Slashdot Mirror

I find it a bit comical that a university run by the LDS church (mormons) is out hunting for dinosaurs. Of course, they think they are alien life-forms from another planet. Or that Adam used to ride them in the garden of Eden.

http://en.fairmormon.org/Mormonism_and_science/Dinosaurs

I think these types of findings and studies must put the participating church members through some really fantastic psychological gymnastics. Especially when run through their belief that Adam was the first actual living thing on the Earth.

http://scriptures.lds.org/en/abr/5/3-7
http://scriptures.lds.org/en/dc/77/12#12

There is no way I'd say this out in the open. It isn't polite to object with the local theocracy.

I find it a bit comical that a university run by the LDS church (mormons) is out hunting for dinosaurs. Of course, they think they are alien life-forms from another planet. Or that Adam used to ride them in the garden of Eden.

http://en.fairmormon.org/Mormonism_and_science/Dinosaurs

I think these types of findings and studies must put the participating church members through some really fantastic psychological gymnastics. Especially when run through their belief that Adam was the first actual living thing on the Earth.

http://scriptures.lds.org/en/abr/5/3-7
http://scriptures.lds.org/en/dc/77/12#12

There is no way I'd say this out in the open. It isn't polite to object with the local theocracy.

As a single LDS Man,

I would suggest that women are not 2nd class citizens in the LDS Church. It is the older single men who are 2nd class citizens. I won't go into the details, but because I am not married, I am not allowed to serve in any position of authority in the Church.

http://scriptures.lds.org/en/titus/1/6

Apparently there is a reason. People in leadership positions should portray the ideals of the Church, and that includes a wife and faithful kids. Yeah, it's a matter image, probably in hopes that the lay clergy will not be a stumbling block for anyone. As a single person, I'm not bothered by it. I doubt I'd enjoy any calling better than teaching Sunday school anyway.

About the kid mentioned in the article that started the no cussing club

"It hasn’t all been smooth sailing. At first, McKay almost quit because of negative response. Sometimes people would yell bad words at him. Or they would accuse him of trying to take away their freedom of speech. McKay points out that he isn’t making them do anything. He asks them to challenge themselves to improve. “I’m just trying to bring awareness about people’s language.”

In the accompanying video it says he's gotten death threats. Some people need to chill out.

It does prevent you from acting morally because your obligation is to follow a set of rules and commandments.

Quite the contrary; my obligation is to act morally. The fact that God has pointed out the fact and given me some pointers doesn't change it.

Can you show me any God-given commandments that ask me to do something inherently immoral?

Here's a protip for next time you get into an argument with a Christian:

We believe we will be held responsible for our immoral actions, not for our blind obedience to some set of rules. Jesus even said so in the New Testament.

It is, therefore, my obligation to act morally.

But you've still contradicted yourself; you stated that if there are consequences (reward or punishment) for your actions, your choices cannot be moral, because the presence of a consequences makes all decisions utilitarian.

If it is your "obligation" to act morally, then clearly you believe there is some consequence for not doing so; as such, by your own logic, you're acting out of utilitarianism, not out of a desire to act morally.

If you permit yourself to act morally (not utilitarian) despite the belief in consequences, then you must permit me the same.

And if you had ever read the Book of Mormon, you'd see right in the footnote at the bottom of the page [lds.org] where it talks about the people becoming experts in cement use because they didn't have enough trees:

So, you are saying then that we should interpret terms like "cement" literally as referring to specific items that we now understand by those terms. Since you take the term "cement" literally, we should do this for other terms as well (after all, the translation of the Book of Mormon was divinely guided).

What do we find? A dozen things that did not exist in the Americas but that the Book of Mormon talks about. Domestication of horses and cattle, the development of iron and steel and wheels have profound effects on entire continents, yet no native American societies had them. Even if Smith got the names wrong, they didn't even have anything remotely similar for many of those items (but then most of your other arguments go out the window anyway; if a pig isn't a pig, why should cement be cement?).

The Book of Mormon is permeated by fundamental contradictions to the archaeological record. And that's not even taking into account the linguistic contradictions.

horses

http://scriptures.lds.org/en/search?search=horse&do=Search

elephants

http://scriptures.lds.org/search?search=elephant

chicken

http://scriptures.lds.org/search?search=chicken

goat

http://scriptures.lds.org/search?search=goat

domesticated cattle or cows

http://scriptures.lds.org/search?search=cattle

http://scriptures.lds.org/search?search=cow

compass

http://scriptures.lds.org/search?search=compass

steel

http://scriptures.lds.org/search?search=steel

swine

http://scriptures.lds.org/search?search=swine

chariot

http://scriptures.lds.org/search?search=chariot

rust and iron

http://scriptures.lds.org/search?search=rust

http://scriptures.lds.org/search?search=iron

silk

http://scriptures.lds.org/search?search=silk

And if you had ever read the Book of Mormon, you'd see right in the footnote at the bottom of the page [lds.org] where it talks about the people becoming experts in cement use because they didn't have enough trees:

So, you are saying then that we should interpret terms like "cement" literally as referring to specific items that we now understand by those terms. Since you take the term "cement" literally, we should do this for other terms as well (after all, the translation of the Book of Mormon was divinely guided).

What do we find? A dozen things that did not exist in the Americas but that the Book of Mormon talks about. Domestication of horses and cattle, the development of iron and steel and wheels have profound effects on entire continents, yet no native American societies had them. Even if Smith got the names wrong, they didn't even have anything remotely similar for many of those items (but then most of your other arguments go out the window anyway; if a pig isn't a pig, why should cement be cement?).

The Book of Mormon is permeated by fundamental contradictions to the archaeological record. And that's not even taking into account the linguistic contradictions.

horses

http://scriptures.lds.org/en/search?search=horse&do=Search

elephants

http://scriptures.lds.org/search?search=elephant

chicken

http://scriptures.lds.org/search?search=chicken

goat

http://scriptures.lds.org/search?search=goat

domesticated cattle or cows

http://scriptures.lds.org/search?search=cattle

http://scriptures.lds.org/search?search=cow

compass

http://scriptures.lds.org/search?search=compass

steel

http://scriptures.lds.org/search?search=steel

swine

http://scriptures.lds.org/search?search=swine

chariot

http://scriptures.lds.org/search?search=chariot

rust and iron

http://scriptures.lds.org/search?search=rust

http://scriptures.lds.org/search?search=iron

silk

http://scriptures.lds.org/search?search=silk

And if you had ever read the Book of Mormon, you'd see right in the footnote at the bottom of the page [lds.org] where it talks about the people becoming experts in cement use because they didn't have enough trees:

So, you are saying then that we should interpret terms like "cement" literally as referring to specific items that we now understand by those terms. Since you take the term "cement" literally, we should do this for other terms as well (after all, the translation of the Book of Mormon was divinely guided).

