Slashdot Mirror

I hear all of what you say and don't disagree.

I don't expect my validations to hold more weight with you than your own validations, but its good that you can see that this is what it comes down to, and its nice for me to realise I'm not looking for anyone elses approval of the current state of my learning process.

As far as your theoretical group of friends, some of them may be lying and one of the liars may even be a mormon. Its had to know what experiences a person has had.

As far as an unfair God damming people, you are right it is damn offensive (pardon) and such a god deserves no respect or worship; which leads to the idea that his "devotees" and "worshippers" may not fully know him, if they think this is what god is like.

In my experience, belief in god often comes down to description of god.

On your point of extreme mormon doctrines and comparitive religion, I have never come across a book that accurately represented mormon belief that was not published by a mormon, and have come to respective conclusions about catholics etc.

[I was very happy when I came across a Catholic Priests life story where his mentor-priest said (roughly) "Look, nobody in their right mind believes for a minute that unbaptised babies will go to hell, but we can't explain it"]

You might find a copy of Spencer J Palmers "Comparitive Religion" (compares mormonism to other religions) interesting. I think it forms part of the BYU religion curriculum.

As for doctrine, I recall in the UK about 20 years ago a mormons might get excited about "sensational doctrine" which often was just gossip, and not checked against doctrinal sources. Mormons believe they can become gods about as much as the bible teaches, which is actually pretty definite. Blacks have never been second class citizens for mormons, and never "second class mormons" any more than non-Levite jews were second class jews. Mormons have not distanced themselves from polygamy as a doctrine, but do not practice it. (BTW did you know the first wife had to give permission to subsequent marriages?)

As for control and shunning, I think it is not a good way to behave and it is contrary to mormon doctrine. I have heard this claim regarding various religions and have no reason do doubt it; however attending a mormon ward council would show how difficult it is to get anyone to do anything at all; but certainly any form of control or compulsion is wrong, and severely condemmned in mormon scripture: http://scriptures.lds.org/dc/121/41
No power or influence can or ought to be maintained by virtue of the priesthood, only by persuasion, by long-suffering, by gentleness and meekness, and by love unfeigned;
(See also v36,37)

So where this happens it is just a case of human failing, maybe even by church leaders, and very regrettable. I have to say that the reference I cited is one of the most often taught doctrines in priesthood meetings, you remind me why this needs to be the case.

I'm not even supposed to say "do it because I'm your dad and I say so" and I need reminding about that; thanks!

I think some of what you observe may stem from the effects of religion on culture in areas of high religious density, we have a mildly expressive phrase among friends that goes "Utah mormons..."; but in their defense actual Utah mormons I have met have been very caring and sensitive.

Finally can I congratulate us both for having participated in the most reasonable religious converasation that I believe has ever taken place on slashdot. I respect you as a sane reasoning human and would not be sorry if we met.

Sam

These are all good points.

Interestingly those in the "stories" you refer to did not take their belief merely because they read other "stories" but because of their own experiences with God, which, strangely is a strong force in the lives of many in the less extreme religions.

For instance, my belief in Jesus Christ is based on my own experiences in relation to the practice of the religion I study and not on account of "ooh, it must be true because of...".

An interesting thing for you to look into would be the origins of belief and not just the history of belief.

That there were pre-Christ prophecies is interesting but it was a source of faith to pre-Christ people who believed those prophecies because... because of what?

I say that my belief comes through the action of the Holy Ghost in my heart when truth is taught, but this is entirely subjective to my own life; I say that a similar action took place in all ages when truth was taught to those who would receive it.

You may decide this is rather freaky and superfluous, and a complex explaination for a bogus observation*, but if our existance pre-dates the creation and earth life; if we lived in the presence of God before our birth then it is not unusual for God to be able to speak to use through his Spirit convincingly to those who are willing to hear.

[* I'm looking for truth, not explanations.]

I only point this out so that you cn be aware that for many their religious belief is not based on some tenuous chain of reasoning but on the actual day-to-day mechanics of following what they have learned by experience to be good, and trying to learn more, yes, a sort of inner journey, but very real. This will of course sound like complete tosh to those who have no experience with it, and will be described as complete tosh by those who have rejected it (perhaps why they rejected it, who can tell?), but I'm doing it for me, not them, and I find it more real than the Millenium Dome, the UK Tax Credits Fiasco (and this government think they can run a national identity database).

I find it the most satisfying thing in my life. Not because there is a cosy "it will be all-right-for-you" type feeling but because there is a part of me that says "I know" that takes joy and confidence and love in the whole thing. It is jam today and jam tomorrow.

In short, John 7:17, John 17:3, you have to try it to know, and if you don't you won't. And yes, sometimes it takes extreme circumstances before some people try, but others will say "they just clutched at straws"; other peoples faith can never satisfy you or look reasonable to you.

For a good short discourse on the development of faith as experienced by individuals, read http://scriptures.lds.org/alma/32

You will certainly find it interesting, it is the process by which faith is developed, and is more real than tenuous reasoning on imcomplete knowledge.

I'm happy to discuss this more, but you may prefer to get some Mormon Missionaries in and ask them just how individuals are supposed to get a certain knowledge of God, and then try it! It's a good experiment.

Interestingly, they won't try and convince you! (Can you believe that in a religion?) They will teach you and encourage you to try what they teach if you want. You will come across things you never imagined could exist, or perhaps you will say you had forgotten a long time ago. If you think it is a trick, why not try and spot the trick?

It will be interesting anyway, and certainly a new experience, I'd say try it.

I'm not intending to get in to a long debate, I thought I would give the other view on Monty's excellent summary, and to show how two explanations of the same scene can fail to even overlap.

Sam

Not as "Judaism", Judaism as a sect/religion was based on revelations from God through Moses but based on the same religions and teachings that Moses's ancestors practiced, so if you define Judaism as "a sect that sprang up with Moses" then you are right, but if you define it as a formalisation of existing knowledge for specific people who (read Genesis) had proved unowrthy of higher law and therefore received the Mosaic law, then it does go back to the creation.

