Well, do they believe the crazy bullshit, or are they just an opportunist looking to make connections? Church is lucrative.
How could you be a Mormon if you don’t genuinely believe that Jackson County Missouri is the actual location of the Garden of Eden?
The funny thing is, I grew up with a bunch of Mormons for friends and one teacher I know of, and I never found out about most of the stuff they believe until much later. At least they (the ones I grew up with anyway) have the decency to not go around spreading their dogma to non-believers until they’ve already thoroughly roped them into their cult.
What do you call an 8 year old girl in Utah who can out run her Bishop?
I don’t know. Would you tell me?
Safe
I hope she’s a good distance runner since there’s no mass transit in much of Utah. It also explains why Japanese internment camps were located there and modern juvenile detention centers can often be found in places like Blanding, Utah: it’s difficult to physically and anonymously escape.
I think it’s pretty logical to outwardly seem like a Mormon in Utah, so I guess it depends.
It’s always so hard to read and understand when people start using them/they when referring to a single person. Please stop, it’s okay to say him/her, nobody will die.
Examples of the singular “they” being used to describe someone features as early as 1386 in Geoffrey Chaucer’s The Canterbury Tales and also in famous literary works like Shakespeare’s Hamlet in 1599.
“They” and “them” were still being used by literary authors to describe people in the 17th Century too - including by Jane Austin[sic] in her 1813 novel Pride and Prejudice.
https://www.bbc.com/news/newsbeat-49754930
Personally, I think I’ll keep using a pronoun the way that worked for Chaucer, Shakespeare and Austen.
And you completely miss the point where it’s much harder to comprehend what people are talking about. Had it said “he/him” it would have been 100% clear without a doubt immediately, and it would have insulted NOBODY.
Nobody was insulted by him/her since forever, now we can’t use that anymore because somehow it’s exclusionary, insulting or “assuming the obvious gender”
Why do you care so much what words people use? How did words hurt you? Can you show us on the doll?
In this case, it was pretty easy to understand but I agree with what you are saying
I appreciate the idea that people don’t want to offend other people, but I wish people would consider the intent rather than the word choice. But I guess in a way, Poes law ruined that for the Internet.
The reason I used they/them is because I wanted to remove as much identifiable information as possible.
The reason I will now continue to use them is because you complained about me using them.
You just made the world worse for yourself by expressing your opinion. What a silly goose you are.
I am going to tell my boss and they won’t be happy.
My boss’s favorite saying is to just make logical decisions.
I can’t take him/her seriously because he/she is a Mormon and that’s the least logical decision you can make.
The ramblings of an absolute madman. This is what they’ve been demanding your respect for.
Wait till you hear about Jehova’s witnesses.
Blood transfusions and birthday celebrations are the work of the devil?
Say it isn’t so!
Fun fact: “blood transfusions”-less techniques are useful to develop in case of blood shortage among other reasons. So Jehovah witness’s stubbornness at least have some benefits for medecine. Sucks that it also kills some of them though.
Not that this is a competition, but both score about equally high on the BITE model for identifying cults.
I wish I could stop hearing them knock on my door. They don’t just knock once.
My favorite saying is:
Not my monkey, not my circus
Edit: flipped my saying around by accident. I guess I do need more sleep
Most people don’t actually know what logic is. I would ask him to define logic to see where he’s coming from. Because most people either don’t have a definition or if they do it’s different than the one the person they’re talking to has. But to do that, you’ll also want a definition you could explain to someone else going into asking the question.
Boss just wants everyone to take a big deep breath (and pray?) before making a big decision
And taking a step back and taking a moment to see how you feel about the options is pretty sound advice.
I’ll take a swing at it. I’m curious how I’ll do if I just wing it.
Logic is a set of rules that can be used to form repeatable results based on given information. It’s often built using one’s own knowledge and experience. Logic does not require producing accurate results. Flawed logic is still logic. Logic also does not guarantee that the results are the desired results, this is sometimes described as “garbage in, garbage out”.
Is that satisfactory?
A slightly different hot take:
Professing to be a mormon is a logical decision if your culture is mormon.
Disinterest in pursuing a more empirical world view is not illogical if one would have to damage their relationship with those closest to them in its pursuit.
