3 Reasons You Should Stop Saying, ‘I Can’t, I’m Mormon’

[The Folk Prophet]

1 minute ago, Maureen said:

Do you think it's an "unlikely scenario" because by the time you said "I'm Married" you realized that the person hitting on you would think you're a dork since they already mentioned your wife. ?

M.

Good point. Let's presume they didn't know you were married and just asked for the closet break.

[person0]

9 minutes ago, The Folk Prophet said:

@Vort, as I think about it, one (faithful lds) might say "I can't, I'm married", but would that really be what they meant, or what they were using to kindly remove themselves from the situation?

Exactly.  Am I going to take the time to explain myself to someone who petitioned me to break my covenant of chastity?  Or am I going to say the quickest, most polite thing I can come up with to high tail it out of the situation?  I'd suggest that most faithful people, especially members, would pull a Joseph and flee as politely as reasonable.  

[Guest]

2 minutes ago, Maureen said:

Do you think it's an "unlikely scenario" because by the time you said "I'm Married" you realized that the person hitting on you would think you're a dork since they already mentioned your wife. ?

M.

Dang, Maureen.  You've made me give you a like.  Not only was that an excellent nit pick, but it was done with some humor and style.  I'm surprised I didn't pick up on that one myself.

[The Folk Prophet]

4 minutes ago, NeuroTypical said:

Yeah, this one was ok.  Remember, it's written by a bunch of kids, for a broad audience of people under 24, who may or may not be LDS, who may have little maturity in the gospel.  They tend to lean "there are worldly reasons to do x too!".  

But yeah, this one is a notch above their usual.  

Kid or not, I still think it takes a intentional (bolded to re-iterate with emphasis!) obtuseness to think that someone saying this means "I don't have agency".

[Vort]

1 hour ago, The Folk Prophet said:

@Vort, as I think about it, one (faithful lds) might say "I can't, I'm married", but would that really be what they meant, or what they were using to kindly remove themselves from the situation?

Yes, but I think that was more or less the point. At least in our own minds, and better yet in our public face, we should understand and represent that we do certain things and do not do other certain things because of what we believe and because of our covenants, not merely because we inhabit some social status.

[Guest]

14 hours ago, The Folk Prophet said:

Kid or not, I still think it takes a intentional (bolded to re-iterate with emphasis!) obtuseness to think that someone saying this means "I don't have agency".

What you're really arguing is semantics.  And for that matter, so is the article (and many of us on the board).  The point was to bring to our consciousness the reality that we are not "bound" by our principles.  We choose to accept our principles.

I gave the tooth-brushing analogy that I think apropos to repeat.

• When I was really young, my parents forced me to brush my teeth, promising me that it was good for me and would keep me from getting cavities.
• By the time I was in jr. high school, I did it because I knew I was supposed to.  I still found it tedious.
• Now, as an adult, my mouth feels disgusting if I skip.  I do it because I really see the need and WANT to do it.

For all three situations we say "I have to brush my teeth."  But, OH! the difference in meaning.  

In the same vein, the statement "I can't.  I'm Mormon," can mean any of those three.  I think it is important from time-to-time to analyze where we are in these three levels when it comes to our covenants and obedience to various commandments.  Do we feel forced to obey these?  Do we just drag ourselves up because we feel we really should?  Or do we see the vision and joy in doing so because to do otherwise would be unthinkable

Quote

How can I do this great wickedness and sin against God?

It's a developmental thing.  We grow from one stage to the next as we grow in the gospel.

In an office discussion with about 10 men they started talking about going to the "men's club".  I thought this was some sort of membership clubhouse or something.  As they talked in more detail mentioning women who had glitter, I realized,"Oh, THAT kind of men's club."

Their response: What!  You've never been to a ... before?
Me: No.
Them: WHAT!!?!?  Never?
Me: No
Them: Boy, we've got to get you to one of those.
Me: No, thanks anyway.  I'm pretty happy as I am.
Them: No, you don't know what you're missing.
Me: I'm pretty sure I know what I'm missing and I'd really rather not.
Them: What's your problem?

--Now at this point, I would usually opt to just walk away shaking my head.  But for some reason I remained.  I think it was because I was only there in the first place because I actually had some business with one of them.  Anyway, I remained.

Me: I don't have a problem.  I'm Mormon.
Them: (almost in unison) OH!  Ok.  Nevermind.

To me "I'm Mormon" meant that I chose to stand for certain principles and I had chosen to live up to my covenants.  To them "I'm Mormon" meant that I was a mindless drone who simply did what I was told.  It's important to revisit the meaning of the words to determine exactly where we are in our stage of development.

Edited May 11, 2017 by Guest

[NeuroTypical]

16 hours ago, The Folk Prophet said:

Kid or not, I still think it takes a intentional (bolded to re-iterate with emphasis!) obtuseness to think that someone saying this means "I don't have agency".