I admit my knowledge of prevailing definitions of Judaism may be weak, I perhaps could have chosen a better term to carry my point; however since pre-mosaic sacrifice anticipates the sacrifice of the Messiah, then, from what you say, Christianity precedes Judaism which makes my point just as well. Of course this depends on your definition of Christianity; but if Christ is the Son of God then I feel it can be applied to pre-Christ followers who anticipated and prophesied of Him. If you are interested in such prophesies you might look at http://scriptures.lds.org/tgj/jcprphcs
or more generally, http://scriptures.lds.org/tgj/contents

This is all irrellevant to the original point that it is those-in-power who seek to quash advancement.

I'm sure there is enough for you to read on this if you are interested, but I have made my point.

I expect if we carry this on it will become the inevitable quibbling over terms; it does not really matter if we agree over whether or not the term Christianity can be applied to what I call Christianity, and I won't presume to imbue more than 20 years of culture into you though a few mere slashdot posts.

I have enjoyed the conversation though.

Sam

Not as "Judaism", Judaism as a sect/religion was based on revelations from God through Moses but based on the same religions and teachings that Moses's ancestors practiced, so if you define Judaism as "a sect that sprang up with Moses" then you are right, but if you define it as a formalisation of existing knowledge for specific people who (read Genesis) had proved unowrthy of higher law and therefore received the Mosaic law, then it does go back to the creation.

I admit my knowledge of prevailing definitions of Judaism may be weak, I perhaps could have chosen a better term to carry my point; however since pre-mosaic sacrifice anticipates the sacrifice of the Messiah, then, from what you say, Christianity precedes Judaism which makes my point just as well. Of course this depends on your definition of Christianity; but if Christ is the Son of God then I feel it can be applied to pre-Christ followers who anticipated and prophesied of Him. If you are interested in such prophesies you might look at http://scriptures.lds.org/tgj/jcprphcs
or more generally, http://scriptures.lds.org/tgj/contents

This is all irrellevant to the original point that it is those-in-power who seek to quash advancement.

I'm sure there is enough for you to read on this if you are interested, but I have made my point.

I expect if we carry this on it will become the inevitable quibbling over terms; it does not really matter if we agree over whether or not the term Christianity can be applied to what I call Christianity, and I won't presume to imbue more than 20 years of culture into you though a few mere slashdot posts.

I have enjoyed the conversation though.

Sam

Wow, sorry. LDS == Latter Day Saint, or Mormon. Utah is Mormonville, mainly because the LDS church founded Utah. Try http://lds.org/

Wow. Politics, Religion, Technology. This lit up everything I care deeply about, so I couldn't resist a comment.

As a wannabe Libertarian trying to wean myself off the Republican party, I'm not in favor of making government bigger. However, as a Latter-day Saint believer of 2 Nephi 2:11, I am however in favor of using filtering as my own personal choice. I think filters have tremendous value for our families similar to an alarm system. I just think the market should do it, not the government. I pay for the Linksys broadband Parental Controls to protect myself and family and have immensely pleased with the experience. I consider it a cost of internet service -- and peanuts compared to the 10% of my income I pay in tithing. If every parent would demand a filter, the market could easily accomodate our diverse needs. In fact, it already is, for me.

I do NOT claim to speak for the church here, and anyone who does if you don't read it on LDS.ORG you should be highly suspicious. There are a lot of wolves in sheeps clothing out there. But I can openly share my personal feelings and experiences, so if you want to see inside my personal frame of reference as a Latter-day Saint, here goes:

I have experienced a lot of intensely private and personal spiritual pain associated with pornography. I am everlastingly thankful to the Savior Jesus Christ and the repentance process that I do feel clean today and that has given me joy and improved self-esteem and quality of life. My parents did a great job of teaching me to avoid alchohol, tobacco, and drugs, I've never even touched the stuff, said "no" many times, and went on with life. On the internet however I didn't have such great success there. But thanks to Jesus Christ and patient LDS Bishops who have earned my deepest tear-stained feelings of brotherly love, my desires have changed and pornography seems like pollution to me now, and I have the hope that I will never return like a dog to his own vomit. At times I wondered if I'd ever be able to say that, but I am now at least, and I am very grateful, and I have a white-knuckle grip on whatever worthiness I have left. And frankly the book of life is probably going to be seen by a bigger audience than Slashdot and there's no "Anonymous Coward" provision that I'm aware of up there, so in a way maybe I'm just bracing myself for what's to come. :) Those are my personal feelings. I don't expect everyone to be like me, but I can't deny my own human experience.

One of the Articles of Faith of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is that: "We believe in the same organization that existed in the Primitive Church, namely, apostles, prophets, pastors, teachers, evangelists, and so forth." (The Articles of Faith)

I bring this up because I want to point out that even if you disagree with the LDS stance on pornography, there are very many things in common with proven true and good principles of the open source community and the way the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints operates (including that part that we aren't perfect and make mistakes from time to time). So be careful not to throw out what could at the very least be a great case study in open source emergent behavior even if you maintain we are all delusionary. :)

I see the LDS church as very much "open source" in the sense there is no paid clergy, ask any member of the church in good standing for a free copy of the Book of Mormon and they will typically give it to you just as gladly as any Linux evangelist would give you a copy of their favorite distro and help you get started in your own home and help you get adjusted into the church group like anyone else would help you install linux for the first time. One thing that I love is that software engineers like me can be found taking their turn pushing a du

Wow. Politics, Religion, Technology. This lit up everything I care deeply about, so I couldn't resist a comment.

As a wannabe Libertarian trying to wean myself off the Republican party, I'm not in favor of making government bigger. However, as a Latter-day Saint believer of 2 Nephi 2:11, I am however in favor of using filtering as my own personal choice. I think filters have tremendous value for our families similar to an alarm system. I just think the market should do it, not the government. I pay for the Linksys broadband Parental Controls to protect myself and family and have immensely pleased with the experience. I consider it a cost of internet service -- and peanuts compared to the 10% of my income I pay in tithing. If every parent would demand a filter, the market could easily accomodate our diverse needs. In fact, it already is, for me.

