my subscriptions
POPULAR-ALL-RANDOM | LOADING...MORE »
HelloHyde commented on a post in r/exmormon
HelloHyde 2 points

For me, surrounded by hardcore TBMs on all sides in the Morridor, I feel incredibly lonely. There’s no one to share my journey or frustrations with, because TBMs don’t want to hear it. So I come on here to find community with people who understand what I’m going through, and with whom I can discuss my thoughts, feelings, and discoveries. The more I have to hold my tongue in real life, the more I want to come on here and say the things I want to say. I do research about church history because it validates my feelings and prepares me to have those discussions should they ever arise.

Since I’m surrounded by the church pretty much 24/7, I can’t avoid it and just move on. So I push back where I can, anonymously on the internet.

HelloHyde commented on a post in r/exmormon
1.2k
taescience 0 points

I just don't see anything wrong with the church owning a mall. If you can explain to me what is wrong about it, I'll listen. The church is a private entity with the right to invest its money wherever it wants. I happen to think that investing in property, like a mall or farmland like the church does, is a very wise business decision.

HelloHyde 2 points

What do you think Jesus Christ’s investment portfolio looked like? As a restored church, one would think that it would match the teachings of Jesus.

And yet, never once did Jesus teach that tithing was a great commandment. He taught instead that believers should love their neighbors, and shouldn’t worry about money (“consider the lilies”). He taught one young man that he couldn’t really progress until he sold all he had and gave it to the poor, because the man’s focus on money prevented him from reaching spiritual enlightenment.

I think the problem is that the church clearly has massive amounts of excess money. Since the doctrine of tithing has never, ever been a means of accumulating wealth, but rather a way to support those who serve full time, one would think that a) the excess should go to the needy, or b) the only reason to invest would be to get to a point where no one needs to pay tithing any longer, but the harping on tithing has only increased. People aren’t really mad about the mall, but what the mall represents: profits over people. When one examines the priorities of the church, money and business comes out on top. It doesn’t seem very Christlike (also malls are dying so it seems like a terrible long term investment anyway).

Finally, it would be a totally different situation with transparent finances, but the secrecy just makes it look like they have something to hide.

HelloHyde commented on a post in r/exmormon
bitcoinIsForLosers 5 points

This is called Prosperity Gospel. Mormonism didn't used to have that. Of course it had other abuses back then instead. I wonder what other kinds of innovations in abuse the cult will come up with in the future?

HelloHyde 1 point

Eh, prosperity gospel is the main theme of the BoM, so I’d say it’s been around.

“Inasmuch as ye shall keep my commandments, ye shall prosper in the land,” is repeated over and over, and the whole book is about people who are righteous, get rich as a result, then become prideful and wicked and lose it all. Again and again. It isn’t specific to tithing, but it’s all about keeping commandments = wealth, breaking commandments = poverty.

bitcoinIsForLosers 1 point

They didn't require tithing from poor people. I saw that from another exmormon post.

HelloHyde 1 point

That is true.

HelloHyde commented on a post in r/exmormon
bitcoinIsForLosers 0 points

One could say we shouldn't consume Apple computers, BMW cars, Sony video games or any other luxury goods as long as there are hungry poor?

HelloHyde 3 points

We’re not claiming to represent Jesus, I think is the difference.

bitcoinIsForLosers 1 point

Yeah, but I have seen some awesome Mosques, Hindu Temples, and Catholic Churches. I am actually glad they built them. I think we should just be careful about our luxury goods rather than avoid them altogether. An elegant Mormon Temple might be great if they became economical places for all people to get married? ie Non-believing relatives could attend and non-Mormons and even gay couples could get married there.

I also think we should also be careful about our personal luxury goods. Sometimes luxury goods lead to better things for everybody. (some expensive products really do have a trickle down effect) And if someone's big dream in life is to own a certain car and they get it, good for them. But choosing the most expensive products constantly is disrespecting the poor.

HelloHyde 1 point

Agreed that it would be different if the temples weren’t so exclusive and built to benefit such a tiny population. I recently returned from Italy and while there I visited a lot of stunningly beautiful churches that could be accurately described as works of art. They were extravagant and undoubtedly expensive. However, I was able to walk in off the street to enjoy and admire the art and architecture. If I’d wanted, I could have prayed, confessed, or attended services. These churches were at least shared with the entire public and anyone could enjoy them. That, I think, is one reason temples are problematic for me.

HelloHyde commented on a post in r/exmormon
HelloHyde 3 points

My exmo friend, who loves this stuff with Mexican food, refers to it exclusively as “skunk piss”. I took a sniff and a taste once as a newly minted exmo and found it an accurate descriptor. I’ve never tried it again, but maybe I owe it another shot...