What do we find? A dozen things that did not exist in the Americas but that the Book of Mormon talks about. Domestication of horses and cattle, the development of iron and steel and wheels have profound effects on entire continents, yet no native American societies had them. Even if Smith got the names wrong, they didn't even have anything remotely similar for many of those items (but then most of your other arguments go out the window anyway; if a pig isn't a pig, why should cement be cement?).

The Book of Mormon is permeated by fundamental contradictions to the archaeological record. And that's not even taking into account the linguistic contradictions.

horses

http://scriptures.lds.org/en/search?search=horse&do=Search

elephants

http://scriptures.lds.org/search?search=elephant

chicken

http://scriptures.lds.org/search?search=chicken

goat

http://scriptures.lds.org/search?search=goat

domesticated cattle or cows

http://scriptures.lds.org/search?search=cattle

http://scriptures.lds.org/search?search=cow

compass

http://scriptures.lds.org/search?search=compass

steel

http://scriptures.lds.org/search?search=steel

swine

http://scriptures.lds.org/search?search=swine

chariot

http://scriptures.lds.org/search?search=chariot

rust and iron

http://scriptures.lds.org/search?search=rust

http://scriptures.lds.org/search?search=iron

silk

http://scriptures.lds.org/search?search=silk

And if you had ever read the Book of Mormon, you'd see right in the footnote at the bottom of the page [lds.org] where it talks about the people becoming experts in cement use because they didn't have enough trees:

So, you are saying then that we should interpret terms like "cement" literally as referring to specific items that we now understand by those terms. Since you take the term "cement" literally, we should do this for other terms as well (after all, the translation of the Book of Mormon was divinely guided).

What do we find? A dozen things that did not exist in the Americas but that the Book of Mormon talks about. Domestication of horses and cattle, the development of iron and steel and wheels have profound effects on entire continents, yet no native American societies had them. Even if Smith got the names wrong, they didn't even have anything remotely similar for many of those items (but then most of your other arguments go out the window anyway; if a pig isn't a pig, why should cement be cement?).

The Book of Mormon is permeated by fundamental contradictions to the archaeological record. And that's not even taking into account the linguistic contradictions.

horses

http://scriptures.lds.org/en/search?search=horse&do=Search

elephants

http://scriptures.lds.org/search?search=elephant

chicken

http://scriptures.lds.org/search?search=chicken

goat

http://scriptures.lds.org/search?search=goat

domesticated cattle or cows

http://scriptures.lds.org/search?search=cattle

http://scriptures.lds.org/search?search=cow

compass

http://scriptures.lds.org/search?search=compass

steel

http://scriptures.lds.org/search?search=steel

swine

http://scriptures.lds.org/search?search=swine

chariot

http://scriptures.lds.org/search?search=chariot

rust and iron

http://scriptures.lds.org/search?search=rust

http://scriptures.lds.org/search?search=iron

silk

http://scriptures.lds.org/search?search=silk

And if you had ever read the Book of Mormon, you'd see right in the footnote at the bottom of the page [lds.org] where it talks about the people becoming experts in cement use because they didn't have enough trees:

So, you are saying then that we should interpret terms like "cement" literally as referring to specific items that we now understand by those terms. Since you take the term "cement" literally, we should do this for other terms as well (after all, the translation of the Book of Mormon was divinely guided).

What do we find? A dozen things that did not exist in the Americas but that the Book of Mormon talks about. Domestication of horses and cattle, the development of iron and steel and wheels have profound effects on entire continents, yet no native American societies had them. Even if Smith got the names wrong, they didn't even have anything remotely similar for many of those items (but then most of your other arguments go out the window anyway; if a pig isn't a pig, why should cement be cement?).

The Book of Mormon is permeated by fundamental contradictions to the archaeological record. And that's not even taking into account the linguistic contradictions.

horses

http://scriptures.lds.org/en/search?search=horse&do=Search

elephants

http://scriptures.lds.org/search?search=elephant

chicken

http://scriptures.lds.org/search?search=chicken

goat

http://scriptures.lds.org/search?search=goat

domesticated cattle or cows

http://scriptures.lds.org/search?search=cattle

http://scriptures.lds.org/search?search=cow

compass

http://scriptures.lds.org/search?search=compass

steel

http://scriptures.lds.org/search?search=steel

swine

http://scriptures.lds.org/search?search=swine

chariot

http://scriptures.lds.org/search?search=chariot

rust and iron

http://scriptures.lds.org/search?search=rust

http://scriptures.lds.org/search?search=iron

silk

http://scriptures.lds.org/search?search=silk

And if you had ever read the Book of Mormon, you'd see right in the footnote at the bottom of the page [lds.org] where it talks about the people becoming experts in cement use because they didn't have enough trees:

So, you are saying then that we should interpret terms like "cement" literally as referring to specific items that we now understand by those terms. Since you take the term "cement" literally, we should do this for other terms as well (after all, the translation of the Book of Mormon was divinely guided).

What do we find? A dozen things that did not exist in the Americas but that the Book of Mormon talks about. Domestication of horses and cattle, the development of iron and steel and wheels have profound effects on entire continents, yet no native American societies had them. Even if Smith got the names wrong, they didn't even have anything remotely similar for many of those items (but then most of your other arguments go out the window anyway; if a pig isn't a pig, why should cement be cement?).

The Book of Mormon is permeated by fundamental contradictions to the archaeological record. And that's not even taking into account the linguistic contradictions.

horses

http://scriptures.lds.org/en/search?search=horse&do=Search

elephants

http://scriptures.lds.org/search?search=elephant

chicken

http://scriptures.lds.org/search?search=chicken

goat

http://scriptures.lds.org/search?search=goat

domesticated cattle or cows

http://scriptures.lds.org/search?search=cattle

http://scriptures.lds.org/search?search=cow

compass

http://scriptures.lds.org/search?search=compass

steel

http://scriptures.lds.org/search?search=steel

swine

http://scriptures.lds.org/search?search=swine

chariot

http://scriptures.lds.org/search?search=chariot

rust and iron

http://scriptures.lds.org/search?search=rust

http://scriptures.lds.org/search?search=iron

silk

http://scriptures.lds.org/search?search=silk

And if you had ever read the Book of Mormon, you'd see right in the footnote at the bottom of the page [lds.org] where it talks about the people becoming experts in cement use because they didn't have enough trees:

So, you are saying then that we should interpret terms like "cement" literally as referring to specific items that we now understand by those terms. Since you take the term "cement" literally, we should do this for other terms as well (after all, the translation of the Book of Mormon was divinely guided).

