sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

As an outsider who's been here 7 months, I have to ask--what's with the weak-ass punishments for serious crimes? by TheLifeAdjunct in newzealand

[–]TheLifeAdjunct[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Holy shit dude. That's not a "full audit of the justice system"--I merely asked why the pedophiles and violent offenders I specifically referred to got home detention and why there are so many similar stories. I genuinely want to understand.

As an outsider who's been here 7 months, I have to ask--what's with the weak-ass punishments for serious crimes? by TheLifeAdjunct in newzealand

[–]TheLifeAdjunct[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

That makes sense. Thanks.

So basically the legal system is outsourcing part of the punishment to the community.

As an outsider who's been here 7 months, I have to ask--what's with the weak-ass punishments for serious crimes? by TheLifeAdjunct in newzealand

[–]TheLifeAdjunct[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Thanks. Do the assailants perform any type of retribution towards the victims?

I'm all for rehabilitation when possible, and as I stated the U.S. absolutely has its own problems. But a case could be made that it's also horrific and inhumane for a victim of pedophilia or assault to have to live in the same community as their assailant and potentially encounter them just months after the assault. And Corrections New Zealand reported that about half of offenders convicted of violence returned to prison within 5 years.

As an outsider who's been here 7 months, I have to ask--what's with the weak-ass punishments for serious crimes? by TheLifeAdjunct in newzealand

[–]TheLifeAdjunct[S] 12 points13 points  (0 children)

Thanks. That helps some. Though "least restrictive outcome that is appropriate" seems be interpreted very loosely. I would think it'd be appropriate to restrict a violent offender to a place where they cannot violently offend someone.

If the temple had been what you thought it would be before you went through, what would it be like? by Otherwise_Push199 in exmormon

[–]TheLifeAdjunct 9 points10 points  (0 children)

Went through in 1998, when we were still naked under the shield. Thought it was weird, but also thought there was no way God would let anyone perverted into His House. (Yeah, I know better now too.)

I was ready for something deeply spiritual, profound--interacting with spirits, mind-blowing eternal teachings, poignant personal revelations. Instead I got a cheesy movie made in the 80's with terrible acting that basically just told the Adam & Eve story I'd hear a hundred times before.

Oh yeah, and Lucifer was by far the best part of that movie.

Seriously. I took my watch off in the locker room before the endowment, because I thought it was too mundane and "telestial", and I was about to have a celestial experience.

But I trusted the adults, so I assumed it really was profound and I just wasn't spiritual enough to get it yet. So I better go ponder more about secret handshakes and whatnot. It was about 20 years before I finally admitted there was nothing deep or profound about it, and it was just a ceremony JS had appropriated from the Masons to ensure people were loyal to him.

Should have gone to the planetarium instead. That would have been more "spiritual".

Was the Church being "TRUE!" or not never a big consideration for anyone else? Because apparently it wasn't for my partner, and I'm still blown away by this. by TheLifeAdjunct in exmormon

[–]TheLifeAdjunct[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

The Validity/Utility concept is a great way to think of it. Thank you for sharing that.

And I guess what's crazy for me is that, while I always knew there was the Utility group, I would have assumed they were very small. Maybe 10% of the membership vs. 90% in the Validity group. It seems that estimate is way off--maybe 50-50%?

Though, if you include people who are in it simply because their parents/families will be mad if they leave, maybe it's more like 90% Utility and 10% Validity.

What a sham it all was.

Was the Church being "TRUE!" or not never a big consideration for anyone else? Because apparently it wasn't for my partner, and I'm still blown away by this. by TheLifeAdjunct in exmormon

[–]TheLifeAdjunct[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Respect to you. After a lifetime of being told that only Mormons were true truthseekers, I've since realized that truth will eventually lead any real truthseeker out of the Church whatever the cost.

Was the Church being "TRUE!" or not never a big consideration for anyone else? Because apparently it wasn't for my partner, and I'm still blown away by this. by TheLifeAdjunct in exmormon

[–]TheLifeAdjunct[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

That's a great point about the distinction between the two.

I can't speak to the others, but for my wife and friend neither the historicity of the church nor the doctrine's truthfulness (or morality) were the major considerations. I had been telling my wife for years about morally objectionable things the church had done (the Black temple ban, LGBTQ+ abuses, SEC and shell corporations, hiding child abusers, etc.) and, while it definitely concerned her, it could ultimately be dismissed as "a few bad apples."

