Slashdot Mirror

"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.

"And worlds without number have I created; and I also created them for mine own purpose;... 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."

I think "the very definition of narrow mindedness" is an unfair categorization.

First, Official Declaration #2 _extends_ rights that were never formally limited anyway. Nowhere does it say that blacks were cursed or forbidden to hold the priesthood. The history of this topic is murky (I have read several books on it), and I, for one, am awaiting a forthcoming book from BYU Studies about Spencer W. Kimball that an inside source promises will shed some light on the matter.

As to the curse on the Native Americans, you read the verses you quote correctly. However, you ignore the blessings extended to them (see 2 Ne. 4: 4-7, among others).

Bigotry is _not_ part of Mormon belief. That some individual Mormons are bigots does not make it Church doctrine. But even if it were, Mormons would hardly have a monopoly on religiously-institutionalized bigotry (cf. the current debate as to whether or not Mel Gibson's new film is anti-Semitic).

You don't have to become a Mormon. You don't even have to like Mormons. But there is more breadth to this supposedly narrow-minded religion than you appear to suppose. If you are open-minded enough to accept truth (and reject error) wherever you find it, then you have nothing to lose by learning more.

It's always funny to see a person that belongs to the LDS church accusing other of being narrow minded. The Mormon Faith is the very definition of narrow mindedness.

What other major religion taught that blacks where cursed and not allowed to hold the priesthood until 1978: Official Declaration #2

This is the religion that preaches that American Indians have dark skin because they were wicked and disobedient to gods commands.
Verse 21-23

I'm pointing to what your religion publishes on the net. These links are your scriptures. Bigotry is still part of your beliefs.

I'm sorry but Utah will always garner negative opinions due to the narrow mindedness of the faith that controls the majority of the population of that state.

It's always funny to see a person that belongs to the LDS church accusing other of being narrow minded. The Mormon Faith is the very definition of narrow mindedness.

What other major religion taught that blacks where cursed and not allowed to hold the priesthood until 1978: Official Declaration #2

This is the religion that preaches that American Indians have dark skin because they were wicked and disobedient to gods commands.
Verse 21-23

I'm pointing to what your religion publishes on the net. These links are your scriptures. Bigotry is still part of your beliefs.

I'm sorry but Utah will always garner negative opinions due to the narrow mindedness of the faith that controls the majority of the population of that state.

As a Mormon in Utah, it is frustrating that so much attention is given to the "bad karma", and so little attention is paid to the great things about Utah.

Polygamy is practiced by groups in many states, but Utah gets all of the focus because of the concentration in certain communities (half in Utah, half across the border in Arizona). Additionally, most of that is attributed to the "Mormon church", which hasn't practiced polygamy since it became a state about 120 years ago (at which time it joined the U.S. and polygamy became illegal in Utah. Before that Utah was not in the United States, and polygamy was perfectly legal). So to even associate modern polygamy with the LDS church would be like calling anyone who currently lived in the southern states racist because their states used to practice slavery.

SCO is ~in~ Utah, but in no way reflects the views of Utah or Utahns. I don't hear anyone bagging on California or Virginia because Verisign is there, or Washington state because Microsoft is there.

Utah is a great state with great people, a lot of great companies, incredibly beautiful natural resources that we take very good care of (8 or 9 National Parks, I think more than any other state, and certainly more geologically diverse), and a lot of other things going for it.

To "feel immediate antagonism" toward Utah over a few issues that are really quite unrelated to the state is just a narrow-minded, uneducated, knee-jerk reaction.

Being someone who has the same mindset but believes in God (yes, it's possible), my take on it is this: God is like that uber-geek that you look up to when you're first getting into computers/programming/whatever. He's got lots of knowledge and tries to communicate that knowledge to you, but he just knows you're going to try all those stupid mistakes that everyone makes because it's just part of the learning process. Of course, I subscribe to what I irreverantly refer to as the Open-Source religion. (having nothing whatsoever to do with Richard Stallman) Basically, being rather more intelligent than anyone in my "congrigation," I lap the bishop on some stuff, but some of the General Authorities in my church (one's a nuclear physicist, one's a doctor, a couple are millionaires...I could go on, but I'm not going to do the research right at this moment) could EASILY lap me.