(Sorry about the pretentiousness of that (and this) sentence, I can’t find a more vernacular way of expressing these ideas succinctly).
What you said (and such defenses of religion) makes me think: If I see someone ready to jump off a bridge, and I can stop them against their will, should I? I mean, inside their brain they are ending their suffering. They don’t see value in life. But I do. Whose worldview is more important?
What if it was drugs, should I stop them? What if it was drinking every weekend? What if it was refusing to go outside without a mask in the middle of a pandemic?
What if it was following the cult of their parents, which encourages abuse & discrimination of women, opression of minorities, supression & regression of scientific advances and further indoctrination of future generations? If I have the power to get someone out of their cult against their will, should I?
Or what if it was continuing to feed a system that brainwashes people into thinking that monetary gain is what’s important in life, that the system is infallible, and no alternatives exist?
Should we act against what we perceive as wrong, even if it’s against the will of other persons? Where do we draw the line? Who decides what is right and what is wrong?
Following my first example, it is logical that a person that sees no value in life would want to commit suicide. It is logical to want to end one’s suffering. It would be illogical for them to continue living a life of misery and suffering. It would be illogical for them to expect changes for the better, given their past experiences.
So why do we stop suicides? Why do we prevent them? Isn’t it logical for such person to commit suicide?
Thanks for voicing this, I also find it interesting.
The problem is, I’ve been a supporter of suicide for ages, so I feel like in not your target audience. I guess it’s really tricky because often the logic is using flawed assumption or blinders - no one is an island, it’s impossible to die without affecting those around you…
Obviously religions, world views and differences of priorities are more nuanced, but I really appreciate your approach of not interfering with ones agency.
Is there a tie-in with the paradox of tolerance, here? Feels like it
I’m happy my comment has sparked some thought. You asked a lot of open ended questions and I can’t take the time to address them right now I hope you’re not disappointed when you learn all i have to say right now is that:
Not every suicide is illogical, and I’m thankful to live in a society that recognizes that, and provides medical assistance in dieing but I don’t have enough information to weigh in with more specificity than that.
For one thing, some suicides leave dependents behind who can’t take care of themselves without the person who committed suicide.
If that was pretentious, I must be some kind of stuck up asshole
But Is he a good boss and is he a good person?
Perfectly tolerable as both in my view.
This just isn’t one of their strengths.
Hot take: Mormon doctrine is no stranger or harder to believe than any other flavor of Christianity. They’re just a minority so they stand out more.
Mormon church practices however are straight up low level cult behavior.
It’s harder to believe because it’s easily disproven. Turns out Joseph’s “translation” of ancient Egyptian wasn’t inspired.
The Bible is just as easy to disprove my dude. Neither book is real, our society just pretends one is more reasonable.
I mostly agree with you, though the babble has the upper hand with older and better-funded propaganda campaigns spanning more time and regions and organizations using it for political manipulation. It’s had more polishing, rewriting, adapting, and state-backed proliferation (including by use of armies to wipe out competitors). It also borrowed many more mythical elements from other existing religions. Joseph Smith’s version is newer, and the mythology a bit sloppier, so the average person can conceivably judge the odd parts of its modern context easier. One is star wars and the other is an underfunded filler show on Netflix on its second season in 10 years by comparison. Which one has the better chance of having someone in your life convince you to give it a shot, and disincentivizes you from criticizing it in social settings more?
Not just as easy. There’s a lot of room for someone to say “this was actually just metaphor” or even “these are just stories to convey values”.
Take the tower of Babel, for example, we know it never happened. However, a more progressive Christian or Jewish tradition can use the story to talk about how sometimes cultural differences are simply surface level, we are all ultimately the same people. Mormons aren’t so lucky because the book of Mormon was pitched as a literal history and part of the book has literal refugees from the tower of Babel.
Unlike the Bible, we have the author of the religion who very well documented how literal everything is. We don’t even know who authored nearly any book in the Bible or their motivations.
I’m not arguing for a god, I’m an atheist exmo. However, there’s a pretty big difference between a bunch of old stories compiled together into a book and a book of fiction that the author went out of his way to claim was “the most correct book ever written”.