What do we find? A dozen things that did not exist in the Americas but that the Book of Mormon talks about. Domestication of horses and cattle, the development of iron and steel and wheels have profound effects on entire continents, yet no native American societies had them. Even if Smith got the names wrong, they didn't even have anything remotely similar for many of those items (but then most of your other arguments go out the window anyway; if a pig isn't a pig, why should cement be cement?).

The Book of Mormon is permeated by fundamental contradictions to the archaeological record. And that's not even taking into account the linguistic contradictions.

horses

http://scriptures.lds.org/en/search?search=horse&do=Search

elephants

http://scriptures.lds.org/search?search=elephant

chicken

http://scriptures.lds.org/search?search=chicken

goat

http://scriptures.lds.org/search?search=goat

domesticated cattle or cows

http://scriptures.lds.org/search?search=cattle

http://scriptures.lds.org/search?search=cow

compass

http://scriptures.lds.org/search?search=compass

steel

http://scriptures.lds.org/search?search=steel

swine

http://scriptures.lds.org/search?search=swine

chariot

http://scriptures.lds.org/search?search=chariot

rust and iron

http://scriptures.lds.org/search?search=rust

http://scriptures.lds.org/search?search=iron

silk

http://scriptures.lds.org/search?search=silk

And if you had ever read the Book of Mormon, you'd see right in the footnote at the bottom of the page [lds.org] where it talks about the people becoming experts in cement use because they didn't have enough trees:

So, you are saying then that we should interpret terms like "cement" literally as referring to specific items that we now understand by those terms. Since you take the term "cement" literally, we should do this for other terms as well (after all, the translation of the Book of Mormon was divinely guided).

What do we find? A dozen things that did not exist in the Americas but that the Book of Mormon talks about. Domestication of horses and cattle, the development of iron and steel and wheels have profound effects on entire continents, yet no native American societies had them. Even if Smith got the names wrong, they didn't even have anything remotely similar for many of those items (but then most of your other arguments go out the window anyway; if a pig isn't a pig, why should cement be cement?).

The Book of Mormon is permeated by fundamental contradictions to the archaeological record. And that's not even taking into account the linguistic contradictions.

horses

http://scriptures.lds.org/en/search?search=horse&do=Search

elephants

http://scriptures.lds.org/search?search=elephant

chicken

http://scriptures.lds.org/search?search=chicken

goat

http://scriptures.lds.org/search?search=goat

domesticated cattle or cows

http://scriptures.lds.org/search?search=cattle

http://scriptures.lds.org/search?search=cow

compass

http://scriptures.lds.org/search?search=compass

steel

http://scriptures.lds.org/search?search=steel

swine

http://scriptures.lds.org/search?search=swine

chariot

http://scriptures.lds.org/search?search=chariot

rust and iron

http://scriptures.lds.org/search?search=rust

http://scriptures.lds.org/search?search=iron

silk

http://scriptures.lds.org/search?search=silk

And if you had ever read the Book of Mormon, you'd see right in the footnote at the bottom of the page [lds.org] where it talks about the people becoming experts in cement use because they didn't have enough trees:

So, you are saying then that we should interpret terms like "cement" literally as referring to specific items that we now understand by those terms. Since you take the term "cement" literally, we should do this for other terms as well (after all, the translation of the Book of Mormon was divinely guided).

What do we find? A dozen things that did not exist in the Americas but that the Book of Mormon talks about. Domestication of horses and cattle, the development of iron and steel and wheels have profound effects on entire continents, yet no native American societies had them. Even if Smith got the names wrong, they didn't even have anything remotely similar for many of those items (but then most of your other arguments go out the window anyway; if a pig isn't a pig, why should cement be cement?).

The Book of Mormon is permeated by fundamental contradictions to the archaeological record. And that's not even taking into account the linguistic contradictions.

horses

http://scriptures.lds.org/en/search?search=horse&do=Search

elephants

http://scriptures.lds.org/search?search=elephant

chicken

http://scriptures.lds.org/search?search=chicken

goat

http://scriptures.lds.org/search?search=goat

domesticated cattle or cows

http://scriptures.lds.org/search?search=cattle

http://scriptures.lds.org/search?search=cow

compass

http://scriptures.lds.org/search?search=compass

steel

http://scriptures.lds.org/search?search=steel

swine

http://scriptures.lds.org/search?search=swine

chariot

http://scriptures.lds.org/search?search=chariot

rust and iron

http://scriptures.lds.org/search?search=rust

http://scriptures.lds.org/search?search=iron

silk

http://scriptures.lds.org/search?search=silk

And if you had ever read the Book of Mormon, you'd see right in the footnote at the bottom of the page [lds.org] where it talks about the people becoming experts in cement use because they didn't have enough trees:

So, you are saying then that we should interpret terms like "cement" literally as referring to specific items that we now understand by those terms. Since you take the term "cement" literally, we should do this for other terms as well (after all, the translation of the Book of Mormon was divinely guided).

What do we find? A dozen things that did not exist in the Americas but that the Book of Mormon talks about. Domestication of horses and cattle, the development of iron and steel and wheels have profound effects on entire continents, yet no native American societies had them. Even if Smith got the names wrong, they didn't even have anything remotely similar for many of those items (but then most of your other arguments go out the window anyway; if a pig isn't a pig, why should cement be cement?).

The Book of Mormon is permeated by fundamental contradictions to the archaeological record. And that's not even taking into account the linguistic contradictions.

horses

http://scriptures.lds.org/en/search?search=horse&do=Search

elephants

http://scriptures.lds.org/search?search=elephant

chicken

http://scriptures.lds.org/search?search=chicken

goat

http://scriptures.lds.org/search?search=goat

domesticated cattle or cows

http://scriptures.lds.org/search?search=cattle

http://scriptures.lds.org/search?search=cow

compass

http://scriptures.lds.org/search?search=compass

steel

http://scriptures.lds.org/search?search=steel

swine

http://scriptures.lds.org/search?search=swine

chariot

http://scriptures.lds.org/search?search=chariot

rust and iron

http://scriptures.lds.org/search?search=rust

http://scriptures.lds.org/search?search=iron

silk

http://scriptures.lds.org/search?search=silk

And if you had ever read the Book of Mormon, you'd see right in the footnote at the bottom of the page [lds.org] where it talks about the people becoming experts in cement use because they didn't have enough trees:

So, you are saying then that we should interpret terms like "cement" literally as referring to specific items that we now understand by those terms. Since you take the term "cement" literally, we should do this for other terms as well (after all, the translation of the Book of Mormon was divinely guided).

What do we find? A dozen things that did not exist in the Americas but that the Book of Mormon talks about. Domestication of horses and cattle, the development of iron and steel and wheels have profound effects on entire continents, yet no native American societies had them. Even if Smith got the names wrong, they didn't even have anything remotely similar for many of those items (but then most of your other arguments go out the window anyway; if a pig isn't a pig, why should cement be cement?).