Also, served part of my mission in Stockton. Some alcohol would have been helpful.

HelloHyde commented on a post in r/exmormon
DreadApologist -2 points

Footnote 3: See also Isa 5:13; 10:28; 19:7; Job 5:20; 2 Chr 20:37.

Also of interest, Footnote 4: Skousen has noted that Abinadi’s quotation of Isaiah 53:7 more consistently uses the past tense than does the KJV. In the KJV translation, the second occurrence of the verb “open” is rendered with present tense “openeth not his mouth” instead of the past tense “opened not his mouth” as it is rendered earlier in the verse. Mosiah 14:7 consistently renders the verbs in the past tense, “opened not his mouth.” The Book of Mormon version renders the underlying Hebrew verbs of Isaiah 53:7 more correctly than does the KJV. Again, this observation can be seen to support the thesis of this essay. Skousen, Analysis of Textual Variants, Part Two, 1321–1322.

HelloHyde 8 points

Reformed Egyptian, not Hebrew, btw. People like to forget that.

HelloHyde commented on a post in r/exmormon
HelloHyde 22 points

As a missionary, I had an epileptic investigator who had, after many years, finally gotten it under control thanks to prescribed marijuana.

She really liked our message and wanted to be baptized early in the process. Then came the WoW lesson. We mentioned that drugs, including marijuana, weren’t allowed (not knowing then that she used it). Her face fell, and she asked if prescription marijuana was ok. We had no idea, so we called the MP to ask.

He said no.

She was devastated. I’ll always remember her sobbing when we told her. My mission ended at this point, so I never found out what happened with her, but I feel so terrible that I was a part of making her feel like a sinner for successfully treating a terrible condition like epilepsy.

This is such a stupid situation. So frustrating.

HelloHyde commented on a post in r/exmormon
HelloHyde 5 points

So the adulterer she’s having an affair with is a more worthy priesthood holder somehow? Makes sense.

HelloHyde commented on a post in r/exmormon
cinepro 0 points

The question is, if there was evidence that they had sex, would it make you uncomfortable? Is that why faithfuls try so hard to emphasize the lack of evidence?

What is your definition of "faithfuls", and in what way do you understand Todd Compton to fit that definition? Are you suggesting that his view that the evidence is "entirely inconclusive" is based on his being uncomfortable with the idea that Joseph might have had sex with her and not a rational overview of the evidence?

Conversely, can you explain why some people on the exmormon forum would overreach the evidence and present the issue as if it were settled when that is far from the case? What is the mental process going on there?

HelloHyde 1 point

It’s never going to be settled, you can’t prove a negative (thus Compton’s assertion), but it’s safe to assume the they did have sex for reasons I’ve already listed, which is why people on this sub do so. The burden of proof really lies on those claiming it was non-sexual as that’s the least likely situation, but until that is proven (as it never will be) we’ll continue to operate under the most likely scenario, conclusive evidence or otherwise.

I’m suggesting that apologists really like to harp on the non-sexual relationship because they’re uncomfortable with it being otherwise. Stating that there isn’t enough evidence to say for certain one way or another is not apologetics, that’s just stating the obvious, so I don’t think Compton fits in that category of people trying to defend Smith, no. I was talking about you, though, not Compton, since you seem hellbent on injecting ambiguity into the relationship, and most of us don’t really care.

cinepro 1 point

It’s never going to be settled, you can’t prove a negative (thus Compton’s assertion), but it’s safe to assume the they did have sex for reasons I’ve already listed, which is why people on this sub do so. The burden of proof really lies on those claiming it was non-sexual as that’s the least likely situation, but until that is proven (as it never will be) we’ll continue to operate under the most likely scenario, conclusive evidence or otherwise.

That's my point. While it's an "assumption", it is most often treated as an established (and accepted) fact.

As for "burden of proof", it's funny how quickly people in this group adopt "apologetic" lines of (bad) reasoning when it suits their purpose. Funny, but not unexpected.

Notice how in one paragraph you go from saying "you can't prove a negative" to saying "the burden of proof really lies on those claiming it was non-sexual".

You literally said that "you can't prove a negative" and "it's up to them to prove a negative" in the same paragraph. If you said that about the Book of Mormon or any other LDS claim, you would get laughed back to the TBM groups. But I suspect many people here would read that and think it makes perfect sense when applied to the HMK claim. That's my point. It's like an Article of Faith for ex-Mormons.

HelloHyde 1 point

Holy shit. This is the dumbest fucking argument.

A) Not an “article of faith” at all. I’ve said several times that it doesn’t matter. It’s not critical to anything. Just one point among many that looks bad for Joe. You’re the one pushing so hard on this, it seems like you’re the one who really cares.