I do NOT claim to speak for the church here, and anyone who does if you don't read it on LDS.ORG you should be highly suspicious. There are a lot of wolves in sheeps clothing out there. But I can openly share my personal feelings and experiences, so if you want to see inside my personal frame of reference as a Latter-day Saint, here goes:

I have experienced a lot of intensely private and personal spiritual pain associated with pornography. I am everlastingly thankful to the Savior Jesus Christ and the repentance process that I do feel clean today and that has given me joy and improved self-esteem and quality of life. My parents did a great job of teaching me to avoid alchohol, tobacco, and drugs, I've never even touched the stuff, said "no" many times, and went on with life. On the internet however I didn't have such great success there. But thanks to Jesus Christ and patient LDS Bishops who have earned my deepest tear-stained feelings of brotherly love, my desires have changed and pornography seems like pollution to me now, and I have the hope that I will never return like a dog to his own vomit. At times I wondered if I'd ever be able to say that, but I am now at least, and I am very grateful, and I have a white-knuckle grip on whatever worthiness I have left. And frankly the book of life is probably going to be seen by a bigger audience than Slashdot and there's no "Anonymous Coward" provision that I'm aware of up there, so in a way maybe I'm just bracing myself for what's to come. :) Those are my personal feelings. I don't expect everyone to be like me, but I can't deny my own human experience.

One of the Articles of Faith of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is that: "We believe in the same organization that existed in the Primitive Church, namely, apostles, prophets, pastors, teachers, evangelists, and so forth." (The Articles of Faith)

I bring this up because I want to point out that even if you disagree with the LDS stance on pornography, there are very many things in common with proven true and good principles of the open source community and the way the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints operates (including that part that we aren't perfect and make mistakes from time to time). So be careful not to throw out what could at the very least be a great case study in open source emergent behavior even if you maintain we are all delusionary. :)

I see the LDS church as very much "open source" in the sense there is no paid clergy, ask any member of the church in good standing for a free copy of the Book of Mormon and they will typically give it to you just as gladly as any Linux evangelist would give you a copy of their favorite distro and help you get started in your own home and help you get adjusted into the church group like anyone else would help you install linux for the first time. One thing that I love is that software engineers like me can be found taking their turn pushing a du

Only witnesses.

Well, it does appear that most people do not have the proper perspective with regards to why suffering and bad things happen. Most folks unfortunately attribute things like suffering and such to sin, however there is a purpose for that when you understand the nature of God our Heavenly Father more fully. Yes, He does love us, but it appears that the "learning" or "experience" part is taken out of the equation. As we love our own children isn't it similar? We have to let them experience life and difficulties just as well as the joy and happiness.

Sure, we wish we could suffer for our children and even perhaps others we love, but we have to take things with perspective and understanding. You can see some illustrations of an extreme in the story of Job (and other folks perhaps that live around us today) and some deeper understanding can be gained from: http://scriptures.lds.org/2_ne/2/11#11

Search for Urim and Thummim. Those are the names of the spectacles. You might also be interested in "No Man Knows MY History" by Fawn M Brodie. It's an biography of Joseph Smith.
Incidentally, there are many references to the spectacles on the LDS website using the website's own search function. Try searching the scriptures. Here's one of many references to said spectacles.
I do not judge Mormons based on their beliefs but truth be told I have a hard time believing any religion. The Mormon church is of interest to me because I'm from the West and some of the statements in the BOok of Mormon are so fantastic (do not take offense, just my opinion!) such as the "history" of the lost tribes of Israel here in the US.
But it's a faith and therefore faith based and no Mormon has ever done wrong to me.

If you want to associate religion with Groklaw, start with a comparison to the feeding of the multitude. You start with a little bit, pass it around, and when everybody's had their turn far more remains than you started with.

The same metaphor applies to open-source.

Wanna learn about the LDS faith. don't go to xmormon.com and expect to learn anything useful. thats like going to microsoft for opinions on linux. try looking at http://www.lds.org/ do a little research into what the church believes. Go ahead, I dare you

http://library.lds.org/nxt/gateway.dll/Magazines/E nsign/1981.htm/ensign%20november%201981.htm/who%20 hath%20believed%20our%20report.htm

http://library.lds.org/nxt/gateway.dll/Magazines/E nsign/1998.htm/ensign%20may%201998.htm/a%20discipl e%20a%20friend.htm

Good point. Let's check the Oxford English Dictionary.

Christian, a. and n.
B. n.
1. a. One who believes or professes the religion of Christ; an adherent of Christianity.
2. One who exhibits the spirit, and follows the precepts and example, of Christ; a believer in Christ who is characterized by genuine piety.

The official name for the Mormon church is The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. The subtitle of the Book of Mormon is Another Testament of Jesus Christ (the first being the Bible). Articles of Faith 1, 3, and 4 (which they basically brainwash their children with via ritualized repetition) all claim belief in Jesus Christ as a member of the Godhead and their personal savior.

Ergo, Mormons fit the definition of "Christian".

As you said "There is no need for this to be an issue of opinion. Words have definitions."

(For the record. I'm an ex-Mormon. I was raised one, but left once I actually started thinking about what I was told rather than just accepting things.)

LDS=Latter-day Saint, abbreviation of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, based in Utah. The guy in question is at the University of Utah.

I'm not sure if that was the joke, but you said you didn't know what LDS is.

He's a better joke, though:

What do you get if you cross LDS with LSD?

A high-priest!

Sam

• The Two Great Commandments (Matthew 22:34-40)
• Parable of the Good Samaritan (Luke 10:25-37)
• Gordon B. Hinckley's statement on homosexuality

• The Two Great Commandments (Matthew 22:34-40)
• Parable of the Good Samaritan (Luke 10:25-37)
• Gordon B. Hinckley's statement on homosexuality

The Bible doesn't really talk about anything like this, and ou are correct in assuming that fundie's will probably have hissy-fits over something like this. The popular idea that all Christian religious belief falls apart at the discovery of life on other planets, however, isn't entirely accurate. From what I can tell, this is mostly due to the Catholic church's stubborn terra-centricity during the middle ages. Although the existance of life on other planets may be incompatible with many Christian relgions, there do exist others that have accounted for this for quite some time. Interestingly, Mormon scripture (specifically the book of Moses) talks about God showing Moses many other planets He had created and the inhabitants on them:

And he beheld many lands; and each land was called earth, and there were inhabitants on the face thereof...

And worlds without number have I created; and I also created them for mine own purpose; and by the Son I created them, which is mine Only Begotten...