The Book of Mormon is permeated by fundamental contradictions to the archaeological record. And that's not even taking into account the linguistic contradictions.

horses

http://scriptures.lds.org/en/search?search=horse&do=Search

elephants

http://scriptures.lds.org/search?search=elephant

chicken

http://scriptures.lds.org/search?search=chicken

goat

http://scriptures.lds.org/search?search=goat

domesticated cattle or cows

http://scriptures.lds.org/search?search=cattle

http://scriptures.lds.org/search?search=cow

compass

http://scriptures.lds.org/search?search=compass

steel

http://scriptures.lds.org/search?search=steel

swine

http://scriptures.lds.org/search?search=swine

chariot

http://scriptures.lds.org/search?search=chariot

rust and iron

http://scriptures.lds.org/search?search=rust

http://scriptures.lds.org/search?search=iron

silk

http://scriptures.lds.org/search?search=silk

And if you had ever read the Book of Mormon, you'd see right in the footnote at the bottom of the page [lds.org] where it talks about the people becoming experts in cement use because they didn't have enough trees:

So, you are saying then that we should interpret terms like "cement" literally as referring to specific items that we now understand by those terms. Since you take the term "cement" literally, we should do this for other terms as well (after all, the translation of the Book of Mormon was divinely guided).

What do we find? A dozen things that did not exist in the Americas but that the Book of Mormon talks about. Domestication of horses and cattle, the development of iron and steel and wheels have profound effects on entire continents, yet no native American societies had them. Even if Smith got the names wrong, they didn't even have anything remotely similar for many of those items (but then most of your other arguments go out the window anyway; if a pig isn't a pig, why should cement be cement?).

The Book of Mormon is permeated by fundamental contradictions to the archaeological record. And that's not even taking into account the linguistic contradictions.

horses

http://scriptures.lds.org/en/search?search=horse&do=Search

elephants

http://scriptures.lds.org/search?search=elephant

chicken

http://scriptures.lds.org/search?search=chicken

goat

http://scriptures.lds.org/search?search=goat

domesticated cattle or cows

http://scriptures.lds.org/search?search=cattle

http://scriptures.lds.org/search?search=cow

compass

http://scriptures.lds.org/search?search=compass

steel

http://scriptures.lds.org/search?search=steel

swine

http://scriptures.lds.org/search?search=swine

chariot

http://scriptures.lds.org/search?search=chariot

rust and iron

http://scriptures.lds.org/search?search=rust

http://scriptures.lds.org/search?search=iron

silk

http://scriptures.lds.org/search?search=silk

And if you had ever read the Book of Mormon, you'd see right in the footnote at the bottom of the page [lds.org] where it talks about the people becoming experts in cement use because they didn't have enough trees:

So, you are saying then that we should interpret terms like "cement" literally as referring to specific items that we now understand by those terms. Since you take the term "cement" literally, we should do this for other terms as well (after all, the translation of the Book of Mormon was divinely guided).

What do we find? A dozen things that did not exist in the Americas but that the Book of Mormon talks about. Domestication of horses and cattle, the development of iron and steel and wheels have profound effects on entire continents, yet no native American societies had them. Even if Smith got the names wrong, they didn't even have anything remotely similar for many of those items (but then most of your other arguments go out the window anyway; if a pig isn't a pig, why should cement be cement?).

The Book of Mormon is permeated by fundamental contradictions to the archaeological record. And that's not even taking into account the linguistic contradictions.

horses

http://scriptures.lds.org/en/search?search=horse&do=Search

elephants

http://scriptures.lds.org/search?search=elephant

chicken

http://scriptures.lds.org/search?search=chicken

goat

http://scriptures.lds.org/search?search=goat

domesticated cattle or cows

http://scriptures.lds.org/search?search=cattle

http://scriptures.lds.org/search?search=cow

compass

http://scriptures.lds.org/search?search=compass

steel

http://scriptures.lds.org/search?search=steel

swine

http://scriptures.lds.org/search?search=swine

chariot

http://scriptures.lds.org/search?search=chariot

rust and iron

http://scriptures.lds.org/search?search=rust

http://scriptures.lds.org/search?search=iron

silk

http://scriptures.lds.org/search?search=silk

My view is just the existing, mainstream archaeological view: the Americas got settled via the Bering bridge somewhere 13000-40000 years ago.

You seem to be under the impression that the Book of Mormon contradicts that idea.

Except for Viking contacts, they developed independently until Columbus landed.

Sure, that's the current archeological understanding; but there's no reason to pretend it's impossible for a small group of newcomers to have absorbed themselves into the larger group of existing natives.

Basically, you're merely saying "the evidence may not contradict it, but it doesn't support it."

It's a monumentally magic leap of logic to go from that to your earlier statement that the Book of Mormon cannot be what it claims to be. (Yes, those were your words. Want me to link you to a specific post?)

All you ever do is point to Mormon apologetic web sites.

... did you even look at them? Of course not - if you had, you'd see that every single site I've linked to has provided sources for its statements.

And I do read the sites you point to, and all I can say is: you don't convince me.

You obviously didn't read the site regarding Hebrew in Uto-Aztecan; you thought the site had just four examples as the entirety of its proof!

Had you actually read the site, you'd have seen:

a) A summary of Stubbs' findings, with links to his full research
b) A full description of the methodology used
c) A comment of "here are four examples"
d) A cited, non-LDS scholar's comments on Stubbs work as being thorough and well-done
e) A five-part video presentation on the subject - a video that refers to a FEW HUNDRED such pieces of evidence conforming to the rigorous process outlined in part a, all of which I'm sure can be found in the full research linked to in part a.

You clearly didn't read any of that except the four examples (part c), because if you had, you would not have tried to pretend that the four examples were the entirety of the evidence.

No, I have faulted you for not coming up with specific dates and times.

Yet again you're proving you didn't read any of the sources I linked. Yes, jefflindsay.com is the site of an LDS apologist. That does not make his information irrelevant, and it's arrogant in the extreme of you to imply that is the case.

Guess what? The sources I link have consistently provided specific academic or historical sources for all of their statements.

You want to know when cement was supposed to have been used? You could have read the article on cement in the Book of Mormon that I've linked you to four or five times now, and you would have found reference to ancient American cement being used in "the middle of the first century B.C." right near at the beginning of the section linked.

And if you had ever read the Book of Mormon, you'd see right in the footnote at the bottom of the page where it talks about the people becoming experts in cement use because they didn't have enough trees:

"46 B.C."

Gee. It sure seems to me that "the middle of the first century B.C." matches up pretty well with "46 B.C."