I kind of shot off topic there, let me get back to my point. God wants us to figure out the universe. (contrary to what many troglodyte bible-bashers want their followers to think) The problem most geeks have with religion, I suspect, is that the dipsticks of the rank and file see the English language KJV translation of a hebrew text that itself wasn't written down until a few dozen generations after the "religion" was "organized" and presume that the limited observations of a spoiled prince convert are actual scientific observations. The bulk of scripture has nothing to do with science, but rank-n-file thinks it does, turning off most geeks who might genuinely want answers to questions and are rather put off by the vehement bible-thumping of narrow-minded...

OK, I'm ranting, sorry. Point is, if you don't let others dictate to you what you know is wrong, religion can fit perfectly with science, and I'm not just talking about Mormonism, Christianity, Judaism, or any western religion in particular. Heck, some of the old Native American religions can be downright startlingly accurate in their teaching about how things work.

...

Ranting again. Shutting up.

For those who are not aware, 'Jacob' refers to a book in the Book of Mormon. And the reference is actually in chapter 2

I mean, why not just make a trip to the Temple instead?
Oh, yeah: the frogskins. Follow the frogskins.

Some just recommend it informally, some leave it up to the individual, others (like the Mormons) make it dogma.

Actually, the Mormon prohibition on drinking has nothing to do with the New Testament, but instead comes from modern revelation from a living prophet.

The Word of Wisdom was given to Joseph Smith in 1833 and can be found here. It's not just "don't drink, don't smoke", but a list of things to eat that are healthy for you as well.

Webtre,

You, sir, are an ignorant fool.

I understand your ignorance webtre. I was brainwashed like you. It's takes some study and reading to find out that you are the fool.

Not only have Mormons rewritten their scriptures but they've also rewritten their history. But Technology is the light. Let me show you using tools that are familiar to all brainwashed Mormons:


Here we have the Churches own geneology database:
That there is your founder's record:

Notice a couple of things that don't quite fit in with your understanding of polygamy:

#1 Helen Mar Kimball was only 14 years old when he married JS. (You probably thought that polygamy was due to a lack of men in the day. Nope. Many young teenage girls were married to JS long before they had a chance to marry someone else. )

#2 Notice Zina Huntington: She was married to another man when she married JS. (Yeah Polyandry was also practiced. JS married women that were married to other men. Several times. You'll find several examples. )

Now in all your Mormon history studies have you ever read such things? No. Because Mormon history has be "re-written".

It's kind of funny that you can dispell so much of the "re-written" history by simply using the Mormon churches own sources..

While your at it I suggest a good reading of Section 132: http://scriptures.lds.org/dc/132
That will answer you any doubt that you might have regarding Joseph's sexual activity with these teenage girls.
It will help you to see that you infact are the ignorant fool.

Good news is that through the magic of the Internet you can free your mind + give yourself a 10% raise. Good Luck!!!!!!!!!

You know how printing took off when Gutenberg first published the Bible in German? Well, someone got their hands on audio versions of loads of Mormon literature and converted it all into MP3 format and is selling it all on CD-ROM. They've also got just the basic scriptures (Old Testament a.k.a. Torah, New Testament, Book of Mormon, Doctrine and Covenants, Pearl of Great Price) available.

Why is this important? Gutenberg didn't invent the printing press, but he did popularize it's use and contributed to the Reformation by using it to print the first Bibles that weren't in Latin.

Once enough people buy/borrow/copy these MP3's on a completely legal basis, they'll begin wondering what's so special about all that stuff that's not God's Word that they should be able to listen to just as freely. :D

(Yes, I am aware that Mormons and mainstream Christians don't get along much. That's not the point, and I'm not going to argue about it or any related topic.)