But only an account of this earth, and the inhabitants thereof, give I unto you. For behold, there are many worlds that have passed away by the word of my power. And there are many that now stand, and innumerable are they unto man; but all things are numbered unto me, for they are mine and I know them.

[emphasis mine]

...basically Mormons have believed in innumerable amounts of life elsewhere since 1830.

The Bible doesn't really talk about anything like this, and ou are correct in assuming that fundie's will probably have hissy-fits over something like this. The popular idea that all Christian religious belief falls apart at the discovery of life on other planets, however, isn't entirely accurate. From what I can tell, this is mostly due to the Catholic church's stubborn terra-centricity during the middle ages. Although the existance of life on other planets may be incompatible with many Christian relgions, there do exist others that have accounted for this for quite some time. Interestingly, Mormon scripture (specifically the book of Moses) talks about God showing Moses many other planets He had created and the inhabitants on them:

And he beheld many lands; and each land was called earth, and there were inhabitants on the face thereof...

And worlds without number have I created; and I also created them for mine own purpose; and by the Son I created them, which is mine Only Begotten...

But only an account of this earth, and the inhabitants thereof, give I unto you. For behold, there are many worlds that have passed away by the word of my power. And there are many that now stand, and innumerable are they unto man; but all things are numbered unto me, for they are mine and I know them.

[emphasis mine]

...basically Mormons have believed in innumerable amounts of life elsewhere since 1830.

So to those who have more familiarity with the region I have two questions.
1) Did this legislation come about as a result of the elders in the church?

I am a Mormon... and Yes. There was recent "Advise" from the Elders of the church to do whatever you can to shy away from pornography. See http://library.lds.org/nxt/gateway.dll/Magazines/E nsign/2004.htm/ensign%20november%202004.htm/a%20tr agic%20evil%20among%20us.htm?fn=document-frameset. htm$f=templates$3.0
This talk was also re-iterated again in Sunday school last month to all Elders of the church.

2) Is this basically an accurate summation of Mormon politics? If so, that seems scary to me. I wouldn't want a society where there is so much homogenity, even if everyone were basically like me. Nor do I think rigid hierachical organizations are the best way to run a nation (or state, really).

Yes this is the sort of politics that the Mormon church gets involved in indirectly. There are many political items that are brought up during church and there is usually a slant to it.

Now as far as the message that is being sent I must agree that porn can be an addictive item and is usually not benifitial to a marriage. And I also see nothing wrong with giving someone a "choice" to turn off access to it.

Now I also beleive that the company MStar.net has something to do with this. This company is backed (If not funded and owned) by the Mormon church and there have been several publication from the church mentioning their services.
http://www.mstar2.net/preportal/company/values.htm l
Just look at their site "Resources"
http://www.mstar2.net/preportal/company/resources. html
It is filled with Mormon literature.

Who knows MStar.net might have something to gain from this law especially if they are a "state approved" filtering service for Utah ISPs.

So you're saying the missing pages that were lost were not retranslated. That must mean they were written first in English and never translated in the first place? That's a valid enough theory but faith requires that you accept the explanation that they were lent out and copied from memory with the Lord's help.

You really need to do some research on this topic if you want to discuss it rationally. It's common knowledge among the LDS that Joseph Smith allowed Martin Harris to "borrow" 116 pages of the translation of the Book of Mormon which consisted of the Book of Lehi. These pages were lost or stolen and they were NOT retranslated NOR recovered by some miracle of memory. They are simply NOT in the Book of Mormon. So please cease with the "copied from memory" theory. It is categorically false.

Only Mormons can see the sacred texts, only Mormons can go into the church

Please feel free to view our sacred texts any time you wish. They are all online:

http://scriptures.lds.org/

While you are at it, find a church in your area, visitors are welcome!

http://lds.org/basicbeliefs/meetinghouse/

Tell you what... why don't you provide some documentation or a fraction of evidence that proves [x, y, z]

Prove? I can't "prove" anything to you. Even if I had the plates from which the Book of Mormon was translated, it wouldn't prove a thing to you. It wouldn't prove to you that Joseph Smith was telling the truth about how he got them, or even that he ever had them--all it would "prove" to you is that some guy has gold plates...

If you want academic evidences for the LDS faith, you might try:

The Foundation for Ancient Research and Mormom Studies

Tons of rigourous, critical materials can be reviewed there. I doubt it will "prove" anything to you, but it might help you with some of your historical misconceptions/misinformation. You decide.

Oh please! This isn't Mormon bashing. We are not attacking a single individual for their belief system. We are being critical of Mormonism... which is a cult.

I think you misunderstood my comment regarding Mormon-Bashing by ACs. That was an observation from a general review of the posts whenever things related to Utah appear here, not necessarily specific to your remarks.

At any rate, the pejorative "cult" that you chose is generally not indicative of respect towards anothers beliefs. I know the difference between bashing and persecution, do you? Your concluding remarks lead me to believe that it's okay in your view to "shoot wackos", which I suppose means anyone whose world-view is not akin to your own.

This ain't religious prosecution [sic] when you shoot a nut job on your property that is obviously off their rocker!

I'll leave your final remark here without comment, other then to say if this isn't the pure description of mobocracy then I don't know what is...

So you're saying the missing pages that were lost were not retranslated. That must mean they were written first in English and never translated in the first place? That's a valid enough theory but faith requires that you accept the explanation that they were lent out and copied from memory with the Lord's help.

You really need to do some research on this topic if you want to discuss it rationally. It's common knowledge among the LDS that Joseph Smith allowed Martin Harris to "borrow" 116 pages of the translation of the Book of Mormon which consisted of the Book of Lehi. These pages were lost or stolen and they were NOT retranslated NOR recovered by some miracle of memory. They are simply NOT in the Book of Mormon. So please cease with the "copied from memory" theory. It is categorically false.

Only Mormons can see the sacred texts, only Mormons can go into the church

Please feel free to view our sacred texts any time you wish. They are all online:

http://scriptures.lds.org/

While you are at it, find a church in your area, visitors are welcome!

http://lds.org/basicbeliefs/meetinghouse/

Tell you what... why don't you provide some documentation or a fraction of evidence that proves [x, y, z]

Prove? I can't "prove" anything to you. Even if I had the plates from which the Book of Mormon was translated, it wouldn't prove a thing to you. It wouldn't prove to you that Joseph Smith was telling the truth about how he got them, or even that he ever had them--all it would "prove" to you is that some guy has gold plates...