And just to make sure you're convinced:

One of the most notable uses of cement is in the temple complex at Teotihuacan, north of present-day Mexico City. According to David S. Hyman, the structural use of cement appears suddenly in the archaeological record. And yet its earliest sample "is a fully developed product." The cement floor slabs at this site "were remarkably high in structural quality." Although exposed to the elements for nearly two thousand years, they still "exceed many present-day building code requirements." This is consis

There are large volcanic eruptions in the Americas every few decades.

Not on that scale.

Furthermore, the Book of Mormon isn't even very specific about what happened.

It's not? That's an absurd claim; 3 Nephi 8 is very specific.

It should also be noted that some native american legends refer to these same disasters as well, and in the same time frame.

Baptism by immersion exists independently in many religions and cultures and Smith described it because it's part of Christianity. So, there's nothing to be explained here.

Despite answering "Neither" to my list of options, you in fact chose option 1, "made a series of guesses with unparalleled accuracy".

That's what you're claiming, isn't it? That it was just a bunch of lucky guesses?

How many guesses have to be lucky before you'll actually consider the possibility that it's true?

And the Mormon church is now trying to justify its existence (and keep the money coming)

I'm curious what you think the money is being used for, because it's not going into the pockets of church leaders.

by highlighting those parts that accidentally appear to have real-world parallels.

So here we've got a book that:

a) Has descriptions which happen to match real-world discoveries made decades after it was published
b) To date has not been empirically disproved ... most people would call that "evidence".

And I'm still waiting for the evidence that you must believe exists that conclusively proves the Book of Mormon is a fabrication.

The question won't go away just by ignoring it, you know. I really do want to know what empirical evidence you've seen (and in what fields) that has convinced you so thoroughly that the Book of Mormon cannot be what it claims to be.

The answer to your question is answered in "The Origin of Consciousness in the Breakdown of the Bicameral Mind"

Bicameralism is an attempt to explain why ancient peoples believed a God actually spoke to them by calling it a hallucination, using the physiology of the brain as a basis for the idea.

Another possibility is that a God actually did speak to them.

Also, why there haven't been any not-considered-insane prophets for about 2000 years, and very likely none in the future.

Two points.

1) I believe there are modern prophets and apostles.

2) Even in the Bible, prophets were often considered insane by those they tried to teach. The fact that X million people think Joe is insane does not by itself mean Joe could not actually be a prophet ;) Even Jesus was rejected by his own people in Nazareth.

Also, why people actually used to get replies to their prayers. Real, as far as they were concerned, answers, not a "feeling as if".

I have gotten direct, non-"vague feeling" answers to prayers. Don't pretend your personal experience - or the personal experiences of some others - must be universal, and don't pretend "I can't prove it empirically" is equivalent to "it cannot exist".

The answer to your question is answered in "The Origin of Consciousness in the Breakdown of the Bicameral Mind"

Bicameralism is an attempt to explain why ancient peoples believed a God actually spoke to them by calling it a hallucination, using the physiology of the brain as a basis for the idea.

Another possibility is that a God actually did speak to them.

Also, why there haven't been any not-considered-insane prophets for about 2000 years, and very likely none in the future.

Two points.

1) I believe there are modern prophets and apostles.

2) Even in the Bible, prophets were often considered insane by those they tried to teach. The fact that X million people think Joe is insane does not by itself mean Joe could not actually be a prophet ;) Even Jesus was rejected by his own people in Nazareth.

Also, why people actually used to get replies to their prayers. Real, as far as they were concerned, answers, not a "feeling as if".

I have gotten direct, non-"vague feeling" answers to prayers. Don't pretend your personal experience - or the personal experiences of some others - must be universal, and don't pretend "I can't prove it empirically" is equivalent to "it cannot exist".

Furthermore, I'm not so sure; your own church [wikipedia.org] defines homosexuality as more than just participation in homosexual sex:

I think you're misreading the text you quoted - in fact, it specifically mentions that the church does not use the term "homosexual" to describe people with same-gender attractions, it uses the term "same-gender attraction".

The Wikipedia article was most likely not written by the LDS Church, so I would be careful with the context of those quotes, as the article writer likely has his or her own definition of "homosexual" which may not coincide with the LDS Church's usage. The Church's stance on homosexuality and same-gender marriage is best read here and here.

You seem receptive to the idea that homosexuality is a something you can at least be born with a predisposition to, but then go on to say that you can (and should) choose to not be that way.

That second half is the bit that's (of course) causing the most problems. If I can be direct, the trouble is that many religious people don't want to endorse something in law that they view as a sin, even only as indirectly as making it legal. (And, unfounded or not, there are fears regarding how that indirect endorsement would affect our children.)

You (the generic "you", referring to the LGBT movement) hear that and take offense, when (with perhaps some unfortunate exceptions) usually no offense is meant - we just don't want to endorse a lifestyle we view as a sin, and we want our children to clearly understand that we don't approve of it. (Hearing one message at school and the opposite at home can make for a confused child.)

To me, that's just as ridiculous as me saying that you might have been born heterosexual but should choose not to engage in your desires (due to overpopulation or whatever fanciful reason I might come up with).

I'm not asking anyone to stop living their sexual life how they want. As I said before, I don't much care what you do in your bedroom.

Homosexuals are still discriminated against for certain rights though

Well, one problem is that some of the things homosexuals are claiming are "rights" are actually privileges, not rights; adoption, for example, is not a right, but a privilege given to those couples that meet the criteria set by the adoption agency. If the adoption agency doesn't think homosexual couples can provide a sufficiently healthy environment to raise a child, well, that's unfortunate for such couples, but no rights have been lost.

it's just that perhaps my sarcasm was not the best way to illustrate mine

Sarcasm rarely comes across properly in internet-based discussions like this (which is why I specifically mentioned the facetiousness with which I made one of my comments)...

The explanation that gays want marriage rights because they want to enjoy the same rights heteros get satisfies the observations

But the issue is that gays don't actually gain any rights by marriage that they don't already have. There are some privileges, sure - tax credits meant to encourage having children, for example - but again those are not rights.

I realize that probably sounds arrogant, but if you're going to claim you're losing rights, you'd better show some rights that are getting lost, not just benefits.

(If you mention health insurance companies discriminating, well, that's already illegal in many/most places, so that sort of thing can be solved by enforcing existing law.)

Now, on top of all that, try to look at it from our point of view - "marriage" has a deep, special mea

Furthermore, I'm not so sure; your own church [wikipedia.org] defines homosexuality as more than just participation in homosexual sex:

I think you're misreading the text you quoted - in fact, it specifically mentions that the church does not use the term "homosexual" to describe people with same-gender attractions, it uses the term "same-gender attraction".