It's also gratifying to know that some companies out there actually use the MP3 format instead of being afraid of it.

You know how printing took off when Gutenberg first published the Bible in German? Well, someone got their hands on audio versions of loads of Mormon literature and converted it all into MP3 format and is selling it all on CD-ROM. They've also got just the basic scriptures (Old Testament a.k.a. Torah, New Testament, Book of Mormon, Doctrine and Covenants, Pearl of Great Price) available.

Why is this important? Gutenberg didn't invent the printing press, but he did popularize it's use and contributed to the Reformation by using it to print the first Bibles that weren't in Latin.

Once enough people buy/borrow/copy these MP3's on a completely legal basis, they'll begin wondering what's so special about all that stuff that's not God's Word that they should be able to listen to just as freely. :D

(Yes, I am aware that Mormons and mainstream Christians don't get along much. That's not the point, and I'm not going to argue about it or any related topic.)

It's also gratifying to know that some companies out there actually use the MP3 format instead of being afraid of it.

You know how printing took off when Gutenberg first published the Bible in German? Well, someone got their hands on audio versions of loads of Mormon literature and converted it all into MP3 format and is selling it all on CD-ROM. They've also got just the basic scriptures (Old Testament a.k.a. Torah, New Testament, Book of Mormon, Doctrine and Covenants, Pearl of Great Price) available.

Why is this important? Gutenberg didn't invent the printing press, but he did popularize it's use and contributed to the Reformation by using it to print the first Bibles that weren't in Latin.

Once enough people buy/borrow/copy these MP3's on a completely legal basis, they'll begin wondering what's so special about all that stuff that's not God's Word that they should be able to listen to just as freely. :D

(Yes, I am aware that Mormons and mainstream Christians don't get along much. That's not the point, and I'm not going to argue about it or any related topic.)

It's also gratifying to know that some companies out there actually use the MP3 format instead of being afraid of it.

You know how printing took off when Gutenberg first published the Bible in German? Well, someone got their hands on audio versions of loads of Mormon literature and converted it all into MP3 format and is selling it all on CD-ROM. They've also got just the basic scriptures (Old Testament a.k.a. Torah, New Testament, Book of Mormon, Doctrine and Covenants, Pearl of Great Price) available.

Why is this important? Gutenberg didn't invent the printing press, but he did popularize it's use and contributed to the Reformation by using it to print the first Bibles that weren't in Latin.

Once enough people buy/borrow/copy these MP3's on a completely legal basis, they'll begin wondering what's so special about all that stuff that's not God's Word that they should be able to listen to just as freely. :D

(Yes, I am aware that Mormons and mainstream Christians don't get along much. That's not the point, and I'm not going to argue about it or any related topic.)

It's also gratifying to know that some companies out there actually use the MP3 format instead of being afraid of it.

You know how printing took off when Gutenberg first published the Bible in German? Well, someone got their hands on audio versions of loads of Mormon literature and converted it all into MP3 format and is selling it all on CD-ROM. They've also got just the basic scriptures (Old Testament a.k.a. Torah, New Testament, Book of Mormon, Doctrine and Covenants, Pearl of Great Price) available.

Why is this important? Gutenberg didn't invent the printing press, but he did popularize it's use and contributed to the Reformation by using it to print the first Bibles that weren't in Latin.

Once enough people buy/borrow/copy these MP3's on a completely legal basis, they'll begin wondering what's so special about all that stuff that's not God's Word that they should be able to listen to just as freely. :D

(Yes, I am aware that Mormons and mainstream Christians don't get along much. That's not the point, and I'm not going to argue about it or any related topic.)

It's also gratifying to know that some companies out there actually use the MP3 format instead of being afraid of it.

