• Radio_717@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    68
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    Good luck with that.

    When I was a member living in Utah and ran into a financial issue they wanted to look at my bills and help me figure out how to cut costs out of my budget first.

    His suggestion- cancel your cell phones a land line is much cheaper. He also suggested I sell my smart phone and get a dumb phone.

    That wouldn’t have helped at all as at that time phones were on contracts for 2 years and I’d have had to pay for the full price of the phone if I left the contract early. I’d have LOST $500 between retail and what I could sell the phone for.

    I ended up just borrowing money from a friend.

    Keep in mind the Mormon church has a hedge fund worth OVER $100 billion.

      • HelixDab2@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        That is not correct.

        Mormon doctrine teaches that non-white people were “less valiant” in the pre-mortal life, and that they didn’t take a side in the war in heaven. (Yes, I’m serious about all of this.) As a result, they were born to bloodlines that had been cursed by god. E.g., the Lamanites (the native Americans) had dark skins because Laman and Lemuel had rebelled against the will of god, and that was how god punished them so everyone would know they were wicked just by looking. And, of course, since children are responsible for their parents’ sins, the kids get dark skin too.

        Prior to '78 or '79, non-white Mormons were permitted to be full-fledged members of the org. They could be baptized, but could not have the priesthood (which is kind of a Big Fucking Deal for Mormons). There was a lot of stuff going on behind the scenes, but in '78/9 there was a “revelation” that said non-white people should be allowed to have the priesthood and go to Mormon temples. But that legacy of racism has stuck around, and non-white people will still experience overt racism in rural parts of Utah and Arizona.

        If this reads like a Scientologist’s fever-dream about Christianity, you’re not too far off.

        • BaldProphet@kbin.social
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          1 year ago

          Mormon doctrine teaches that non-white people were “less valiant” in the pre-mortal life, and that they didn’t take a side in the war in heaven.

          Factually incorrect. For the real doctrine that Latter-day Saints believe regarding race, see here: https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/manual/gospel-topics/diversity-and-unity?lang=eng

          “Regardless of ethnicity or outward appearance, all Church members are united in the knowledge that they are children of a Heavenly Father. They know He loves each of His children equally. This knowledge builds a feeling of unity in every building and worship service around the world and ties all members of the Church together.”

          • HelixDab2@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            Yeah, that’s what their website says. Their website says a lot of shit that’s false, because they’re pretty big on revisionist history. I’m sure that they also say that Bruce McConkie’s “Mormon Doctrine” series was never really doctrine too. I know that they say that a lot of things prophesied by Joe Smith Jr. and Brigham Young were them “speaking as men”, despite Smith and Young explicitly saying that they were speaking for the lord.

            I was raised Mormon. I was alive when the doctrine regarding non-white people and the priesthood was changed. I was a missionary. Unless you’ve done a really deep-dive on all the shit that the Morg has tried to stuff into a memory hole, I know more than you. Try listening to Mormon Discussions, Radio Free Mormon, and Mormon Stories; they cite their sources on everything. Look up Bryce Blankenagel.

    • Ataraxia@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      5
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      1 year ago

      I see a lot of Latino Mormons here. Then they find out they can’t have chocolate…

        • AngryCommieKender@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          The ones that follow that rule are avoiding the caffeine. If decaf chocolate existed, they could have chocolate. I end up talking to a lot of Mormons because they end up being more interested the religion that I follow badly, that they have never heard of before in their lives, than I ever will be in theirs after having read part of “Pearl of Great Price.”

          ETA: I attempt to follow my interpretation of the Baha’i writings. The beauty of it is that there’s a lot there, but it mostly boils down to “would you guys stop being dicks to each other? Do I really have to write a rule for every single thing you fuckers can come up with‽‽”

          That last bit is my own interpretation.

          • regalia@literature.cafe
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            1 year ago

            Eh they usually don’t understand the rule themselves and don’t look that deeply into it. I live by a ton of Mormons and they claim it’s because of caffeine, yet they are pounding soda’s non stop lol. They love that shit.

        • oddspinnaker@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          My understanding as a former Mormon is that chocolate is pretty vague. More devout people might avoid it in the same way all “hot drinks” are avoided.

          But many, many Mormons don’t care.

  • SinningStromgald@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    18
    ·
    1 year ago

    Tax churches that don’t spend greater than 50% of all donations and earnings on verifiable charity.

    Ban religion in politics.

    • lolcatnip@reddthat.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      arrow-down
      10
      ·
      1 year ago

      What does “ban religion in politics” mean? What actual conduct are you proposing to ban?

        • lolcatnip@reddthat.com
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          That would be great but I don’t see how it bans religion from politics. It’s not placing any restrictions on what the government is allowed to do.

          • betterdeadthanreddit@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            1 year ago

            Political speech in church has an influence on voters, voters elect politicians to represent their interests. If you can take away one of the tools they’re using to hold on to power, it evens out the odds for someone who could win without being indebted to religious leaders or worried about getting their endorsement next election cycle. That’s someone who will feel less pressure to push policies that benefit those churches.

            It’s not fast, it’s not perfect and it’s not the full range of what needs to be done but it is an important step.

      • SinningStromgald@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        6
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        I mean exactly what I said. Religion and politics do not and should not ever mix. Therefore, ban religion in/from politics.

        • lolcatnip@reddthat.com
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          4
          arrow-down
          3
          ·
          1 year ago

          That doesn’t answer the question at all. You just repeated what you said before. Are you saying you want to ban people who attend religious services from holding public offices? Ban politicians from passing laws if someone (who?) decides the law is based on religion? Do you want to legalize murder because the bible says it’s a sin?

          There’s a lot of shit people get away with, like putting the ten commandments in courthouses and putting “In God we trust” on money, but that shit is already banned. You can’t just pass a law requiring the government to follow the first amendment and expect it to have any effect. So what objective standard do you want to enforce that isn’t already part of the law?

  • DiagnosedADHD@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    5
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    This sounds like a slam dunk separation of church and state case. I’ve seen a lot of bs from the LDS since moving to Utah, from liquor licenses to psychiatric care, etc. I do not trust them to responsibly hand out welfare to those that need it. If they were giving out these funds directly to the state with no strings attached, fine, but it appears that they don’t and they are in control of how the aid is given, and maybe even who receives it which is hugely problematic even if they help non-mormons.

    Anyone defending this as “fiscally responsible” are idiots that have no idea how this church works or how our country was meant to work.