The Wikipedia article was most likely not written by the LDS Church, so I would be careful with the context of those quotes, as the article writer likely has his or her own definition of "homosexual" which may not coincide with the LDS Church's usage. The Church's stance on homosexuality and same-gender marriage is best read here and here.

You seem receptive to the idea that homosexuality is a something you can at least be born with a predisposition to, but then go on to say that you can (and should) choose to not be that way.

That second half is the bit that's (of course) causing the most problems. If I can be direct, the trouble is that many religious people don't want to endorse something in law that they view as a sin, even only as indirectly as making it legal. (And, unfounded or not, there are fears regarding how that indirect endorsement would affect our children.)

You (the generic "you", referring to the LGBT movement) hear that and take offense, when (with perhaps some unfortunate exceptions) usually no offense is meant - we just don't want to endorse a lifestyle we view as a sin, and we want our children to clearly understand that we don't approve of it. (Hearing one message at school and the opposite at home can make for a confused child.)

To me, that's just as ridiculous as me saying that you might have been born heterosexual but should choose not to engage in your desires (due to overpopulation or whatever fanciful reason I might come up with).

I'm not asking anyone to stop living their sexual life how they want. As I said before, I don't much care what you do in your bedroom.

Homosexuals are still discriminated against for certain rights though

Well, one problem is that some of the things homosexuals are claiming are "rights" are actually privileges, not rights; adoption, for example, is not a right, but a privilege given to those couples that meet the criteria set by the adoption agency. If the adoption agency doesn't think homosexual couples can provide a sufficiently healthy environment to raise a child, well, that's unfortunate for such couples, but no rights have been lost.

it's just that perhaps my sarcasm was not the best way to illustrate mine

Sarcasm rarely comes across properly in internet-based discussions like this (which is why I specifically mentioned the facetiousness with which I made one of my comments)...

The explanation that gays want marriage rights because they want to enjoy the same rights heteros get satisfies the observations

But the issue is that gays don't actually gain any rights by marriage that they don't already have. There are some privileges, sure - tax credits meant to encourage having children, for example - but again those are not rights.

I realize that probably sounds arrogant, but if you're going to claim you're losing rights, you'd better show some rights that are getting lost, not just benefits.

(If you mention health insurance companies discriminating, well, that's already illegal in many/most places, so that sort of thing can be solved by enforcing existing law.)

Now, on top of all that, try to look at it from our point of view - "marriage" has a deep, special mea

The Mormon Church also requires large sums of money from it's members (a large percentage of your earnings) as well as mandated service.

Can you read the Book of Mormon and/or information about it without joining the church.? AFAIK you can.

Yes you can.

It's also important to note that the Mormon Church has no paid clergy. So member donations go to the organization/religion itself rather than to its leaders.

There were giants in the earth in those days; and also after that, when the sons of God came in unto the daughters of men, and they bare children to them, the same became mighty men which were of old, men of renown.

There are giants in our day. Not really the stuff of conspiracy theories. It certainly doesn't say in that passage of the bible or any other that the giants bred with the son of man, nor the daughters for that matter. As for the sons of God in that verse, wouldn't that mean the followers of God? You could interpret it as aliens, but then what of Occam's razor?

Yes, I modded you down, and icebike too. Not because I "disagree", but because both your posts are patently false. It doesn't take a bible scholar to search the web.

They make a profit on a lot of these activities just like a business, why shouldn't they pay taxes like everyone else?

From here:

Question 12: “Does the Church own substantial farm properties, as some have indicated?”

The Church does own a number of farm properties. As you know, we have some welfare properties whose produce is used to supply food for the needy. These are operated strictly for charitable purposes and legally qualify for tax-exempt status.

Then we have some commercial farm properties. I spoke earlier of the reserves of the Church. Prudent management requires that this money be put to use. In that process, we have purchased and hold some good, productive farms. They are well operated under capable management, and they yield a conservative rate of return. We have felt that good farms, over a long period, represent a safe investment where the assets of the Church may be preserved and enhanced, while at the same time they are available as an agricultural resource to feed people should there come a time of need.

Again, all such commercial properties are taxed under the government entities where they are located. Not only do they pay property taxes, but also income taxes on any profits. So it is with all of the commercial operations of the Church.

In other words, the LDS Church does in fact pay property tax and income tax on commercial efforts. One would assume the Catholic Church does the same.

Do you realize individuals get tax breaks for charitable donations? The exact same reasoning is behind a church's tax-exempt status - except that charitable activities of a church often far outpace what individual citizens could hope to accomplish:

From here:

Donations, principally from [LDS] Church members but also from people around the world, are used to make relief projects possible. One hundred percent of the donations given to the Church’s humanitarian services are used for relief efforts. The [LDS] Church absorbs its own overhead costs.

No for-profit organization would be willing to do that - and an organization that operates that way has great incentive to streamline its operations for efficiency and cost-effectiveness. Do you think a government-operated agency would ever be as cost-effective?

Clamor for removing tax exemption from churches if you want, but you'd better not complain when you succeed and your taxes rise to compensate for the government's increased humanitarian aid spending.

They make a profit on a lot of these activities just like a business, why shouldn't they pay taxes like everyone else?

From here:

Question 12: “Does the Church own substantial farm properties, as some have indicated?”

The Church does own a number of farm properties. As you know, we have some welfare properties whose produce is used to supply food for the needy. These are operated strictly for charitable purposes and legally qualify for tax-exempt status.

Then we have some commercial farm properties. I spoke earlier of the reserves of the Church. Prudent management requires that this money be put to use. In that process, we have purchased and hold some good, productive farms. They are well operated under capable management, and they yield a conservative rate of return. We have felt that good farms, over a long period, represent a safe investment where the assets of the Church may be preserved and enhanced, while at the same time they are available as an agricultural resource to feed people should there come a time of need.

Again, all such commercial properties are taxed under the government entities where they are located. Not only do they pay property taxes, but also income taxes on any profits. So it is with all of the commercial operations of the Church.

In other words, the LDS Church does in fact pay property tax and income tax on commercial efforts. One would assume the Catholic Church does the same.

Do you realize individuals get tax breaks for charitable donations? The exact same reasoning is behind a church's tax-exempt status - except that charitable activities of a church often far outpace what individual citizens could hope to accomplish:

From here:

Donations, principally from [LDS] Church members but also from people around the world, are used to make relief projects possible. One hundred percent of the donations given to the Church’s humanitarian services are used for relief efforts. The [LDS] Church absorbs its own overhead costs.

No for-profit organization would be willing to do that - and an organization that operates that way has great incentive to streamline its operations for efficiency and cost-effectiveness. Do you think a government-operated agency would ever be as cost-effective?

Clamor for removing tax exemption from churches if you want, but you'd better not complain when you succeed and your taxes rise to compensate for the government's increased humanitarian aid spending.

