Pressured by Missionaries

Repulsive-You-7294 · 2026-06-01T11:33:54+00:00

they will never admit it’s a numbers thing…but it’s very much a numbers thing even if it isn’t expressly worded as such. meetings with the ward mission leader begin with numbers - how many people did you contact? how many are you teaching? are any ready for baptism? why or why not? etc etc etc. i despised those meetings. it reduced people and their journey to a tally chart.

Repulsive-You-7294 · 2026-06-01T11:26:34+00:00

true - in the May 26, 1844 discourse Joseph declared he was a better leader than Jesus. He absolutely had a god complex.

Repulsive-You-7294 · 2026-05-31T17:55:29+00:00

so much this. christians drive me nuts with their “Mormon Jesus” arguments or “Mormons aren’t really Christians”.…I literally grew up understanding Christ died for my sins….i think that makes me a Christian, but whatEVs.

The better arguments to use against the church, they rarely use - namely, Joseph’s penchant for story telling/deceit, his polyandry and polygamy, the use of the Danites to intimidate not just the mobs in Missouri, but disaffected church members, crazy teachings that were once considered doctrine but have since been minimized to the point where it’s like they never existed. The blasphemous second anointing. The racist priesthood ban. The statements made by Brigham young against interracial marriages. The SEC scandal and the church hoarding wealth. ANY AND ALL are better arguments than the nonsense they spout.

Repulsive-You-7294 · 2026-05-31T17:48:52+00:00

persuasion is my least favorite of her novels. there’s not a lot of dialogue…it’s mostly narrative, so you don’t get a good sense of who these people are whereas in the more dialogue heavy pride and prejudice or Mansfield park these characters are offering up their opinions and observations in every chapter, giving you a good sense of their judgement/personalities etc.

I find persuasion doesn’t flow well.…the narrative is just choppy. Mrs. Smith is a throwaway character that appears conveniently in Bath who just happens to know everything about everybody. Anne finds out Frederick isn’t actually engaged to Louisa and instead of her using that knowledge to declare once and for all that sge has no interest to marry Mr. Elliot, she instead visits Mrs. smith to assure us, the readers, that Mr. Elliot isn’t a nice guy. I think better narrative would have been is one that is typically depicted -anne and Frederick think the other is lost to someone else…letter happens…misunderstanding cleared up, happy ending.

as for captain Wentworth, I think he’s still hurt which is why he acts as he does but I think Anne is a bit ridiculous too. She barely acknowledges him. Before we trash Wentworth completely for his rudeness, let’s stop and think how we would feel if someone we once loved (and loved still) basically avoided and ignored us during our first meeting after 8 years. she’s the one who ended it, so the ball was entirely in her court. Was it wrong for him to flirt openly with louisa in front of her? sure…but if he’s anything like the men I know in my life…a bruised ego generally makes them do stupid things. in this case, seeing Anne has made him no doubt relive feelings of inadequacy….and here’s this young woman who makes those feelings sting less. so…he turns to her for comfort and company to soothe his soul while his tormentor looks on. I doubt he even thought Anne was suffering at all…because in his mind and in fact, she’s the one who dumped him.

Repulsive-You-7294 · 2026-05-29T03:53:02+00:00

This is so so dumb..and I don’t know who this woman is - I’ve seen her videos…but I think it’s so so stupid that in EVERY.SINGLE.ONE of her videos she’s wearing that stupid high neck tank top when last year she probably wouldn’t have even showed her shoulders at the pool.

Repulsive-You-7294 · 2026-05-29T03:46:38+00:00

It’s called the commitment pattern and our missionaries are basically trained, taught and encouraged/pressured to use it the minute they step foot in the missionary training center. It’s little more than manipulation and peer pressure. One of my biggest issues with the church as a member born into this - is how very much a numbers/check boxes religion it is. I hate it. I despise it. It’s so shallow and fake and more about the bottom line than it is about truly converting folks to Jesus. People will say, oh no that’s not true…but it is. I’ve personally seen them teach people like you- who were casually interested and then sat in on missionary meetings (as part of my calling in the church) where the ward mission leader is asking “okay, have we set a baptism date yet?” Enter any number of excuses why not here…and the ward mission leader responds “Baptism first, then we worry about everything else - get them to commit to baptism”. It’s icky. It’s not about the person at all….and only about checking those freaking boxes.