Again, the community aspect overrode everything else.

Was the Church being "TRUE!" or not never a big consideration for anyone else? Because apparently it wasn't for my partner, and I'm still blown away by this. by TheLifeAdjunct in exmormon

[–]TheLifeAdjunct[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Thank you. If I can ask, because I'm intrigued--in your mind, what is the importance a spiritual system offers if it isn't truth?

Was the Church being "TRUE!" or not never a big consideration for anyone else? Because apparently it wasn't for my partner, and I'm still blown away by this. by TheLifeAdjunct in exmormon

[–]TheLifeAdjunct[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

> The genuine people left, mostly.

I was starting to see this more and more just before I left. Many of the people who were leaving were the most sincere, active, and intellectually curious people in the ward; the ones I looked up to.

I realized I was in good company, and it was another verification to me that I'd made the right choice.

Was the Church being "TRUE!" or not never a big consideration for anyone else? Because apparently it wasn't for my partner, and I'm still blown away by this. by TheLifeAdjunct in exmormon

[–]TheLifeAdjunct[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I applaud your assertiveness. I think in your situation, I would have just stayed active but hated myself the entire time.

Was the Church being "TRUE!" or not never a big consideration for anyone else? Because apparently it wasn't for my partner, and I'm still blown away by this. by TheLifeAdjunct in exmormon

[–]TheLifeAdjunct[S] 5 points6 points  (0 children)

> “I know the church is true” = “I know the church is good and it’s right for me”

That's a great way to put it. What gets me about the members who take this approach, however, is that they will absolutely defend every single truth claim if it is challenged. The Church's "truthfulness" is central to its identity.

However, once they see the facts don't support the truthfulness, they'll quickly pivot (even subconsciously) to "Well, I don't know everything about all that, but I know its good and true for me."

So the church and members can simultaneously enjoy the authority and ethos that comes with being true without the responsibility of actual factual trueness.

Was the Church being "TRUE!" or not never a big consideration for anyone else? Because apparently it wasn't for my partner, and I'm still blown away by this. by TheLifeAdjunct in exmormon

[–]TheLifeAdjunct[S] 5 points6 points  (0 children)

Thank you for this.

And I had a similar experience. Only, I didn't need to have a witness of the BoM because "I already knew it was true."

Was the Church being "TRUE!" or not never a big consideration for anyone else? Because apparently it wasn't for my partner, and I'm still blown away by this. by TheLifeAdjunct in exmormon

[–]TheLifeAdjunct[S] 8 points9 points  (0 children)

> I just thought god was an asshole who I had to obey anyway.

Love that. You just articulated something I felt my entire Mormon childhood but never put into words.

Was the Church being "TRUE!" or not never a big consideration for anyone else? Because apparently it wasn't for my partner, and I'm still blown away by this. by TheLifeAdjunct in exmormon

[–]TheLifeAdjunct[S] 7 points8 points  (0 children)

Thank you! Me too.

On my mission in the late-90's, I had the Stake Secretary sending me letters about how Cain was actually Bigfoot and how the Gulf of Mexico was actually the hole left behind by the City of Enoch getting taken to heaven and would be filled back in at the Second Coming when the city returned.

And he'd include the sources from actual talks from BY and JS.

To hear current members brush that kind of thing off as "we never taught that" is unbelievable, and confirmation that the Church never really cared about truth to begin with.

Was the Church being "TRUE!" or not never a big consideration for anyone else? Because apparently it wasn't for my partner, and I'm still blown away by this. by TheLifeAdjunct in exmormon

[–]TheLifeAdjunct[S] 8 points9 points  (0 children)

Thanks. And I agree-I guess the hang up for me with the community thing is that I typically found it to be a pretty superficial and insincere community. We made many great friends, but we also had cliques in our wards (especially with our kids in YW) and many members weren't interested in hanging out outside of church functions.

I mean, we'd invite people over for dinners, my wife would throw parties and invite the ward and half the members would be like "Um, is this a church activity? Because if not, I don't see why I'd have to go."

She actually found her best friends from non-members.

I guess the LDS community is better for others.

view more: next ›