As the stated reasons for opposition are specifically moral, I think the question would be appropriate.

This quote, while not by any means a signed and official decleration, is something to be aware of.

http://newsroom.lds.org/ldsnewsroom/eng/public-issues/same-gender-attraction

PUBLIC AFFAIRS: Would you extend the same argument against same-gender marriage to civil unions or some kind of benefits short of marriage?

ELDER WICKMAN: One way to think of marriage is as a bundle of rights associated with what it means for two people to be married. What the First Presidency has done is express its support of marriage and for that bundle of rights belonging to a man and a woman. The First Presidency hasn’t expressed itself concerning any specific right. It really doesn’t matter what you call it. If you have some legally sanctioned relationship with the bundle of legal rights traditionally belonging to marriage and governing authority has slapped a label on it, whether it is civil union or domestic partnership or whatever label it’s given, it is nonetheless tantamount to marriage. That is something to which our doctrine simply requires us to speak out and say, “That is not right. That’s not appropriate.

I say, the spirit of the law is 'love each other and treat each other as you would be treated,' and you are completely ignoring THAT, the CORE of your religion's value system, so don't even try that argument.

I'm not ignoring it, but there is far more to Christianity than "treat people how you want to be treated". I don't think that line of conversation will be very productive, though, all things considered.

You don't say how, or why you think that, except that your religion told you so.

No, I didn't, but all you have to do is ask ;) Link: Proclamation on the Family.

You do not get to impose your religious beliefs on my religion, no matter how you try to justify it, you can't do it thanks to the Constitution.

Yet it's ok for you to impose your religious beliefs on me?

Now, I would be fine with your last suggestion as well, as long as two men married by a church could call themselves married, if they got a civil union from the state and a separate marriage ceremony from their church.

I'm glad we can agree on something :)

The Old testament is (As Eddie Izzard calls it) the big beard Testament.

  Not all Christian religions are the same, nor do they interpret the Bible the same way. The LDS church believes the Bible is only the word of God, if it is Translated correctly. http://scriptures.lds.org/en/a_of_f/1 (See number 8)

They also believe the Old testament is the Old Law, the Law of Moses. Much of what was practiced before Christ was meant to go away with the coming of Christ, and the Higher Law. http://scriptures.lds.org/en/gs/l/12

The Higher Law, in a Nutshell, is to do unto others as you would have them do unto you, Love one another, and all that passive stuff.
Any Christian faith, that condones animal Sacrifice, killing anyone when it's not in defense of yourself, your family, or your country, or any of some of the bizarre things required by the Israelites in the old Testament, is not following Christ's teachings.

Maybe you and I at least can agree on one thing though. You believe ( or don't believe ) how you wish, and I will how I wish. I will not chuck you into a big group, and assume you are like the worst, and I would love to also not be chucked into the big group that claim they are doing the Lords work, when they contradict the Lords teachings

The Old testament is (As Eddie Izzard calls it) the big beard Testament.

  Not all Christian religions are the same, nor do they interpret the Bible the same way. The LDS church believes the Bible is only the word of God, if it is Translated correctly. http://scriptures.lds.org/en/a_of_f/1 (See number 8)

They also believe the Old testament is the Old Law, the Law of Moses. Much of what was practiced before Christ was meant to go away with the coming of Christ, and the Higher Law. http://scriptures.lds.org/en/gs/l/12

The Higher Law, in a Nutshell, is to do unto others as you would have them do unto you, Love one another, and all that passive stuff.
Any Christian faith, that condones animal Sacrifice, killing anyone when it's not in defense of yourself, your family, or your country, or any of some of the bizarre things required by the Israelites in the old Testament, is not following Christ's teachings.

Maybe you and I at least can agree on one thing though. You believe ( or don't believe ) how you wish, and I will how I wish. I will not chuck you into a big group, and assume you are like the worst, and I would love to also not be chucked into the big group that claim they are doing the Lords work, when they contradict the Lords teachings

Indulge me for a moment and pretend that you don't believe in the supernatural.

I don't believe in the supernatural. No indulgence necessary. I could not believe in a god who excepts himself from the natural laws that govern the rest of us.

True power is controlling the lives of millions of worshippers the way those old men in Utah do with all my Mormon friends (especially the women).

Have you ever personally listened to a single address given by any of those "old men in Utah"? They speak every six months. I listen every six months, and I have never been worse off for having done so. Go see what they've said recently. Once you've listened to their advice and tried it and something bad happened, come back and let me know. Until then, you're just talking trash about something you don't understand.

Whatever you think about the Book of Mormon, it was published in 1830, and it has an interesting description of "judges" (what we would call "lawyers") creating cases out of thin air, because they were paid for the time they spent on cases (See Alma 11).

The idea is not novel at all.

Nope, at least 58% self-identify LDS.

One of Utah's local papers did some research into LDS demographics (unfortunately, the article's only available from a pay archive, but the abstract in the search results contains the meat of the article).

The church itself claims 72% (certainly some of this claim is showmanship, but still...).

So, no. There are not as many non-members as there are members.

In order to survive, many of these sites and companies will just have to do the unthinkable and evolve to keep up with web trends.

For a good discussion of where the trends could be going, read this article: http://tech.lds.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=371&Itemid=5

I see nothing inappropriate about a Church encouraging their members to be active in a current political issue and last time I checked people are free to donate to whatever cause they like.

However, there have been some allegations of the church contacting non-members which must be reported to the state and wasn't.

Ad hominem:

Source A makes claim X

There is something objectionable about Source A

Therefore claim X is false

Have a good day.

That doesn't hold true when the "something objectionable" about "Source A" involves their analysis of the issue at hand.

The Austrian school of economics has long been the "intelligent design" of the economic field.

the school has traditionally advocated an interpretive approach to history to address specific historical events......

its methods consist of post-hoc analysis, and do not generate testable implications; they argue this approach fails the test of falsifiability....

I know of a few other organizations whose philosophies take an interpretive approach to history and whose theories fail falsifiability as well.

Look, plain and simple, the austrian school is not economics, it's a religion being passed off as economics by the dogmatic and corrupt.

Here was a church leadership which injected its organization voluminously and inappropriately into a contemporary political issue. They turned an institution of private religious belief into public political party.

That last statement is simply untrue. What was inappropriate about the Mormon church (or any of the other churches involved for that matter) involving itself in this issue? It was not a purely political issue. The church did not present itself either officially or unofficially as a political party in this matter. The Mormon church does not involve itself as an institution in American (or any other country's) party politics, or specifically endorse any political candidates.

