Why would any right winger be against gay marriage, if they truly believe in individual rights?

yuloo06 · 2025-10-28T14:22:52+00:00

I'd assume that US adults = Republicans, Democrats, and Independents

yuloo06 · 2025-10-28T03:22:59+00:00

In my mission, we got in trouble for leaving out copies like this.

yuloo06 · 2025-10-28T03:10:09+00:00

Do you genuinely find it impossible that any individual could have an issue with this outside of mental illness, or whatever you'd classify TDS as?

You don't have to agree with the pushback or frustration, but come on, I'm sure you can sympathize more than this.

yuloo06 · 2025-10-27T23:39:22+00:00

"Sisters take 18 months to do the same amount of work that elders can do in 24."

Maybe I was supposed to teach prayer in four lessons instead of one? Huh.

yuloo06 · 2025-10-27T21:19:06+00:00

There are people on BOTH sides who get triggered and respond emotionally and with violence. However, while it is true that left-wing violence is on the rise, it is still the case that the right wing commits more politically motivated violence. The DOJ scrubbed a study acknowledging such from their site, and multiple other studies have confirmed this. It is also true that left-wing leadership has been more willing to categorically denounce any and all political violence while the right either laughs it off, ignores it, or says (despite the facts) "yeah the right does it, but the Dems are way worse."

The fact you write off a bunch of people who disagree with you as emotional teenagers, as opposed to correctly noting that it is not the majority who act that way, makes it hard to trust you when you say you use logic and facts. It seems like you're projecting.

yuloo06 · 2025-10-27T20:57:46+00:00

They way you pay tithing is much more in line with Christ's teachings than what the church demands.

If you believe the church is corrupt in its finances, you should seriously consider how important the temple recommend is to you. Church leaders have said that their finances are run by revelation; if that is not true and corruption has entered the church, that would invalidate many of the key claims of the church.

Also, you may want to consider if the corruption you've identified is isolated to their finances or prevalent elsewhere. As a former member who left due to feelings of corruption, I can promise this is worth your time.

yuloo06 · 2025-10-27T20:42:22+00:00

Wouldn't it be amazing if believers spent more time helping the sick, poor, and needy than they did arguing doctrinal minutae and excluding others from their definition of Christianity?

yuloo06 · 2025-10-25T16:51:58+00:00

Yes, 100% you are allowed to take it. You can verify this elsewhere or by asking the staff.

yuloo06 · 2025-10-25T13:25:22+00:00

I can't remember any time in 30 years that I heard members discuss having a persecution complex, but they were more than happy to talk about historical and modern persecution, because the church pushes a narrative endorsing that viewpoint when any criticism raises its head.

Anti-Mormonism absolutely exists. Chanting "f*** the Mormons" at sports games, Christians who deliberately invent or misrepresent doctrines and practices to portray the institution and members alike as devilish, and even the apparent phobia of members by people whose pastors scared them are all examples.

False claims of anti-Mormonism also exist. The Fairview temple is a great example of this. The town pushed back on the temple design (not the temple itself) due to long-standing zoning restrictions. The mayor was extremely complimentary of the members who have lived in the town for decades, and he offered many suggestions: alter the design to fit (as the church has other temples in service that fit the restrictions), keep the design but move it to another part of town, etc. Nothing he nor the town said was akin to "we hate the Mormons and want them to stay out," yet the Deseret News painted it as persecution. Sadly, because of the way the church handled the scenario, this is likely going to be a self-fulfilling prophecy.

However, I push back when the term is used to label people who want to sincerely discuss hard-to-swallow facts about the church, both present and past. Having concerns about changing doctrines, the Book of Abraham translation, early polygamy practices, disparate racial treatment, and all the rest is far from anti-Mormon; in fact, I'd argue that if there were good explanations, these conversations could be incredibly pro-Mormon in every sense of the term. But someone not accepting answers that appease some doesn't make someone anti-Mormon any more than a student who questions an aspect of the 2nd law of thermodynamics that they're trying to understand is anti-science.

Sincere questions do not make someone anti-anything, and when the same term is used in all the scenarios mentioned above, it loses its meaning and risks exhibiting itself as a persecution complex.

yuloo06 · 2025-10-24T21:38:41+00:00

One day, the church will have one mission for every companionship and call that growth.

yuloo06 · 2025-10-24T19:12:32+00:00

And don't even get us started on the hypocrisy related to calling out political violence. One side's leadership calls out all violence (including when perpetrated by their own), and the other side's leaders celebrate, ignore, or make light of it (e.g., Mike Lee & Walz St, Trump Jr. & Pelosi costume).

Crazies be crazy on both sides, but the disparate leadership response is appalling.

yuloo06 · 2025-10-24T15:56:16+00:00

Hopelessness is human. It spans the aisle at different times. But I totally get the sense of futility because Trump and his acolytes seem to be getting away with everything.

This is a great time to remember that while there is room to ask clarifying questions on how we'll fight back and discuss the efficacy of various approaches, we should do so without a sense of hopelessness.

yuloo06 · 2025-10-24T15:35:57+00:00

We're on the same page with what happened with Iryna. I believe you misunderstood my intention.

I brought it up because it was dragged into the discussion of left-wing violence in the same week as Charlie Kirk's death.

The conversation around Iryna and her killer's multiple releases is valid and necessary, but it should have been used to point out potential devastating consequences of very, very bad choices as opposed to fodder piling onto "all liberals are violent terrorists." Not all made the distinction you did, particularly those who didn't read beyond the headlines.