B) The one making the unlikely claim is the one who has the burden of proof. It’s that simple. Since the least likely scenario is that they were married but for some reason didn’t have sex, that’s up to those making that claim to prove. However, since you can’t prove a negative, let me quote myself here, “It’s never going to be settled,” and “...until that is proven (as it never will be)...” I think I made it pretty fucking clear that the question will likely never be settled, thus arguing is pointless, thus it doesn’t matter, thus we’ll go ahead and stick with the assumption that the situation with the highest probability is the null hypothesis. Until the null hypothesis is disproven, it stands comfortably as the operating assumption.

The exact problem is, as I said, that the burden of proof lies with apologists, but they’re making an unlikely claim that can’t be proven so they’re stuck and we default to the null hypothesis, or the most likely scenario. Thus we’ll keep acting under the assumption that most marriages contain sex and there’s no reason to assume otherwise with JS and HMK (unless that idea makes you uncomfortable, in which case you may keep assuming that they didn’t as long as you stop trying to convince people, because you have no leg to stand on).

You keep acting like we’re ignoring some pile of evidence that they never had sex. The reason it’s not conclusive is because there’s no significant evidence for or against either hypothesis, because why the hell would there be? Also, please read my comment before replying this time. Actually, I’m done repeating myself so feel free to say whatever you want, I’ve made my point and I’ll leave it at that.

Load more comments
HelloHyde commented on a post in r/exmormon
brmarcum 12 points

I'm happy to see us downvote each other, as long as it reflects genuine disagreement. If that is the case, I think it shows that the discussions are flowing. I don't want us all to agree with each other all the time. If I wanted an echo chamber, I'd head over to r/lds.

HelloHyde 3 points

If I remember right, according to reddiquette, downvotes aren’t supposed to be used for disagreeing. They’re for poor content, not differing viewpoints.

HelloHyde commented on a post in r/exmormon
Celloer 2 points

There’s been this huge #metoo movement this year over the same thing. Men in power using their influence to coerce women and girls to “let” them have sex with them. Sure, the women may not have been violently raped (who knows), but their careers and professions were threatened or squashed before they could begin unless they “played ball.” They would not have had a relation with these men otherwise, so it’s at least very direct and pervasive coercion. They did not want to, just their entire proessional livelihoods were threatened. Sure, they could say no and go home to Idaho and work the potato farm.

When Joseph Smith is your foster-father, in-law, employer, banker, mayor, general, and/or final judge of heaven or hell, and you can’t go back home to bleeding England, you’re putting your life and soul and your family’s lives and souls at risk denying him.

HelloHyde 1 point

Thank you. You make great points, and I guess my only minor pushback would be that there was a massive amount of hero worship of Joseph Smith (imagine if the apostles of today were relatively young and good-looking). He undoubtedly took advantage of that and was a shithole of a human being. However, if the drummer of a popular band sleeps with a bunch of women who would have no interest in him if he wasn’t famous, is it rape? No. People are attracted to power and charisma and influence.

So while now it’s easy to imagine all these women cowering and giving him what he wanted because they were afraid to say no, these were the same people who literally sang praises to him and followed him wherever he went, willingly giving up everything at his word. It’s easy to imagine women being thrilled to be picked by the Prophet of the Lard. Helen Kimball is the only one (I’m aware of, could be wrong) that gives the impression of hesitation, and even she happily married the next prophet and defended Joe until death. So Joe was definitely a predator who lied and took advantage of his situation to get sexual gratification, but to call him a serial rapist seems to me to be unsubstantiated.

I’m open to being corrected, however.

Celloer 2 points

Yes, that drummer is using his skill and fame to compensate if he could not otherwise attract ladies. But he is not in authority over them. Joseph was in charge of everyone’s salvation, and sometimes in charge of their livelihoods and lives, that’s a key difference: authority. It’s why people in companies have to be careful about dating, and usually can’t if one supervises or is otherwise directly in charge of the other’s career.

So “serial rapist” could be a bit hyperbolic, but there is an implication with his authority.

HelloHyde 1 point

Fair enough. Works for me.

I might also take issue with the OP’s assertion that Joe raped and assaulted young women as I’ve never heard evidence (or even accusation) of assault, but I’ll leave it at that. I’m already unpopular enough here.

Load more comments
view more:
next ›
6,462 Karma
3,120 Post Karma
3,342 Comment Karma

Following this user will show all the posts they make to their profile on your front page.

About hellohyde

  • Reddit Birthday

    April 6, 2017

Other Interesting Profiles

    Want to make posts on your
    own profile?

    Sign up to test the Reddit post to profile beta.

    Sign up