Prop 8 was seen by many as a moral issue that goes beyond simple politics, and moral issues are well within the domain of churches. Religious organisations such as the Catholic church and the LDS church have strong and definite beliefs on marriage, and I believe under American law and constitutional guarantees, have every right to be involved in these type of moral issues on a public basis.

It should also be noted that whilst the Mormon church and other religious groups were vocal in this matter, it is my understanding that members of the black and hispanic communities in California represented a significant percentage of the majority voted against legalising gay marriage. Are these demographics bigoted towards gays?

Personally, I would be more worried by the fact that the Governor of California is determined to overturn the voice of the people. Twice in the last eight years this issue has been voted upon in California, and twice the people have decided by the established democratic process to not support the legalisation of gay marriage. Despite this, the Governor is determined to overturn the will of the people. That should be of greater concern, as that is more likely to damage the political freedoms of Californians that are so cherished by Americans in general.

For the record, I am a member of the Mormon church. I know for a fact that the church is not bigoted towards homosexuals. Like the rest of Christianity, we see the practice of homosexuality as sin, as taught in the Bible. We also see extra-marital sex (adultery) and pre-marital sex (fornication) as sin, and that too is according to biblical teachings. Just because a person or organisation views these practices as sinful, it does not mean that they are automatically bigoted towards the individuals involved. Quite the opposite in fact. Are parents bigoted towards their children because the child behaves in a manner that is unacceptable to the parents? No, they still love the child notwithstanding they might deplore the behaviour.

Bigotry is defined as "stubborn and complete intolerance of any creed, belief, or opinion that differs from one's own." The Mormon church's position towards homosexuality is not bigotry. I would point you to the transcript of an interview on the LDS Church's position on homosexuality. This lengthy interview was given by two very senior leaders of the Church, and is found here. Make of it what you will, but this is not a bigoted position.

Those that choose homosexuality (and it is purely by choice) are still free to live that lifestyle according to the laws of the land. The fact that this minority wanted to make a change to the law, and the majority opposed it doesn't change the fact that they are still free to live the way they choose.

I do agree with you however that if a person strongly disagree's with the teachings of the church or religious group to which they have associated themselves, then by all means they should probably discontinue that association. Staying to merely avoid social difficulty, and not living according the principles upon which membership of that church is based in nothing

Egads. "'Mormon' Church of Latter-Day Saints"? It's the The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

It is interesting, but not so surprising, to find that "about 200" members of the church are leaving over the Proposition 8 issue. That's hardly a large number, though, compared to the more than 12 million worldwide membership of the church. There are always some who will find some reason to leave the church. That is their decision.

I do, however, take issue with your opinion that the leadership of the church injected itself inappropriately into a contemporary political issue. How was it inappropriate? Do church leaders not have the same freedom of speech as do any other person in the United States? Of course they do. They don't always exercise that right. Be aware that the church has consistently kept itself out of politics, the exception being when the political issues concern morals. It is then the right, and duty, of the church to speak out.

Mormonism is based on some golden tablets with words written on them that nobody has seen but the farm boy who discovered it.

About the Mormon Golden Tablets: apparently there were other witnesses apart from the farm boy:

http://scriptures.lds.org/en/bm/thrwtnss
http://scriptures.lds.org/en/bm/eghtwtns

Mormonism is based on some golden tablets with words written on them that nobody has seen but the farm boy who discovered it.

About the Mormon Golden Tablets: apparently there were other witnesses apart from the farm boy:

http://scriptures.lds.org/en/bm/thrwtnss
http://scriptures.lds.org/en/bm/eghtwtns

Mormons are not Christians. And neither are Jehovah's Witnesses, for that matter. This may be a subject for debate, and of course the definition of "Christian" is a pretty blurry one.

Check your dictionary. Mine says "following the teachings or manifesting the qualities or spirit of Jesus Christ" (Word Net 2.0). I found about a dozen other definitions on-line, and they all read pretty much like that. Personally, I think the definition of 'Christian' is at least as clear as the definition of 'German', 'Canadian' or 'Italian'.

the church is Christian if it accepts any of the existing versions of the Nicene Creed as their symbol of faith

None of the definitions I could find mentioned the word "Nicene" in any form. Perhaps your definition is better suited to the word 'Nicene' than 'Christian'. That's not to say that the Nicene sects aren't also Christian, if they believe and follow the teachings of Christ, as the Mormons and the Witnesses do.

Every Christian church considers itself the (or a part of a) "One, holy, catholic, and apostolic Church" from the Nicene creed

False.

The general consensus is that the Sadducees did not believe in the resurrection. They were trying to trip up Jesus into answering an unanswerable question.

The second point is that Jesus does not say that there will be no marriage in eternity. He only says that there will be no one given in marriage; just as they can no longer die. In short, Jesus does not "cast pearls" by talking about eternal marriage with people who don't even believe in the afterlife.

In several other places eternal marriage is spoken of.

The general consensus is that the Sadducees did not believe in the resurrection. They were trying to trip up Jesus into answering an unanswerable question.

The second point is that Jesus does not say that there will be no marriage in eternity. He only says that there will be no one given in marriage; just as they can no longer die. In short, Jesus does not "cast pearls" by talking about eternal marriage with people who don't even believe in the afterlife.

In several other places eternal marriage is spoken of.

As LDS, you know and understand the principle of Eternal Marriage. If you ask around, you'll realize that widowers will re-marry in the Temple for Time and Eternity. Smith and Young both taught that one husband would be the god of many worlds. The more wives he had, the more worlds he would have. Young taught that you needed at least three wives to enter the Celestial Kingdom.

Also, please note that nothing in The 1889 Manifesto revoked the standing of D&C 132.

Oddly enough, widows also have the choice to re-marry for eternity. The idea being that they will be able to choose the husband who obtains the highest level of glory...

Doesn't human reproduction "transform"?

Sure, but you might run into some prior art problems if you try to patent it.

You're actually talking primarily about trademark in your post, and that is the strongest IP protection for fast food places. You don't generally eat at McD's because you care about their patented sandwich-making process. You eat there because of the awesome power of the Golden Arches (especially when you couple it with the Coca-Cola you buy there).

I think the source was Joe Jr. himself.

http://scriptures.lds.org/js_h/1

But I have to admit, I left long ago and don't have the current redacted version.

The Mormons will.... then again, never mind the Mormons. :-D

The Mormons will just shrug and say, "So what?"

I'm a Mormon. We do not rely exclusively on the Bible for our religious thinking. We believe the Bible to be the word of God "as far as it is translated correctly." We also have other scriptures (such as the Book of Mormon) that we rely on. We also believe that God has, and continues, to call men to whom He gives authority to act in His name and proclaim His truth (i.e. continuing revelation).

So, the discovery of a new manuscript would be interesting, especially if proven authentic. But just because it lacks something that we take to be truth wouldn't be such a big deal.