If you want academic evidences for the LDS faith, you might try:

The Foundation for Ancient Research and Mormom Studies

Tons of rigourous, critical materials can be reviewed there. I doubt it will "prove" anything to you, but it might help you with some of your historical misconceptions/misinformation. You decide.

Oh please! This isn't Mormon bashing. We are not attacking a single individual for their belief system. We are being critical of Mormonism... which is a cult.

I think you misunderstood my comment regarding Mormon-Bashing by ACs. That was an observation from a general review of the posts whenever things related to Utah appear here, not necessarily specific to your remarks.

At any rate, the pejorative "cult" that you chose is generally not indicative of respect towards anothers beliefs. I know the difference between bashing and persecution, do you? Your concluding remarks lead me to believe that it's okay in your view to "shoot wackos", which I suppose means anyone whose world-view is not akin to your own.

This ain't religious prosecution [sic] when you shoot a nut job on your property that is obviously off their rocker!

I'll leave your final remark here without comment, other then to say if this isn't the pure description of mobocracy then I don't know what is...

Certainly if the majority of the citizens of the US think it's okay for churches to be used as electoral tools for political parties, then I guess that's what will happen.

Just for the record, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints has a constantly reaffirmed it's political neutrality.

In fact the current President of the Church opposes President Bush's controversial "Faith Based Initiatives"

Now the church leaders as a whole can not really help the fact that 99% of the Mormon populace decides to align it's self with one party (today it is the Republicans, back when Utah was petitioning for statehood it was the Democrats).

I'm NOT modding you down, JUST so that I can reply to you... why exactly, I'm not sure...

Polygamy is illegal in the state of Utah, those who pratice it are violating law and are getting in crap for doing so. Please stop trolling and pretending, as we follow the laws of the land, regardless.

Mormons have not praticed polygamy for a very long time. Stop saying that we do, please.

Another source of knowledge is revelation: http://scriptures.lds.org/2_ne/27/1-2 As we obey God's commandments, he will bless us with the insipiration to know how to take care of the earth, and he will temper the elements for our good. If we don't keep his commandments, we can look forward to natural disasters and wars.

Joel 2: 30 (Acts 2: 19) I will shew wonders in the heavens and in the earth.
Joel 3: 15 sun and the moon shall be darkened.
Joel 3: 16 heavens and the earth shall shake.
Hag. 2: 6 (Hag. 2: 22) I will shake the heavens, and the earth, and the sea.
Mal. 4: 1 day cometh that shall burn as an oven.

To find out more about the connection, look at this commentary. If you want more in depth information about the Mormons, look at mormon.org, an official "info" site from the Church.

Interesting to see the basis of some of the things in the show...

About a year ago, I was talking with a US Army recruiter about enlisting in the US Army. I got as far as MEPS. I passed the ASVAB and the physical, but they denied me enlistment after the security interview, which started out as a 10-page written questionnaire.

I answered "yes" to several questions that they wanted me to answer "no" to, but there were two that especially seemed to require a lot of "further clarification":

1. On the last page, just before a long affirmation about "this knowledge is true to the best of my knowledge and belief...", etc., etc., there was a question about like "Have you ever [...] misused [...] an information-technology resource?" I said "yes", and mentioned something that hadn't made my teachers happy during high school, about nine years before; I later found out that the high-school's disciplinary records have been destroyed from that time. However, if you think about it, downloading an illegal copy of a popular song off KaZaa is a forbidden use of an information-technology resource; I suspect the majority of the kids who did that stuff in Abu Ghraib had been regular KaZaa users...
2. The other thing was that I had visited a professional counsellor or therapist several times, all within a year or two, plus or minus, of the computer-related incident. They decided to totally misread the examining doctor's statement for something that was not in the record, and disqualify me as medically unfit by reason of depression (apparently). Of course, perhaps a college graduate who wants to join the Army is crazy. It may be that anyone who wants to join the Army has a little something wrong with them...

When Emma protested, Joseph came forward with a revelation from god advocating plural marriage, which addresses her directly. http://scriptures.lds.org/dc/132/51-57#51 (scriptures.lds.org)

He went on to marry at least a dozen women, some say many, many more.

"Prayer is the act by which the will of the Father and the will of the child are brought into correspondence with each other. The object of prayer is not to change the will of God, but to secure for ourselves and for others blessings that God is already willing to grant, but that are made conditional on our asking for them. Blessings require some work or effort on our part before we can obtain them. Prayer is a form of work, and is an appointed means for obtaining the highest of all blessings."

-Bruce R. McConkie

link

Actually it wasn't a federal law that banned polygamy, but state laws.

According to the wikipedia entry on polygamy, "the United States Congress made the practice illegal in U.S. Territories in 1862"

Then they would not grant statehood (under which polygamy could have been made legal) unless the church stopped practising it. The prophet at that time received revelation that they should stop the practise..

-Adam

Your details are correct.

If there was no literal first man and woman, then there was no talking snake to tempt them into eating an apple. If that didn't happen, there was no literal fall (the fall had to be by CHOICE, protestants don't accept that God just made humans imperfect from the start). If there was no literal fall, then mankind is not in need of redemption. If there is no need for redemption, there is no need for Christ. This would basically invalidate protestant Christianity.

You've left out one important point: your #2 argument hinges on this paragraph, but this paragraph depends necessarily on #1 (the Word of God in the Bible is inerrant and literal). It's not actually a stronger argument, because it depends on the first, weaker one.

Here's the problem. Fundamentalist Christianity rejects the idea of continuing revelation from God through any single source. Prophets - as they were understood in the Bible - don't come around anymore, as a matter of doctrine. The only thing left they have to base their faith in is the Bible. It's their only witness of Christ. If parts of it can be allegorical, Christ himself doesn't really have to have existed, and there goes the religion.

So #1 actually exists out of necessity. That's where the circular arguments come from ("the Bible is literally true because the Bible says so [in our interpretation]", etc., etc.) - it's because they haven't actually got anything better.

I'm LDS, and I go to BYU. In this school - which is run basically by my church - we actually don't have a problem with evolution at all. We even (gasp) teach it. Why? We believe that God still speaks through a single source, and we have more than one witness of Christ. The idea that parts of the Bible might be allegorical or severely watered-down for the people of the time doesn't bother us at all.

If your science teaches you anything let it be that todays science facts will always be overturned tomorrows science; don't build of your science a religion as brittle and baseless as that you think you are attacking.

"particularly now that genetic science has disproven the fundamental premis of the Book of Mormon" http://www.godandscience.org/cults/dna.html

or possibly not, as google shows (start at the top and work down)

My experience shows people often study enough to justify their own notions and then therefore don't need to read any contrary views as they are so obviously wrong.

A superficial and brief understanding of DNA and mormon scripture may result in almost any opinion, but I'm certain of this, that most conclusions drawn by most humans are on the basis of faulty, insufficient and badly understood evidence; and this covers buying VCR's, taking out home loans, choosing schools and wallpaper as well as what to watch on TV, how best to re-install windows and what sort of God is most likely.

Top tip is not to let it get you down but concentrate on being the best sort of person you can be. Mormonism makes some people better. Perhaps not being mormon makes you better.

As a framework for life, I like it and it does me good, and I just had an uplifting weekend that you can share in english or dozens of languages (text and individual media items to appear soon). See if you can agree with any of it, see if any of it is designed to keep people in subjection, or see if it is designed to lift people up.

Sam

If your science teaches you anything let it be that todays science facts will always be overturned tomorrows science; don't build of your science a religion as brittle and baseless as that you think you are attacking.

"particularly now that genetic science has disproven the fundamental premis of the Book of Mormon" http://www.godandscience.org/cults/dna.html

or possibly not, as google shows (start at the top and work down)

My experience shows people often study enough to justify their own notions and then therefore don't need to read any contrary views as they are so obviously wrong.

A superficial and brief understanding of DNA and mormon scripture may result in almost any opinion, but I'm certain of this, that most conclusions drawn by most humans are on the basis of faulty, insufficient and badly understood evidence; and this covers buying VCR's, taking out home loans, choosing schools and wallpaper as well as what to watch on TV, how best to re-install windows and what sort of God is most likely.

Top tip is not to let it get you down but concentrate on being the best sort of person you can be. Mormonism makes some people better. Perhaps not being mormon makes you better.

As a framework for life, I like it and it does me good, and I just had an uplifting weekend that you can share in english or dozens of languages (text and individual media items to appear soon). See if you can agree with any of it, see if any of it is designed to keep people in subjection, or see if it is designed to lift people up.

Sam

Religion is about picking an idea about the way you think the world works and.....NEVER CHANGING IT...

Funny, but I consider myself religious, and I constantly change my views, on everything. From the Nature of God, ( I don't even like the term "God"), to the true Nature of Jesus of Nazareth, (I don't like calling the man Jesus "Christ"). Those are just some that are off the top of my head.

Its funny that you say that religion traps you into only thinking one way, when, in fact I have always thought the opposite. Check out my post earlier, I mention that it is key to have an open mind as a requisite to acquiring ANY knowledge.

Jesus of Nazareth himself, as Joseph Smith puts it:

...received not of the fulness at first, but continued from grace to grace, until he received a fulness...

D&C 93: 13

Granted the thought that even Jesus of Nazareth sinned will start a Mormon crying blasphemy, still, I hold to the belief that we (inclusive of Jesus of Nazareth), are here on Earth are here to learn from our experiences, and better ourselves.

In many ways I am a Mormon Atheist, Deist. I see the terms "God", "Heavenly Father", and "Jesus Christ" as elitist references, and in believing whole heartedly that not only are with co-eternal with what we claim to be "God", we are also co-equal, (This one belief alone was the main reason the Jews wished to kill the man Jesus of Nazareth, because he claimed himself equal with "God").

For the most part I believe in the definition of a Deist, that "God", "...created the universe and then abandoned it, assuming no control over life, exerting no influence on natural phenomena...". Obviously I disagree with the last part that "God" gives "...no supernatural revelation."

Knowing full well of my propensity for getting into a religious discussion, and also the fact that I have often been modded "Flambait" or "Troll", most likely from some /.er Mormon who disagrees with my Un Orthodox views on Mormonism. (We need special moderation rules for moderating religious/political discussions, or no moderation at all on religious/political articles, though real trolls would take over, ala GNAA, etc) I am going to don my Asbestos suit, and make a few comments.

( Linux is shit posted )

On the contrary, they are mutually exclusive. Religion means building a view of the universe based on myths, old-wives tales and cult brainwashing. In religion, nothing can be questioned or challenged...

I will agree with you that old school religion, (protest ism and catholicism) are built upon illogical myths, old-wives tales and cult brainwashing, Mormonism is of a completely deferent spectrum. When I speak of Mormonism in general I speak of the religion that Joseph Smith believed in, for if he were alive today, the Mormons would excommunicate him in a less-than a heartbeat. Mormonism today is falling in line with mainline protestant group think, and, while not sliding as fast of the Community of Christ (formally known as the 'Reorganized Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints'), if trends continue, with in 20 to 30 years, many of the doctrines that have made Mormonism a unique branch of Christianity, ( I would debate as a Mormon that Mormons are NOT Christians, and thats not a bad thing ;-) ) will be extinguished, and Mormonism will be just another protestant denomination. But I digress...

The religion of Joseph Smith, is based on individual acquisition of knowledge. The formula for acquisition of knowledge is given in the Book of Mormon, of which Joseph translated, as Read, Ponder, Pray, or specifically:

Behold, I would exhort you that when ye shall read these things, if it be wisdom in God that ye should read them, that ye would remember how merciful the Lord hath been unto the children of men, from the creation of Adam even down until the time that ye shall receive these things, and ponder it in your hearts. And when ye shall receive these things, I would exhort you that ye would ask God, the Eternal Father, in the name of Christ, if these things are not true; and if ye shall ask with a sincere heart, with real intent, having faith in Christ, he will manifest the truth of it unto you, by the power of the Holy Ghost. And by the power of the Holy Ghost ye may know the truth of all things.