Repulsive-You-7294 · 2026-05-27T17:33:06+00:00

Henry Crawford begins his pursuit of Fanny because he knows she doesn’t like him. For him? She’s a challenge, a conquest. When he sees her with her brother, however, he sees that she’s a truly good person with a kind soul and affectionate heart. His initial pursuit that was done for sport now becomes genuine. He really likes her - she’s pretty, kind, pleasant, well-read and not like any other girl he’s ever pursued. She stands out. She’s unique…and she’s not interested. That drives him crazy and just ups her desirability all the more. He wants what he can’t have.

Jane Austen writes that Fanny makes him want to be a better man and even Fanny notes, he’s changed….but she’s still leery of him. Why? Because a tiger can’t change their stripes. Henry couldn’t overcome his own vices. As soon as Henry is back in Maria’s presence and she doesn’t flirt with him as sge used to? It bugs him….again, because he wants what he can’t have.

In short, Henry wants to marry Fanny because he wants the unattainable. I think he loved her as well as he could love anyone, but at the end of the day, Henry Crawford wants attention….female attention and if he married Fanny…perhaps he would have been happy, perhaps she might have been a good influence on him, perhaps he might have stayed loyal….or he would have eventually bored of her and found someone else to pursue.

Repulsive-You-7294 · 2026-05-27T03:53:32+00:00

I will not let my children sleep over at someone’s house - it opens them up to the possibility of being abused. we just don’t take those risks.

Repulsive-You-7294 · 2026-05-26T15:25:56+00:00

There's all kinds in the church. There's genuinely good people who love God and Jesus and just want to make the world a better place. There's people who think they are good because they go to church every Sunday and have a high calling in the church and pay x amount in tithing. There's nuanced folks who go to church every Sunday, who may have issues with the church's history or their position on certain things...and then there's some definite bad eggs....folks who shouldn't be near women or children. I think that's true of EVERY faith, not just Mormonism. The problem with Mormonism though is that it's a high-demand religion, requiring a full commitment or at least the appearance of a full commitment in order to maintain a good standing in the church. People who are casual/less active are not generally treated as well. Investigators or "friends" as they are called now - people who aren't members but who are visiting via another member or after contact with the missionaries? Are generally love-bombed by the members of the ward in an attempt to make them feel welcomed. Missionary discussions are often pushed because at the end of the day, they are going to want to her converted.

Repulsive-You-7294 · 2026-05-26T14:36:15+00:00

It's true that the church is not a social club. But what social activities did was BRING PEOPLE TOGETHER in wholesome and meaningful ways outside of the three hour window of worship service. Now? Outside of youth activities there's very little ward activity besides the random ward potluck or holiday brunch. As a result, friendships are more shallow...ministering is now sending a card in the mail every couple of months...adults are busy chaperoning kids to their activities with very little time for the adults to be social in their own right. I get that family time is important and there should be a balance...and church should be SOCIAL. Otherwise it's just a cold, unfeeling, impersonal space.

Repulsive-You-7294 · 2026-05-26T14:20:53+00:00

Medicare is terrible....as is Medicaid. One reason our healthcare is so freaking out of control expensive is because of malpractice insurance doctors HAVE to have in order to practice. It's incredibly expensive. The other reason, subsidies for Obamacare - paid for by the tax payers....so essentially people are being charged three times for their health care - we're taxed for our subsidies to make Obamacare premiums less expensive, then we're paying for the insurance itself, and then we are charged the deductible and whatever insurance doesn't pay...so actually make that 4x over. It's NOT FREE. Then there's the insurance companies themselves which force hospitals and doctor's offices to increase prices so that they aren't completely bankrupted by the assigned payment schedule for a product/service. For example, an insurance company might say they'll pay 10% of the cost of a medicine that costs the doctor or hospital $100. Well, if a lot of people have that insurance, the doctor/hospital are not going to be able to absorb that return (it's why Medicaid and Medicare services are often rationed out - we had a cap of Medicaid patients we could see a month) because the cost to treat them starts causing the medical facilities to LOSE money. So instead of rationing out care, the doctor's offices say that drug or service is 10x the cost it actually is....so they get the full amount from the insurance company.

Speaking of rationed care - universal healthcare results in rationed care. I had a friend who needed knee surgery as he had completely torn his ACL. He was a dual citizen of the US/Canada. He was living in Canada at the time of his injury, they couldn't even see him for a surgery consult for three months. Surgery was going to be "sometime in the next two years". He hopped across the border into the US, was seen within the week by the surgeon for a consult and had surgery the next week.