You know how printing took off when Gutenberg first published the Bible in German? Well, someone got their hands on audio versions of loads of Mormon literature and converted it all into MP3 format and is selling it all on CD-ROM. They've also got just the basic scriptures (Old Testament a.k.a. Torah, New Testament, Book of Mormon, Doctrine and Covenants, Pearl of Great Price) available.

Why is this important? Gutenberg didn't invent the printing press, but he did popularize it's use and contributed to the Reformation by using it to print the first Bibles that weren't in Latin.

Once enough people buy/borrow/copy these MP3's on a completely legal basis, they'll begin wondering what's so special about all that stuff that's not God's Word that they should be able to listen to just as freely. :D

(Yes, I am aware that Mormons and mainstream Christians don't get along much. That's not the point, and I'm not going to argue about it or any related topic.)

It's also gratifying to know that some companies out there actually use the MP3 format instead of being afraid of it.

I feel the King James Version is not as innacurate as you may believe. It was also not translated from the Vulgate, but from Hebrew and Greek as well. Other translations were also used for comparison. (reference here) However, I will concede that newer translations have used manuscripts that were not discovered at the time the KJV was translated.

Dunno why I'm answering someone who uses the word "frist" and then accuses someone else of being "dyslectic" (try "first" and "dyslexic"), but here's an attempt...

It all goes back to shortly after members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (also known as "Mormons") colonized Utah and the surrounding areas. At the time, the territory belonged to Mexico (and the Ute Indians). Brigham Young, leader of the church, petitioned the United States for admision to the Union. His envisioned territory comprised Utah, parts of Idaho, Nevada, and Arizona, and was called "Deseret." He intended it to be the largest state in the Union, and drew the geographic boundaries in such a way as to maximize natural resources for the territory. The US liked the idea of acquiring the land, but weren't enthused about having a single large entity controlled by Mormons. So they carved out several states from Mexican territory...

In any case, the word comes from a book of scripture used by Latter-day Saints. The word signifies the honey bee, and was chosen because Latter-day Saint people believe in being industrious.

Yeah...Mormons (also known as Latter Day Saints, from the full church title (official web site here) are christians, which means the Ten Commandments apply. Actually, one of the things that we are supposed to be is "honest in our dealings with our fellow man." I'll let you be the judge of whether he's doing that, but speaking for myself, I think his Bishop should have a private chat with him about honesty.

On the contrary, the story about Samuel the Lamanite is that he preached from the top of a wall while while the irreligious capitalists threw stones at him (Helaman 16:2).

There are open-source people and closed-source people in the church, just like there are Republicans, Democrats, and Libertarians, or like the bishop might be an engineer, a lawyer or a carpenter. "Devout" is ambigous, too. Mr. McBride might go to church every Sunday and want to stay in Utah so he can be with his friends and family, but even so he might (not) "get it" the way he (doesn't) "get" the open-source principle. Can a recovering alchoholic be a "devout" Christian, even if he goes out and gets smashed the next day? I've met men who claim to be such; for my own part, I don't claim to be "devout" anything.

A search of the Ensign (the church's primary magazine) over the past 30 years turns no references to Mr. McBride, which means that he never contributed an article and probably has never held responsibility in any church unit higher than a stake (on the order of 2.5e3 people make up a stake), nor been stake president. Mr. McBride doesn't speak for me any more than I speak for him, and I won't call him "Brother" until I have personal interaction with him.

I think you are refering to the Book of Mormon. It wasn't dictated; it was translated by Joseph Smith Jr., and not behind a wall. If you really want some facts about it you can read it or you can visit this site.

As for Mr. McBride, well, there are many definitions of 'devout.' I know of people that go to church once a year for Easter Sunday and call themselves devout. I think we can get a sense in some ways through his behavior as to how devout Darl McBride is.

Ah, well. Raymond was worked up. His insult to the state, in my opinion, was unwarranted. But then again, why hasn't Utah's AG gone after McBride and gang. These guys are doing more damage to the tourist industry than they can imagine.