Moroni 10:3-5

Joseph Smith further clarifies this in Doctrine and Covenants Section 9 Verse 8:

But, behold, I say unto you, that you must study it out in your mind; then you must ask me if it be right, and if it is right I will cause that your bosom shall burn within you; therefore, you shall feel that it is right.

D&C 9: 8

If truly followed this method of acquisition of knowledge will work, with the consent modifier that one has at least an impartial judgment that what one studies MAY be true. Impartial judgment is a key to acquisition of knowledge even with in the scientific world, and is also a requisite to the acquisition of knowledge religiously.

If one has an "Open Mind" or as Moroni puts it a "sincere heart, with real intent" an answer will be given. It's just a matter of sincerity and humility. Again, much the same with the acquisition of Scientific knowledge, if one is stubborn and set in ones ways, your acquisition of knowledge will be severely limited because of your inability to "think outside the box".

Sadly, Mormons today rarely, if ever apply this formula for the acquisition of knowledge, to ask with a sincere hear, with real intent. Instead the general population is mired by group think, unable to think for themselves, which i

Knowing full well of my propensity for getting into a religious discussion, and also the fact that I have often been modded "Flambait" or "Troll", most likely from some /.er Mormon who disagrees with my Un Orthodox views on Mormonism. (We need special moderation rules for moderating religious/political discussions, or no moderation at all on religious/political articles, though real trolls would take over, ala GNAA, etc) I am going to don my Asbestos suit, and make a few comments.

( Linux is shit posted )

On the contrary, they are mutually exclusive. Religion means building a view of the universe based on myths, old-wives tales and cult brainwashing. In religion, nothing can be questioned or challenged...

I will agree with you that old school religion, (protest ism and catholicism) are built upon illogical myths, old-wives tales and cult brainwashing, Mormonism is of a completely deferent spectrum. When I speak of Mormonism in general I speak of the religion that Joseph Smith believed in, for if he were alive today, the Mormons would excommunicate him in a less-than a heartbeat. Mormonism today is falling in line with mainline protestant group think, and, while not sliding as fast of the Community of Christ (formally known as the 'Reorganized Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints'), if trends continue, with in 20 to 30 years, many of the doctrines that have made Mormonism a unique branch of Christianity, ( I would debate as a Mormon that Mormons are NOT Christians, and thats not a bad thing ;-) ) will be extinguished, and Mormonism will be just another protestant denomination. But I digress...

The religion of Joseph Smith, is based on individual acquisition of knowledge. The formula for acquisition of knowledge is given in the Book of Mormon, of which Joseph translated, as Read, Ponder, Pray, or specifically:

Behold, I would exhort you that when ye shall read these things, if it be wisdom in God that ye should read them, that ye would remember how merciful the Lord hath been unto the children of men, from the creation of Adam even down until the time that ye shall receive these things, and ponder it in your hearts. And when ye shall receive these things, I would exhort you that ye would ask God, the Eternal Father, in the name of Christ, if these things are not true; and if ye shall ask with a sincere heart, with real intent, having faith in Christ, he will manifest the truth of it unto you, by the power of the Holy Ghost. And by the power of the Holy Ghost ye may know the truth of all things.

Moroni 10:3-5

Joseph Smith further clarifies this in Doctrine and Covenants Section 9 Verse 8:

But, behold, I say unto you, that you must study it out in your mind; then you must ask me if it be right, and if it is right I will cause that your bosom shall burn within you; therefore, you shall feel that it is right.

D&C 9: 8

If truly followed this method of acquisition of knowledge will work, with the consent modifier that one has at least an impartial judgment that what one studies MAY be true. Impartial judgment is a key to acquisition of knowledge even with in the scientific world, and is also a requisite to the acquisition of knowledge religiously.

If one has an "Open Mind" or as Moroni puts it a "sincere heart, with real intent" an answer will be given. It's just a matter of sincerity and humility. Again, much the same with the acquisition of Scientific knowledge, if one is stubborn and set in ones ways, your acquisition of knowledge will be severely limited because of your inability to "think outside the box".

Sadly, Mormons today rarely, if ever apply this formula for the acquisition of knowledge, to ask with a sincere hear, with real intent. Instead the general population is mired by group think, unable to think for themselves, which i

8 For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways, saith the LORD.

9 For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways, and my thoughts than your thoughts.

(Old Testament, Book of Isaiah)

Insightful comments, Falkryn and others. I am also a Christian (with many muslim friends). My faith believes that there are indeed many worlds "out there" with people on them--people like us who are also children of God. (I know it is interesting and fun to imagine up aliens that look like something from Star Wars but there is no evidence of that.) We also believe that we are all God's children but that Jesus is God's Only Begotten Son--unique as you put it--and that He is the Savior of all mankind--even the ones on the other worlds. Why do we believe this? It is written in the Book of Moses the follwing: 1 THE words of God, which he spake unto Moses at a time when Moses was caught up into an exceedingly high mountain, 2 And he saw God face to face, and he talked with him, and the glory of God was upon Moses; therefore Moses could endure his presence. 3 And God spake unto Moses, saying: Behold, I am the Lord God Almighty, and Endless is my name; for I am without beginning of days or end of years; and is not this endless? 4 And, behold, thou art my son; wherefore look, and I will show thee the workmanship of mine hands; but not all, for my works are without end, and also my words, for they never cease. Jump to verse 31 31 And behold, the glory of the Lord was upon Moses, so that Moses stood in the presence of God, and talked with him face to face. And the Lord God said unto Moses: For mine own purpose have I made these things. Here is wisdom and it remaineth in me. 32 And by the word of my power, have I created them, which is mine Only Begotten Son, who is full of grace and truth. 33 And worlds without number have I created; and I also created them for mine own purpose; and by the Son I created them, which is mine Only Begotten. 34 And the first man of all men have I called Adam, which is many. 35 But only an account of this earth, and the inhabitants thereof, give I unto you. For behold, there are many worlds that have passed away by the word of my power. And there are many that now stand, and innumerable are they unto man; but all things are numbered unto me, for they are mine and I know them. For the complete reference see The Book of Moses Chapter 1. In short, we believe in a living prophet who has been chosen by God to direct His work on the earth. Through prophets, such things as those written in the Book of Moses are revealed to us. Finally, I give it as my opinion that truth is truth-- that true science and true religion are completely compatible since both are true. At the same time there are false scientific notions and false religious notions, so it really isn't, or should be a "science vs. religion" argument. It really ought to be a "truth vs. error" argument.