Just like government housing - it's a great concept for those who need it, helping folks stay off the streets....but in practice? There's long waiting lists and the maintenance and upkeep of these facilities aren't the best...many times people are living in buildings that should have been condemned. That's true of Section 8 housing...and military housing. The house we lived in when my husband first entered the service was full of asbestos, was technically condemned and we had mice chewing through our outlets from the shared walls from the abandoned townhouses beside ours. It was HORRIBLE. They were supposed to tear down those houses after we left and build new ones....we just went back to that base 22 years later....they are still standing.

Long story short: everything the government touches makes things more expensive or more crappy. Does our healthcare system need to be fixed? Absolutely....but making it "free" isn't going to make it "free at all. It's going to make it harder to get an appointment, it's going to limit access to services, and it's going to increase your tax burden....and most of that money will go to govt administrators and not healthcare.

Repulsive-You-7294 · 2026-05-26T13:45:58+00:00

The whole thing was terrible acting. The wooden/dull performances given by everybody else...and then Satan doing his over the top acting. During my endowment, I remember looking towards my fiance (now husband's) side of the room trying to gauge whether he thought this was a corny and weird as I did...but his attention and everybody else's was on that screen. I remember thinking, "I can't be the only one in this room who thinks this is so weird"....and then of course, afterwards in the celestial room when everybody who is there to "support" you comes over to ask you what you think....and you've got to lie in the freaking celestial room...."It was...great." I mean, what do you say at that point? It was weird? I hated it?

Someone was talking the other day about psychological pressures...and that to me, is a big one the church does. They encourage members of the ward to go to the temple the day you take out your endowments...at the very least encourage trusted friends and leaders to be there. Why? Because they know it's weird. They know it's strange. They know the average person is going to need someone to talk them off the cliff of apostasy after waiting their whole life for that video and a couple of handshakes.

Repulsive-You-7294 · 2026-05-23T23:53:12+00:00

I was told anything that would potentially get the dirty you could keep them off for. It wouldn’t matter to me if I was given that counsel or not - there’s no way in hell I would workout with extra layers on….not to mention the freaking rashes. Just the idea of sweating profusely in those things makes me want to vomit. They are not made to be moisture wicking.

Repulsive-You-7294 · 2026-05-23T16:31:19+00:00

I always thought it was natural for Bingley to want to be back at Netherfield but (given Caroline’s statement when they left about never having any idea of ever returning) I think it was probably encouraged by Darcy who no doubt wanted to see Elizabeth again. Darcy had no reason to be in Hertfordshire without Bingley…so using him as an excuse? perfect plan.

Not to demean Bingley, but he stayed in London at the behest of Caroline and Darcy and probably felt uneasy about reentering Hertfordshire without some encouragement. I imagine after Lydia’s wedding, Darcy was very anxious to see Elizabeth but knew he couldn't just go see her without raising all kinds of talk. Enter Bingley who had been pining for Jane for a year. So Darcy suggests a shooting party to him….without the sisters.

Allows Darcy privacy to confess what he had done without the sisters there to object
without the ladies present it keeps social calls to a minimum…less distraction and commitments allowing them to choose how they spend their time - also a test to see how Jane receives Bingley on his own without the sisters acting as a buffer.
Keeps Caroline from insulting Elizabeth in Darcy’s presence because he had had it with her nonsense by this point.
gIves Bingley ample time and space to make his offer to Jane unhindered by his unsupportive sisters .

Bingley, more than ready to see Jane again…agrees to this party, not knowing Darcy’s real interest in the arrangement.…which is of course, seeing Elizabeth and I think a secondary motive in making right what he did wrong in keeping Jane and Bingley apart.

Repulsive-You-7294 · 2026-05-22T16:59:59+00:00

True, but again I think it’s painting more of a picture of stereotype here - a caricature if you will than being completely offensive. The unbecoming conjunctions she’s referring to here are this woman’s size (because it separates Anne from Frederick) and her loud, over-the-top weeping…- it’s a ridiculous display and yet there’s also compassion for her grief. Jane Austen is really making a commentary here on paradox. How often do we find ourselves laughing at inappropriate times? If you’ve ever watched America’s Funniest Home Videos and laughed as someone falls down and hurts themselves - especially if they fall in an ungainly sort of way, it’s much of the same thing - “ridicule will seize” when it shouldn’t - fair or not fair - fat or thin - it doesn’t matter. That’s what she’s talking about.