While these books may seem well researched and informative, it is important to note their main financial contributer while doing their research was the Church of Jesus Christ of the Latter Day Saints(Mormons). In fact, the publishers of these two books was founded in New York, but moved it's headquarters to Salt Lake City, Utah, and is majority owned by the Mormons.

Why does all that matter? Conflict of interest. Remember, the mormons are the ones that claim their founder, Joseph Smith, translated a previously "hidden" "message from God" into english from ... Egyptian heiroglyphics. And while his translation has been completely debunked, millions of Mormons continue to believe. And the Mormon church wants nothing more than to trick more people. So they Have hired Lesley and Roy Adkins to slowly add credibility to their story of "enlightenment from God through their prophet".

This is one of the wealthiest institutions in the world, and they are trying to legitimize their claims. In fact, Mormons have already invaded much of the U.S. political system and once in power, they will censor all other belief systems and, using their overseas propoganda army they will attempt to take over the world.

If you buy into these books, you are buying in to the Mormon conspiracy.

This public service announcement brought to you by ICBLF

While these books may seem well researched and informative, it is important to note their main financial contributer while doing their research was the Church of Jesus Christ of the Latter Day Saints(Mormons). In fact, the publishers of these two books was founded in New York, but moved it's headquarters to Salt Lake City, Utah, and is majority owned by the Mormons.

Why does all that matter? Conflict of interest. Remember, the mormons are the ones that claim their founder, Joseph Smith, translated a previously "hidden" "message from God" into english from ... Egyptian heiroglyphics. And while his translation has been completely debunked, millions of Mormons continue to believe. And the Mormon church wants nothing more than to trick more people. So they Have hired Lesley and Roy Adkins to slowly add credibility to their story of "enlightenment from God through their prophet".

This is one of the wealthiest institutions in the world, and they are trying to legitimize their claims. In fact, Mormons have already invaded much of the U.S. political system and once in power, they will censor all other belief systems and, using their overseas propoganda army they will attempt to take over the world.

If you buy into these books, you are buying in to the Mormon conspiracy.

This public service announcement brought to you by ICBLF

Actually....

18 For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book:

19 And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book.

Revelation 22:18-19

Balance in opposition is an eternal principle, as shown in these verse of scripture (verses 11 - 25).

God could not exist without this balance, and neither could we. This balance defines our entire purpose for existing (verse 25).

For some Utah stats, with sources, try this page. Sources at at the bottom of the page.
http://www.lds.org

...In the end, its all that matters. Technology and jobs come and go, as do all but the best of friends, but families are eternal.

> You just proved my point on this. BoM says little about "purpose".

The best answer I can give you with respect to those passages is in an address given by Elder Robert E. Wells

It talks about the Divine Sonship of Jesus Christ, and how He is Jehova, the God of the Old Testament/House of Israel. He is also the Divine Son of our Heavenly Father (Elohim).

> Unless God specifically commands it

> Some things don't match. The God giving Jacob 2 delighted in the chastity of women, and considered the acts of David and Solomon an abomination. Yet the God giving D&C seems to have changed his mind. David and Solomon did nothing wrong at all!

To clarify, The Book of Mormon and The D&C are consistent with respect to David: He lost his exaltation because took a wife (Uriah's) without the Lord's consent. This was an abomination. (See D&C 132:39)

I agree that the scriptures are unclear on Soloman, but I fail to find any explicit reference to Soloman in the D&C (or anywhere else) saying he was completely righteous. Maybe Jacob had access to more information than has survived to our time.

> Not to mention any man is entitled to 10 virgins!

I'd say that's a pretty loose interpretation. Look at D&C 132: 62 -- I don't see where you are getting the sense of entitlement. To me, it just states that if God sanctions a plural marriage, even 10 wives does not constitute a sin, so long as the people involved are obeying the commandments and entered into the marriages following the way God has ordained.

