describes this type of intellectual as “a person who continues to chase after a bus even after he has caught it.” We invite everyone to get on the bus before it’s out of sight and you are left forever trying to figure out the infinite with a finite mind. In the words of Elijah, “How long halt ye between two opinions? if the Lord be God, follow him.” (1 Kgs. 18:21.)

Inappropriate intellectualism sometimes leads one to testify that he knows the gospel is true but believes the Brethren are just a little out of touch. Out of touch with what? Don’t confuse a decision to abstain from participating in a trend with a lack of awareness about its existence. These Brethren “prove all things” and “hold fast that which is good.” (1 Thes. 5:21.) To accomplish this, they are in constant touch with Him who created this earth and knows the world from beginning to end.

There are some of our members who practice selective obedience. A prophet is not one who displays a smorgasbord of truth from which we are free to pick and choose. However, some members become critical and suggest the prophet should change the menu. A prophet doesn’t take a poll to see which way the wind of public opinion is blowing. He reveals the will of the Lord to us. The world is full of deteriorating churches who have succumbed to public opinion and have become more dedicated to tickling the ears of their members than obeying the laws of God.

In 1831, some converts wanted to bring a few of their previous beliefs into the Church with them. Our problem today is with members who seem very vulnerable to the trends in society (and the pointing fingers which attend them) and want the Church to change its position to accommodate them. The doctrinal grass on the other side of the fence looks very green to them.

The Lord’s counsel in 1831 is relevant today: “Behold, I say unto you, that they desire to know the truth in part, but not all, for they are not right before me and must needs repent.” (D&C 49:2.)