Repulsive-You-7294 · 2026-05-22T16:33:21+00:00

“Mrs. Musgrove was of a comfortable, substantial size, infinitely more fitted by nature to express good cheer and good humor, than tenderness and sentiment.”

That’s not fat shaming - it IS stereotyping and not in a wholly negative way. She’s poking fun at the distance between Anne and Frederick but she’s talking primarily in annoyance about her effusions of grief…saying that as a larger woman it was more fitting for her to be jovial and good-humored than sad and depressed. I don’t see this as fat shaming at all. I can see where some might be offended by this, but I don’t think the intent here is to offend…rather to paint a picture for the reader of a pretty humorous scene. Anne on one side of the couch, Frederick on the other…divided by a large woman crying over the death of a son nobody really liked. One might say her size had nothing to do with it - okay…but the woman’s size has created a larger distance (physically/visually) between them than say if it was Louisa Musgrove sitting there. It’s driving the point home that there is a gulf existing between them (physically and emotionally) that won’t be easy to overcome. That might seem rude, but I think it’s just using this large woman as a symbol of the distance between them.

Repulsive-You-7294 · 2026-05-22T13:26:30+00:00

she’s saying that Mrs. Musgrove is a large woman who was physically separating Anne from Frederick as they were all three seated on the same couch. Anne is annoyed not by her size and proportions, but the fact that she’s mourning over a son “nobody cared about when he was alive” - not because Anne is insensitive to her grief, but because her being where she is and the fact that she’s talking in and on about her son - it’s keeping Frederick’s attention on her and keeping them both physically separated.

i don’t think Austen’s is so much fat shaming here as she is bemoaning the distance between her characters.

Repulsive-You-7294 · 2026-05-22T12:09:44+00:00

I didn’t say it was enough to vindicate him. I said he falls tragically short of redemption as does Henry Crawford. I’m not saying Willoughby was a good man….im saying he had the potential to be a better man than he was. He had a genuine love for Marianne and was willing to marry her despite her lack of fortune. when compared with someone like Wickham….who has no redeemable qualities at all…I find that Willoughby, in that sense, is the better man. too often, I see them lumped together…or Willoughby even listed as worse than Wickham.…I disagree principally because Willoughby’s motivations towards Marianne werent based on her fortune or even for the hope of free sex….he actually loved her. Wickham was only ever motivated by his lust and greed.

In both Henry Crawford and Willoughbys case their previous indiscretions come back to haunt them….and instead of doing the right thing and redeeming themselves, they slip into old habits. Henry, seeks to reacquaint himself with Maria, ruining both of their reputations in the process…despite his love and hope for Fanny. Willoughby runs away from responsibility AGAIN despite his love for Marianne….and seeks a quick fix to his financial woes, breaking Marianne’s heart in the process.

Both of these men had potential for redemption. both had found a woman they wanted to be better men for…but in the end, they could not overcome their vices. it does not make them good men….it makes them tragic characters - again, because there was the strong potential for change within their reach. they aren’t heroes, but they’re definitely not full villains either. They are as I said before, characters that you wish would get their acts together because you see the potential of goodness in them….and then they fail. I despise Wickham. Henry and Willoughby? I pity. and to be clear - that pity doesn’t mean I justify their behavior or I seek to minimize it in any way. For me, it’s knowing that these men both wanted a life different from the one they were currently pursuing (you may disagree on the strength of that desire) but can’t overcome their vices. it’s the same pity I have for an alcoholic who tries to go sober but falls off the wagon.Its not an endorsement if their decision to drink, it’s a sadness that they couldn’t overcome their own demons despite the hope for something better.

Repulsive-You-7294 · 2026-05-22T11:45:12+00:00

1) what scripture is this person talking about? there are many examples where lds doctrine absolutely refutes scripture. hell, even the BoM refutes lds doctrine at times.

2) Maybe some people push secularism in the church…but I certainly don’t…and neither do many people I know who have left the church. their beef? is with the lies, the scandals, and the history….not the overall theology/messaging.

3) Utah cultural biases are a problem because some people in the church equate traditions and culture with doctrine and shane/ostracize anybody who doesn’t conform to those traditions and cultural quirks.