> I also must say that nowhere does either God command Joseph to take women as young as 14 or those already worthily married to other men...

I can't really comment on this, since I am not aware of any case where Joseph Smith married a woman of 14 years, or a woman already worthily married.

However, I will say that it doesn't sound completely unreasonable. If Joseph really was a prophet of God, and he was receiving revalations, it's not a stretch for me to believe God directed him to do this. It's not unusual for revalations given to a prophet to be kept from the public. (See Alma 12:9-10, 3Ne. 26: 16) even less surprising, considering the circumstances Joseph and the Church were in at that time -- heavy persecution from mobs.

> All normal acts of devotion are acceptable under "repentance", but telling me that secret handshakes and code names that will be required to enter into heaven(don't BS and say these don't exist, they do) are also included in repentance is a REAL hard sell.

"Normal acts of devotion" -- I think we're still largely in a semantic debate on this one. I'm afraid I am unwilling to discuss aspects of the Temple ceremonies, but I can say that I'm quite comfortable with the acts of devotion I perform there.

The Bible tells about rites of worship among the Israelites and Jews (animal sacrifice) that raise my eyebrows more than anything I've seen in the LDS church. My personal opinion is that there are things in the Gospel that will seem strange at first, but upon closer examination, become a lot easier to understand and appreciate.

As the Lord told Isaiah: " For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways, saith the LORD.

For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways, and my thoughts than your thoughts." (Isa. 55:8-9)

> I was more referring to the belief that people can progress even after the resurrection, just not to the highest degree of the Celestial Kingdom.

Sorry, I'm still unclear on your point here. Are you saying that modern LDS teachings contradict the Book of Mormon in the sense that one can not progress in the spirit world? Or after resurrection?

> oaths against the United States Government in the early temple ceremony

Sorry... quote a source for me on that one. I defy you to present any credible evidence. D&C 134 clearly directs members to respect and obey laws and government. For example, D&C 134:5 -

"We believe that all men are bound to sustain and uphold the respective governments in which they reside, while protected in their inherent and inalienable rights by the laws of such governments; and that sedition and rebellion are unbecoming every citizen thus protected, and should be punished accordingly; and that all governments have a right to enact such laws as in their own judgments are best calculated to secure the public interest; at the same time, however, holding sacred the freedom of conscience."

Again, Article of Faith #12: "We believe in being subject to kings, presidents, rulers, and magistrates, in obeying, honoring, and sustaining the law."

Not to mention documented acts of patriotism displayed by the early members. For example, the Mormon Batalion

> and the bloody oaths in the pre1990 ceremony were NOTHING like the Gadianton Robbers.

Again, I won't discuss Temple ceremonies. I would point you to Isaiah 5:20

> Oh, and get a f---ing dictionary. Temple ceremonies are SECRET, as in kept private or concealed. "Sacred" just means holy or inviolable.

Secret. Sacred. When I read in the Book of Mormon that Secret Combinations like the Gadianton Robbers proved to be the downfall of an entire nation, I can draw a pretty clear distinction between them and the sacred teachings of the Temple that help me to be a better person, and a better citezen. (if not a better speller)

Sure it's fair to call the temple ordinances secret. But to compare the motives for secrecy with the corrupt secret cartels of the early Americas is not accurate. Information is power, as is the denial of information. The secret combinations of the Book of Mormon used their secret oaths and signs to deny information and their identities from the authorities, and to further their evil designs against the government

As far as I can see, the only reason God asks members of His church to refrain from disclosing temple ordinances is to test us, and to teach us faith. I don't see how my honoring a promise of silence advances my temporal prosperity, or undermines the freedom of our nation in any way.

> Jesus Christ is the most sacred thing in mormonism, yet that's what they are trying their damnest to present to the public.

Ok, so you're taking issue with my semantics. I think the word 'secret' carries a fairly negative connotation, so by using the word 'sacred', I'm attempting to convey a similar meaning, with an opposite connotation.

