Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

> It's frustrating for other people seeking to communicate with you.

OK then, we're done here. Chao.



I see that you eventually explained yourself (after the sideways link to someone else's comment, etc) in this https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35895085

It might have been better to just say that directly... it would have saved everyone some time and energy, including you.

Unfortunately, we don't have an adjective for someone who is deliberately opposed to a religion in English that doesn't have an extremely negative connotation.


> ... we don't have an adjective for someone who is deliberately opposed to a religion in English that doesn't have an extremely negative connotation.

That doesn't seem to be the case.

Words such as "intelligent" and "wise" spring to mind, which aren't generally regarded as negative. ;)


What about "former mormon"?


I'd agree that "former mormon" would be a better descriptor. However, "lapsed" does not seem technically incorrect to me, even though it may be more nuanced, and could possibly lead to an incorrect idea of the situation.


So I guess your objection is that "lapsed" doesn't convey sufficient intentionality?


I'm not even objecting to it. I just was asking for context around the use of that term. I've found sufficient context. It's a combination of the fact that most people don't see a (big) distinction between lapsed mormon and other terms like ex-mormon and there being previous articles using the term lapsed mormon about her.

But yes, that is precisely why I don't use that term for myself. I didn't just drift away from the church, at first. Later on I drifted away from the lifestyle, but that was after I stopped going to church, and I stopped going to church because even after asking clergy and my family I couldn't resolve issues with my faith.


I think you might just have to accept that when a lot of people use the term "lapsed mormon," they are using it as a synonym for "former mormon" and that challenging the terminology isn't really very productive.


I find the distinction interesting as someone who spent time around many Mormons and former Mormons. I knew some who rejected everything and said they were ex mormon, there were a couple who said they were no longer practicing Mormons, and others described themselves as raised mormon, or previously mormon. There were a few who were 'no longer tithing' but there was some nuance to that declaration that I think I missed as an outsider.


I don't doubt that analyzing the distinction is interesting, but it seems pointless to object to common usage by asking justifying sources to be cited.




Consider applying for YC's Winter 2026 batch! Applications are open till Nov 10

Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: