Good luck with that.
When I was a member living in Utah and ran into a financial issue they wanted to look at my bills and help me figure out how to cut costs out of my budget first.
His suggestion- cancel your cell phones a land line is much cheaper. He also suggested I sell my smart phone and get a dumb phone.
That wouldn’t have helped at all as at that time phones were on contracts for 2 years and I’d have had to pay for the full price of the phone if I left the contract early. I’d have LOST $500 between retail and what I could sell the phone for.
I ended up just borrowing money from a friend.
Keep in mind the Mormon church has a hedge fund worth OVER $100 billion.
I’ve never seen a non-white Mormon
That makes sense if you’ve read what their book says about non-white people.
2 Nephi 5:
…wherefore, as they were white, and exceedingly fair and delightsome, that they might not be enticing unto my people the Lord God did cause a skin of blackness to come upon them.
And thus saith the Lord God: I will cause that they shall be loathsome unto thy people, save they shall repent of their iniquities.
And cursed shall be the seed of him that mixeth with their seed; for they shall be cursed even with the same cursing. And the Lord spake it, and it was done.
And because of their cursing which was upon them they did become an idle people, full of mischief and subtlety, and did seek in the wilderness for beasts of prey.
And the Lord God said unto me: They shall be a scourge unto thy seed, to stir them up in remembrance of me; and inasmuch as they will not remember me, and hearken unto my words, they shall scourge them even unto destruction.
Emphasis added.
Thanks for sharing this, I will shut the door in their faces even harder than before.
If you can do it politely but with a firm rejection of what they believe, that’s one way to undermine their persecution narrative. A purpose of their mission trips is to widen the divide between them and the “gentiles” (because coming up with their own term for the rest of us would be hard) so they’ll get embedded deeper into the crazy.
As much as I’d like to send them off with profanity and a slammed door, that reaction plays into the hands of their leaders. It helps to remember that they’re victims of abuse and indoctrination even as they try to drag you in.
Bonus points if you can plug !exmormon@lemmy.world or other similar resources that might help them find a way out.
If you can do it politely but with a firm rejection of what they believe, that’s one way to undermine their persecution narrative.
No, it genuinely isn’t. I’ve known enough people who grew up in these cults. Under these modern “christians are so persecuted” narratives, simply communicating a disbelief in their religion is literally persecution. There is really nothing that will work, because, in their minds, undermining their narrative is persecution in and of itself, no matter how demonstrably good the thing you did is.
They determine good acts and ideas from bad ones not by value, merit, or impact, but by whether or not it agrees with their existing belief structure. Making them uncomfortable enough not to come back is the only thing you can do that will do anyone any good.
What you’re suggesting is a waste of my time, and it gives them opportunity to attempt rebuttal which is more time wasted. Closed door with no comment is enough, if they knock again I’m pulling out the super soaker.
Saying “No thanks” and politely closing the door is too much effort?
Pretty sure yelling profanities and slamming the door takes a lot more energy, super soakers even more so.
It’s odd how I keep saying with no comment, and you keep saying yelling profanities.
It’s almost like you’re illiterate, or intentionally skewing what I said.
Slamming a door doesn’t require words. No comment means no profanities being yelled.
Got that yet?
deleted by creator
It’s more effort in the long run, because if you’re polite, they’ll come back. These people have to be shut down hard if you want them to leave you alone.
deleted by creator
You’re not missing much. The only real entertainment comes from seeing when Joseph Smith starts running out of ideas for new ridiculous names and resorts to reusing old ones with a changed vowel or extra syllable tacked on (if you’re lucky). We have the internet now so there are more interesting ways to waste your time.
Yeah lol It wasn’t until my mission that I was bored enough to notice that stuff 🤣
They released a video a while ago where a black person read it, saw it was straight up racist and gave up on it, but they felt “inspiration” to keep reading it.
I believe that in 1978 God changed his mind about black people (black people!) 🎶
There was that one black Mormon from the House tv show!
Mormonism teaches that non-whites have no soul.
That is not correct.
Mormon doctrine teaches that non-white people were “less valiant” in the pre-mortal life, and that they didn’t take a side in the war in heaven. (Yes, I’m serious about all of this.) As a result, they were born to bloodlines that had been cursed by god. E.g., the Lamanites (the native Americans) had dark skins because Laman and Lemuel had rebelled against the will of god, and that was how god punished them so everyone would know they were wicked just by looking. And, of course, since children are responsible for their parents’ sins, the kids get dark skin too.
Prior to '78 or '79, non-white Mormons were permitted to be full-fledged members of the org. They could be baptized, but could not have the priesthood (which is kind of a Big Fucking Deal for Mormons). There was a lot of stuff going on behind the scenes, but in '78/9 there was a “revelation” that said non-white people should be allowed to have the priesthood and go to Mormon temples. But that legacy of racism has stuck around, and non-white people will still experience overt racism in rural parts of Utah and Arizona.
If this reads like a Scientologist’s fever-dream about Christianity, you’re not too far off.
Mormon doctrine teaches that non-white people were “less valiant” in the pre-mortal life, and that they didn’t take a side in the war in heaven.
Factually incorrect. For the real doctrine that Latter-day Saints believe regarding race, see here: https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/manual/gospel-topics/diversity-and-unity?lang=eng
“Regardless of ethnicity or outward appearance, all Church members are united in the knowledge that they are children of a Heavenly Father. They know He loves each of His children equally. This knowledge builds a feeling of unity in every building and worship service around the world and ties all members of the Church together.”
Yeah, that’s what their website says. Their website says a lot of shit that’s false, because they’re pretty big on revisionist history. I’m sure that they also say that Bruce McConkie’s “Mormon Doctrine” series was never really doctrine too. I know that they say that a lot of things prophesied by Joe Smith Jr. and Brigham Young were them “speaking as men”, despite Smith and Young explicitly saying that they were speaking for the lord.
I was raised Mormon. I was alive when the doctrine regarding non-white people and the priesthood was changed. I was a missionary. Unless you’ve done a really deep-dive on all the shit that the Morg has tried to stuff into a memory hole, I know more than you. Try listening to Mormon Discussions, Radio Free Mormon, and Mormon Stories; they cite their sources on everything. Look up Bryce Blankenagel.
I see a lot of Latino Mormons here. Then they find out they can’t have chocolate…
Their cult is whacko and are a lot of ridiculous constraints and restrictions that come along with Mormonism, but chocolate isn’t one of them.
Perhaps not specifically, but caffeine is, and I’ve never seen decaf chocolate
wait they can’t have chocolate either? I know they can’t have coffee and alcohol either lol
The ones that follow that rule are avoiding the caffeine. If decaf chocolate existed, they could have chocolate. I end up talking to a lot of Mormons because they end up being more interested the religion that I follow badly, that they have never heard of before in their lives, than I ever will be in theirs after having read part of “Pearl of Great Price.”
ETA: I attempt to follow my interpretation of the Baha’i writings. The beauty of it is that there’s a lot there, but it mostly boils down to “would you guys stop being dicks to each other? Do I really have to write a rule for every single thing you fuckers can come up with‽‽”
That last bit is my own interpretation.
Eh they usually don’t understand the rule themselves and don’t look that deeply into it. I live by a ton of Mormons and they claim it’s because of caffeine, yet they are pounding soda’s non stop lol. They love that shit.
My understanding as a former Mormon is that chocolate is pretty vague. More devout people might avoid it in the same way all “hot drinks” are avoided.
But many, many Mormons don’t care.
crueltyisthepoint.gif
The system is working as intended.
You can almost hear the Mormons reading this article, saying, “Well… good.”
Tax churches that don’t spend greater than 50% of all donations and earnings on verifiable charity.
Ban religion in politics.
Tax churches
that don’t spend greater than 50% of all donations and earnings on verifiable charity.How about we just tax churches? And other entities like them.
What does “ban religion in politics” mean? What actual conduct are you proposing to ban?
Enforce the Johnson amendment, for one.
That would be great but I don’t see how it bans religion from politics. It’s not placing any restrictions on what the government is allowed to do.
Political speech in church has an influence on voters, voters elect politicians to represent their interests. If you can take away one of the tools they’re using to hold on to power, it evens out the odds for someone who could win without being indebted to religious leaders or worried about getting their endorsement next election cycle. That’s someone who will feel less pressure to push policies that benefit those churches.
It’s not fast, it’s not perfect and it’s not the full range of what needs to be done but it is an important step.
I mean exactly what I said. Religion and politics do not and should not ever mix. Therefore, ban religion in/from politics.
That doesn’t answer the question at all. You just repeated what you said before. Are you saying you want to ban people who attend religious services from holding public offices? Ban politicians from passing laws if someone (who?) decides the law is based on religion? Do you want to legalize murder because the bible says it’s a sin?
There’s a lot of shit people get away with, like putting the ten commandments in courthouses and putting “In God we trust” on money, but that shit is already banned. You can’t just pass a law requiring the government to follow the first amendment and expect it to have any effect. So what objective standard do you want to enforce that isn’t already part of the law?
It’s a feature, not a bug.
Utah counts a percentage of the welfare provided by the LDS Church toward the state’s own welfare spending, letting the Legislature out of spending at least $75 million it otherwise would have had to spend under federal law.
What the fuck
Probably by design.
Definitely by design.
i assume they also have to pay the 10% fee (tithing) to belong.
This sounds like a slam dunk separation of church and state case. I’ve seen a lot of bs from the LDS since moving to Utah, from liquor licenses to psychiatric care, etc. I do not trust them to responsibly hand out welfare to those that need it. If they were giving out these funds directly to the state with no strings attached, fine, but it appears that they don’t and they are in control of how the aid is given, and maybe even who receives it which is hugely problematic even if they help non-mormons.
Anyone defending this as “fiscally responsible” are idiots that have no idea how this church works or how our country was meant to work.
Jokes on you, it’s actually AIDS