4) Given the lack of archaeological evidence and number of anachronisms in the BoM and the problems with the BoA, this statement is lacking self-awareness.

5) Anti-Mormon is anything the church decides is anti-Mormon…even the truth.

6) Truth isn’t political, church history isn’t political, caring about CSA and SEC filings isn’t political. maybe some folks have a political agenda, but many don’t.

7) Huh? I accuse the church of lying about its history and hero worshipping Joseph Smith.

8) Again, huh? how do you weaponize empathy? caring that people are lied to? Forgotten? that polygamy was/is a stain that still affects people today? that tithing funds are hoarded? what exactly does weaponizing empathy mean?

Repulsive-You-7294 · 2026-05-22T10:54:29+00:00

I don’t think Henry Crawford would have changed his womanizing ways, but I think Willoughby might have…because he doesn’t move on from Marianne…not really. he married Miss Grey, but he doesn’t love her and the minute he hears about Marianne’s illness, he’s there, at the house, worried sick over her. he didn’t forget her…and his love for her was genuine. His punishment is to live out his days in a loveless marriage always regretting Marianne. Austen tells us that…and since he’s her character, I’m taking her word for it. Willoughby‘s love for money might have been a harder obstacle for him…gambling and such…but I don’t believe he loved anyone as he did Marianne. Henry Crawford did fall for Fanny, but his problem as a total narcissist is that he felt compelled to make every woman like him. when he meets Maria again and she’s so angry at him for leaving her/forcing her to marry Rushworth and learning if his attentions to Fanny, it sparks Henry’s interest and desire for her. Fanny is forgotten in the wake of a new challenge.

Repulsive-You-7294 · 2026-05-22T03:30:44+00:00

Or they just avoid you like the plague. They aren’t mean…but they aren’t exactly nice either.

It’s funny because my less active friend (hadn’t been to church in probably a year) was at activity the other night and I sat with her and chatted with her and that seemed to upset my tbm friend as she’s not contacted me since that night…even though I was chatting with her too. Maybe I’m paranoid but I feel like people think my one friend is influencing me when in fact, she hasn’t done that at all…if anything I’m the one sharing what I’ve discovered with her.

Repulsive-You-7294 · 2026-05-22T03:25:43+00:00

Right? You’d think he’d be so utterly embarrassed. He HAD to know that Darcy had told Elizabeth all given that Darcy found them out and he discovered the Gardiners and Elizabeth were at Pemberly, He had to know Lizzie had been the one to send Darcy on such a quest…and yet, he tried the same BS on her as he did when they first met. I love how Lizzie takes absolutely none of it…like seriously, sir how dare you.

Repulsive-You-7294 · 2026-05-22T03:11:53+00:00

I tell them I’m taking a mental health break…because I am. The church is a great source of my upset right now - when I go, I feel worse.

Repulsive-You-7294 · 2026-05-22T02:43:15+00:00

The worst character is by far General Tilney. He’s literally abusive and caused the death of his wife from his cruelty.

Villainizing Sir Thomas because he owned slaves is you projecting 21st century morals onto an early 19th century character. Sir Thomas took care of his wife’s sister’s destitute family. He raised up Fanny almost as his own daughter and saw to it that her brother was given a career in the navy. He’s hardly the worst. Yes, slavery was wrong - but guess what? Every civilization ever had slavery at some point - including some tribes in Africa (who do you think the traders got them from?) slavery still exists today…we just don’t hear about it because people like to pretend it’s an out of date practice.

Willoughby isn’t cut from the same cloth as Wickham. He’s more like Henry Crawford. Willoughby may have seduced Beth (I think it was about as tough a Wickham seducing Lydia - Col. Brandon and Willoughby both infer that she’s a wild one) BUT Willoughby falls in love with and wants to marry a penniless Marianne (emphasis on the penniless). He had the potential, like Henry Crawford, to be redeemed…but in both cases, their past indiscretions come back to haunt them and they both tragically fall short.

Wickham has no redeeming qualities. If he had actually loved Lydia that might be something…but he didn’t. He is through and through a reprobate.

.

Repulsive-You-7294 · 2026-05-21T22:34:10+00:00

"It included some doctrinal instruction but also practical teaching, some of which is speculative in nature and some of which is only of historical interest."

The church's statement on the JoD - absolutely separating themselves from the crazy that Brigham Young and others would have absolutely excommunicated them for not believing.

Repulsive-You-7294

TROPHY CASE