The only difference is time my dude. You can just say stories from the Book of Mormon are metaphor, give them the exact same treatment and get the same result.
I’m an atheist exJW myself so I have a similar background.
No but any religion is similarly “illogical”, Mormons are the same as other Christians with extra “m”
I mean, I can’t think of another sect of christianity that requires special underwear. Outerwear, sure, but underwear? Creepy.
Is that really creepier than other Christian practices, or is mainstream Christianity just so normalized that you don’t question it?
It is a little different when your origin story is very obviously a mediocre conman having his shitty cons described by multiple eye witness accounts and having your myths be 2000 years old with no first hand accounts.
As opposed to the obvious con man Saul of Tarsus?
Like I said, it’s different when you have the actual daily journals of people calling it a con.
Or his wife calling him a liar after he stuck his head in a hat to get his prophecies.
Like, regardless of the fact that to religious types the age of the belief has value, it’s just a whole different level of obvious bullcrap beyond simply believing in the supernatural.
Most christians pretend to be cannibals as a weekly rite.
The person they are cannibalizing is the same one they worship.
The extra layer of clothes is the most boring thing about mormons.
Really? Is it not painfully obvious this is a symbolistic practise / metaphor
You can say whatever you like bud, its creepy to roleplay as cannibals as a core of your religion.
Well, when you put it like that…
Just Catholics, iirc.
Catholics are the only ones who aren’t pretending, they honestly believe they’re cannibals
yep, which is most christians
50.1% as of this writing! They should call a vote now while they still can.
Eastern and Oriental Orthodox are also Catholics (just not roman catholics)
No, there are plenty that do it. Not weekly, but most do it yearly. I’ve known nondenominational places, lutheran, baptist, episcopalian, and methodists that do.
I think Protestant do it too
Actually, mormons think they are very logical. I’ve seen many instances of people talking about how Brandon Sanderson being Mormon is why he’s so thorough at world building.
Does he write his world building on golden plates?
Perhaps he dictates his stories using a seer stone while staring into a hat?
dum dum dum dum dum
The flaw of the meme isn’t that it’s picking on religion, the flaw of it is that it assumes illogical views negate logical views. Believing that angels hid golden plates in New England doesn’t negate good looks at a P&L in the same way that a Christian working at NASA that believes a dude rose from the dead doesn’t negate good math to get a satellite into space. In the same way that me being agnostic doesn’t mean I’m always logical and rational in every situation.
I argue the opposite and I think the difference is that you believe religious belief can be demarcated in a persons mind where I think it influences all decision making.
I.e. Does my boss make decisions on P&L because they are good at business or because they prayed on it?
You and my boss might look at all the same information and arrive at the same conclusion except how can you be sure that the path my boss took reflects your own logic and not prayer?
If the information about your world passes through a filter to determine if it fits your world view or not it’s possible to serendipitously make the logical decision but it doesn’t mean fundamentally you accept the logic of the situation at hand.
If your foundational understanding of what constitutes possibility, I.e. that when Jesus died he was transported to north America for 3 days prior to being resurrected I have trouble believing this doesn’t influence your day to day decisions.
It’s like fat people telling you to eat healthy. Just because they don’t do it doesn’t mean it’s bad advice
But it does mean they shouldn’t be taken seriously for any kind of health related advice in general.
Reminds me of the rabbi whose congregation complained about his many vices, saying that he’s supposed to be better, he’s supposed to show them the way. So he brought them to the edge of the town and showed them a direction sign.
“Does it show you the way? It does. And do you want it to go anywhere?”
Boss says “make logical decisions”. Insights like this are why they pay him the big bucks. Not just anybody can come up with such insights. (/s)
If they had the vocabulary, they probably would say that they live by heavyweight axioms like “Joseph Smith was a prophet of God” and “The Book of Mormon is true”. From my experience, it is possible to exercise logic with flawed axioms so long as you steer clear of a liberal arts education (my mistake, lol).
If your boss is a man, it’s easy to explain that logically: possibility for multiple women.
Mormons don’t do that anymore. They do believe that they’ll get their own planet to be God over though
How does that work?
I barely have the time or money for one of them.