Mormons don't seem to have anything against music...

Not at all in fact if you goto the Churches web site, they offer all the music that is in the Churches hymn book (with the exception of a few that the copyright owner won't let them) for a free download.

Also, I thought it kinda funny that right before the **it hit the fan the Church yanked there recording contract from Sony for the Mormon Tabernacle Choir, and started to distribute the choirs music under the Churches own label, a label not in any way affiliated with the RIAA. ;-)

It really is sad that a few "bad eggs" like Hatch can completly ruin the Mormon Churches reputation.

Perhaps the issue is too complex for you or your system of beliefs.

That's a nice way to start this post off, but the fact of the matter is that this has nothing to do with my beliefs nor the complexity of the issue rather with the fact that I enjoy arguing.

Let's boil this whole polygamy/homosexuality issue down from the perspecitve of a Mormon. 1. God has always said that homosexuality is bad , and 2. Sometimes polygamy is OK.

You can see that in the Bible at times polygamy was good, and sometimes bad. In the Book of Mormon it was bad because God did not want those people to turn out like the ones in Jerusalem , and in modern days it has been both. It was OK up until the revelation that Wilford Woodruff recieved where God once again said that polygamy was bad.

If God changes his mind, so be it, since he is the supreme being he has that right. I will agree that if that God changes his mind doesn't necessarily make prior doctrine completely discredited or condemed, but the question then arises as to why was it changed. The point I was trying to make was that at the time polygamy was OK, but since Oct 6 1890 polygamy was against the will of God, and thus from that date forward it is now discredited and condemend, if it were not so then it would still be in practice by the Church.

The issue here is that Mormons have never belived that homosexuality was OK, even when they were practicing polygamy. To them marriage has always been sanctioned between a man and a woman (or a man and some women during the polygamy days). It would be hypocrital of them to at one time say that homosexuality was ok and to now change their mind, but that is not the case. Yes it is hypocitical of them to, as you view it, persecute others while being persecuted themselves, but that is only a small part of what you have been arguing.

You point about polygamist from Africa being allowed in the Church was also incorrect, as in that quote by President Hinckley it is very clear that that has not happend. Since you still believe that polygamy is taught in the Church, I challange you to find me somewhere in an LDS book, magazine or talk since 1890 where that is the case. I know you will bring something up about the Temple ceremony but, once again to my knowledge, no where as any Church leader said anything about this. This would be a good place to search through offical church literature. Anything you find outside of offical literature is not credable.

And we welcome you, our new underlings. Have you heard of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints? Would you like to know more? I can arrange to have a copy of The Book Of Mormon sent to you, at no obligation to yourself. If you'd like, I can have it delivered by two nice, clean-cut young men.

And we welcome you, our new underlings. Have you heard of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints? Would you like to know more? I can arrange to have a copy of The Book Of Mormon sent to you, at no obligation to yourself. If you'd like, I can have it delivered by two nice, clean-cut young men.

And if I told you a good overview of Linux and the GPL could be found here- http://www.thescogroup.com/copyright/ would you read it and believe it?

Try http://www.mormon.org/ or http://www.lds.org/churchhistory/
if you really want to learn something.

I am guessing that this isn't good enough for you to see that the Church discredits polygamy. From the mouth of President Hinkley in the magazine Ensign, Nov. 1998, 70.

"More than a century ago God clearly revealed unto His prophet Wilford Woodruff that the practice of plural marriage should be discontinued, which means that it is now against the law of God. Even in countries where civil or religious law allows polygamy, the Church teaches that marriage must be monogamous and does not accept into its membership those practicing plural marriage.

Link to article

I understand that in certain Muslim cultures in Africa, new converts to the Mormon church who were polygamists before joining the church are permitted to keep multiple wives, although they avoid the hot potatoe of sanctioning new plural marriages there even though it is legal, and I am sure they would force them to seperate if it ever became politically sensitive again.

I don't suppose you have any hard proof of this, just hearsay?

Doctrinally, you could make a point that Mormons "might" support polygamy because of temple practices, nevertheless, it's not offically taught, nor has the Church come out and publiclly said that if you marry more than once you will end up with all your wives. That kind of thinking is an extension of the old polygamist teaching that were taught before the ban on polygamy.

AFAIK, this is the offical stance on marriage: The Family: A Proclamation to the World

And again, I know of no Mormons who defend polygamy in practice or thought, nor would the ever want to. Being married to one woman is hard enough, who in their right mind would want more.

You must've done a little too much LDS during the late 80's to remember having a 2600 baud modem.
Yeah, those Mormons will really screw a guy up.

"Oh yes, and as for the American Indians with dark skin, if you read the actual text of the Book of Mormon you would know that in the last days they are to be one of the most blessed peoples of earth and that in the days after Christ were among the most righteous on earth."

True, and, in fact, a close examination of the Book of Mormon reveals that some of the most righteous and inspiring people at times were indeed dark skinned (Lamanites): Samuel, King Lamoni and his father and brother, the people of Ammon, the two thousand stripling warriors...etc.

"Oh yes, and as for the American Indians with dark skin, if you read the actual text of the Book of Mormon you would know that in the last days they are to be one of the most blessed peoples of earth and that in the days after Christ were among the most righteous on earth."

True, and, in fact, a close examination of the Book of Mormon reveals that some of the most righteous and inspiring people at times were indeed dark skinned (Lamanites): Samuel, King Lamoni and his father and brother, the people of Ammon, the two thousand stripling warriors...etc.

"Oh yes, and as for the American Indians with dark skin, if you read the actual text of the Book of Mormon you would know that in the last days they are to be one of the most blessed peoples of earth and that in the days after Christ were among the most righteous on earth."

True, and, in fact, a close examination of the Book of Mormon reveals that some of the most righteous and inspiring people at times were indeed dark skinned (Lamanites): Samuel, King Lamoni and his father and brother, the people of Ammon, the two thousand stripling warriors...etc.