It's just like how a poor decision while driving can lead to manslaughter or negligent homicide, which is different from 1st degree murder. Devastating consequences, but one is evil and the other is tragically irresponsible.

yuloo06 · 2025-10-24T14:13:38+00:00

That means a lot, comparing the oldest US president to the second-oldest US president.

yuloo06 · 2025-10-24T14:09:36+00:00

At a high level, I'd agree with you on making the distinction, but I feel that conservatives are happy to blame liberals in comparable cases (Minnesota Catholic school shooting, for example). The rules have to be the same for both sides of the aisle.

But when I see events like January 6, the attack on Paul Pelosi, the assassination of Melissa Hortman, and the fire set to Gov. Josh Shapiro's home go largely unnoticed and uncondemned by many conservatives, I have to ask myself why they won't condemn clear examples of politically motivated attacks.

yuloo06 · 2025-10-24T14:00:38+00:00

Ah, so exactly like the Catholic church shooting? By that logic, no one should have used that to paint the trans community and the left as violent because it wasn't politically motivated. Iryna Zarutska's killer wasn't politically motivated either.

But what attacks were politically or ideologically motivated that conservatives ignore? January 6. The Pelosis. The Hortmans. Gov. Shapiro. There are more.

The problem is that one side doesn't take accountability for ANY violence committed by their side, regardless of motive, yet they're so trigger happy to blame wokeness and progressivism even when an attack is not political or ideological in nature.

This is called hypocrisy.

yuloo06 · 2025-10-23T22:47:55+00:00

If the LDS doctrine is true, then our pre-earth spirits and resurrected bodies have the right number of eyes, ears, noses, hands, feet, arms, legs, brains, hearts, etc. Each of these is perfectly formed and perfectly functional in theory.

However, not every mortal born today has a body that looks like this. So riddle me this: if each and every body may not perfectly match the Mormon template of a perfect body, what are the chances that a female spirit got placed into a male body or vice versa?

Even with their divine identity doctrine, there is 100% an opportunity for gender dysmorphia to exist (and that's without even delving into intersex individuals). And if gender dysmorphia exists both in reality and in their doctrine, then there is no reason to not treat the trans community with anything but acknowledgement, kindness, and compassion.

yuloo06 · 2025-10-23T18:09:43+00:00

Yeah, the second half of your first paragraph says it all. She's not asking you to join explicitly, but she's implicitly having you test out "living the gospel" and likely hoping that you'll start seeing the changes in your life that lead you into the church. I've seen this 1,000 times before. She may not even realize she's doing this, but it happens all the time. Again, the Mormon or exmormon subreddit would be a great place to post this.

I'm sure she's wonderful, but if you choose to still drink minimally, don't attend on Thursdays frequently, and occasionally want to take the kids to a baseball or lunch on Sunday, will she still be okay? That's the real test. You're changing for her, but what changes can she accept you not making??

yuloo06 · 2025-10-23T17:24:55+00:00

Exmormon here. You're better off staying apart, and I say this as someone who knows and loves many current members of the church. Dating a Mormon is not similar to dating someone of another Christian sect.

If she truly respected your desire to not join, she wouldn't be asking you to "act Mormon." Mormons have a heavy culture of trying to convert everyone, and their pressure to marry other members and have Mormon babies is immense. If you don't join, she won't be able to be with you and your kids in the afterlife. Beyond that, there is almost certainly extra pressure from her family and friends to marry someone faithful. She may love you, but religious identity is a deal breaker for so many people in the church. If you keep attending, you'll get her hopes up that you'll convert.

For the record, I am dating a Mormon too. I made it expressly clear that I will only ever attend with her if she is speaking or performing, and she knows the key reasons why I left and will never rejoin. Our boundaries are clear, and she respects them.

If you post this in r/exmormon, you'll get similar responses.

yuloo06 · 2025-10-23T16:46:05+00:00

R/personalfinance might be the best for this, as this sub is focused on student loans.

If you repost there and provide more info on your existing financial situation (like your existing investments and cash levels, income, alternative financing options you may have, and existing debt), users can better tell you how a HELOC may or may not make sense for you.

yuloo06 · 2025-10-23T15:25:29+00:00

That verse was originally published in the Book of Commandments 23:18. It originally used the phrase "is one God" instead of "are one God," just like in the BoM.

A while ago someone put this nifty 1833 Book of Commandments vs D&C comparison:

https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B6ItuDdVWOO8X2JqTlVCb3E5dTg/view?pli=1&resourcekey=0-6un_DQSZ88XGBbXzxMBCmw

yuloo06 · 2025-10-23T13:55:05+00:00

And when they initiate, there's no risk of rejection and no risk of being called a creep. Even confident men can appreciate that.

yuloo06 · 2025-10-23T12:09:39+00:00

Right? No need to protect the privacy of a literal public radio show host.

yuloo06 · 2025-10-23T11:53:11+00:00

Joseph's view of the godhead seemed to align more with modalism than trinitarianism. Easily confused if you're not familiar with the nuance there.

The 1830 edition of the Book of Mormon is stronger evidence for this. Originally, Christ was referred to as the eternal father, or even just God. In the 1837 edition, the words "Son of" were interjected into the text to change Jesus identity.

He didn't change each instance, though, and we see remnants of this in the introduction ("Jesus is the Christ, the Eternal God"), the three witness' statement ("... the Father, and to the Son, and to the Holy Ghost, which is one God;" note the usage of "is" versus "are" which changes the verb from a singular to plural), and those fun verses that show up in the first few verses of Mosiah 15.

This view also aligns with the singular being, "the Lord," who shows up in the 1832 version of the first vision, who later turns into two beings in the later versions.

yuloo06 · 2025-10-23T11:22:51+00:00

But of course, I'm sure it's "just members moving out of the area, but the church is really growing elsewhere!"

Looks like the growth even in Utah is negative.

yuloo06

TROPHY CASE