I absolutely agree.  And you know where you can find lots and lots and lots and lots of people being intentionally obtuse?  You find them between the ages of 12 and 25.  You can't swing a dead cat in a room of teenagers without hitting at least a dozen practitioners of intentional obtuseness.  Many of them believe it should be an olympic sport.  

I'm not the only one who remembers being one of them, right?  I have a bunch of stories that start with "back when I was a bratty (or stupid, or insolent) teenager..."  Back then, I never considered an idea worthy of consideration unless it could bludgeon itself past every half-baked argument I could throw against it.   I had a black belt in "here's why your dumb idea is dumb, prove me wrong".  I prided myself at attacking the most reasonable and well-established ideas.

Anyway, they're an audience too, and might as well serve 'em. 

Edited May 11, 2017 by NeuroTypical

[NightSG]

2 hours ago, Carborendum said:

In an office discussion with about 10 men they started talking about going to the "men's club".  I thought this was some sort of membership clubhouse or something.  As they talked in more detail mentioning women who had glitter, I realized,"Oh, THAT kind of men's club."

Their response: What!  You've never been to a ... before?
Me: No.
Them: WHAT!!?!?  Never?
Me: No
Them: Boy, we've got to get you to one of those.
Me: No, thanks anyway.  I'm pretty happy as I am.
Them: No, you don't know what you're missing.
Me: I'm pretty sure I know what I'm missing and I'd really rather not.
Them: What's your problem?

I've been known to point out that window shopping is a woman thing, and I don't go look unless I'm planning to take at least one home.  Usually shuts them up.

[Maureen]

2 hours ago, Carborendum said:

...To me "I'm Mormon" meant that I chose to stand for certain principles and I had chosen to live up to my covenants.  To them "I'm Mormon" meant that I was a mindless drone who simply did what I was told.  It's important to revisit the meaning of the words to determine exactly where we are in our stage of development.

With your scenario about the "Men's Club" you at least had a conversation about you declining the invitation. By saying you were Mormon made your explanation less long winded then it could have been, since the other men weren't understanding your refusal.

M.

Edited May 11, 2017 by Maureen

[The Folk Prophet]

19 minutes ago, NeuroTypical said:

Anyway, they're an audience too, and might as well serve 'em. 

I don't agree with this part.

[Guest]

49 minutes ago, Maureen said:

With your scenario about the "Men's Club" you at least had a conversation about you declining the invitation. By saying you were Mormon made your explanation less long winded then it could have been, since the other men weren't understanding your refusal.

M.

Yes, that is a correct analysis of the events, but I don't agree with your final conclusion.

My motivation was that I didn't want to give them the impression that I was just a mindless drone -- which is exactly what they thought in the end.  

But with the prologue, I hoped to impress upon them that just because I'm a man doesn't mean I have to participate in such activities.  I also hoped to impress upon them that being a Mormon means something special.  It is not just a bunch of mindless drones who know nothing but the life they were given.

And at least one man there did get that impression (that being a Mormon meant something special) to some degree.  Yet, even he still couldn't fully understand why I'd keep myself out.

Edited May 11, 2017 by Guest

[Maureen]

1 hour ago, Carborendum said:

...My motivation was that I didn't want to give them the impression that I was just a mindless drone -- which is exactly what they thought in the end....

Not necessarily. You could have explained till you were blue in the face why you had no interest in going to a Mens Club. But once you said "Mormon", that simple word possibly explained more to them the "root" of why you had no interest. They would of course view this from their perspective of how they saw Mormons, but in this case, that simple word explained more than having to go into a long explanation that would have still left them baffled.

M.

[NeuroTypical]

7 hours ago, The Folk Prophet said:

I don't agree with this part.

How come?

[The Folk Prophet]

30 minutes ago, NeuroTypical said:

How come?

Because I do not believe in sustaining wrong even if that wrong stems from immaturity.

[Guest]

18 hours ago, Maureen said:

Not necessarily. You could have explained till you were blue in the face why you had no interest in going to a Mens Club. But once you said "Mormon", that simple word possibly explained more to them the "root" of why you had no interest. They would of course view this from their perspective of how they saw Mormons, but in this case, that simple word explained more than having to go into a long explanation that would have still left them baffled.

M.

In other situations, I can see where that would apply.  But remember that:

1. I simply stumbled on the situation while I was on my way to do something else.  It's not like I had a pre-determined response to anything.
2. I started out simply answering a question -- "you've never been?"  I gave a simple answer to a simple question, "No."
3. They never asked my why.  Why should I feel like I have to explain myself?  They're the weirdos thinking they need to get their thrills in such a depraved manner.  Half of them were married and they still felt like I had to explain myself?  NOT!
4. My final response was to the question "What's your problem?"  -- I might have responded that "I don't have a problem.  I simply live a life of decency and respect for the women in my life.  And that does not include shoving dollar bills at women who debase themselves by allowing men to drool beer on them as they ignore their divine nature."  But not only was that more long-winded, I thought that would sound pretentious.  So in that light "I'm Mormon" pretty much summed it up.

But the prologue was actually the natural progression of the discussion.