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.
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.
If that was pretentious, I must be some kind of stuck up asshole
I think it’s pretty logical to outwardly seem like a Mormon in Utah, so I guess it depends.
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.
I mean, I can’t think of another sect of christianity that requires special underwear. Outerwear, sure, but underwear? Creepy.
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.
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?
No but any religion is similarly “illogical”, Mormons are the same as other Christians with extra “m”
My favorite saying is:
Not my monkey, not my circus
Edit: flipped my saying around by accident. I guess I do need more sleep
But Is he a good boss and is he a good person?
I mean it’s damn close but if you continue to zoom out you’ll see another point even further away. That my dear is the GOP.
As someone who has worked with and for Mormons, it’s a special kind of hell. Usually some flavor of narcissist stunted at a middle-school level of inward development.
I’ve known some really nice Mormons, but if you dig below the surface, they have a lot of crazy ideas. A lot.
That is bigoted thing to say
Nothing will make you more anti-Mormon than getting to know some Mormons.
It’s accurate thing to say.
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.
Wow Reddit really did migrate here
And not just any reddit, but 2010 reddit – in both the best and the worst ways.
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.
If your boss is a man, it’s easy to explain that logically: possibility for multiple women.
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.
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.
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.
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.