Do you not believe that God, occasionally, commands us to not share certain things with others?

> You just proved my point on this. BoM says little about "purpose".

The best answer I can give you with respect to those passages is in an address given by Elder Robert E. Wells

It talks about the Divine Sonship of Jesus Christ, and how He is Jehova, the God of the Old Testament/House of Israel. He is also the Divine Son of our Heavenly Father (Elohim).

> Unless God specifically commands it

> Some things don't match. The God giving Jacob 2 delighted in the chastity of women, and considered the acts of David and Solomon an abomination. Yet the God giving D&C seems to have changed his mind. David and Solomon did nothing wrong at all!

To clarify, The Book of Mormon and The D&C are consistent with respect to David: He lost his exaltation because took a wife (Uriah's) without the Lord's consent. This was an abomination. (See D&C 132:39)

I agree that the scriptures are unclear on Soloman, but I fail to find any explicit reference to Soloman in the D&C (or anywhere else) saying he was completely righteous. Maybe Jacob had access to more information than has survived to our time.

> Not to mention any man is entitled to 10 virgins!

I'd say that's a pretty loose interpretation. Look at D&C 132: 62 -- I don't see where you are getting the sense of entitlement. To me, it just states that if God sanctions a plural marriage, even 10 wives does not constitute a sin, so long as the people involved are obeying the commandments and entered into the marriages following the way God has ordained.

> I also must say that nowhere does either God command Joseph to take women as young as 14 or those already worthily married to other men...

I can't really comment on this, since I am not aware of any case where Joseph Smith married a woman of 14 years, or a woman already worthily married.

However, I will say that it doesn't sound completely unreasonable. If Joseph really was a prophet of God, and he was receiving revalations, it's not a stretch for me to believe God directed him to do this. It's not unusual for revalations given to a prophet to be kept from the public. (See Alma 12:9-10, 3Ne. 26: 16) even less surprising, considering the circumstances Joseph and the Church were in at that time -- heavy persecution from mobs.

> All normal acts of devotion are acceptable under "repentance", but telling me that secret handshakes and code names that will be required to enter into heaven(don't BS and say these don't exist, they do) are also included in repentance is a REAL hard sell.

"Normal acts of devotion" -- I think we're still largely in a semantic debate on this one. I'm afraid I am unwilling to discuss aspects of the Temple ceremonies, but I can say that I'm quite comfortable with the acts of devotion I perform there.

The Bible tells about rites of worship among the Israelites and Jews (animal sacrifice) that raise my eyebrows more than anything I've seen in the LDS church. My personal opinion is that there are things in the Gospel that will seem strange at first, but upon closer examination, become a lot easier to understand and appreciate.

As the Lord told Isaiah: " For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways, saith the LORD.

For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways, and my thoughts than your thoughts." (Isa. 55:8-9)

> I was more referring to the belief that people can progress even after the resurrection, just not to the highest degree of the Celestial Kingdom.

Sorry, I'm still unclear on your point here. Are you saying that modern LDS teachings contradict the Book of Mormon in the sense that one can not progress in the spirit world? Or after resurrection?

> oaths against the United States Government in the early temple ceremony

Sorry... quote a source for me on that one. I defy you to present any credible evidence. D&C 134 clearly directs members to respect and obey laws and government. For example, D&C 134:5 -

"We believe that all men are bound to sustain and uphold the respective governments in which they reside, while protected in their inherent and inalienable rights by the laws of such governments; and that sedition and rebellion are unbecoming every citizen thus protected, and should be punished accordingly; and that all governments have a right to enact such laws as in their own judgments are best calculated to secure the public interest; at the same time, however, holding sacred the freedom of conscience."

Again, Article of Faith #12: "We believe in being subject to kings, presidents, rulers, and magistrates, in obeying, honoring, and sustaining the law."

Not to mention documented acts of patriotism displayed by the early members. For example, the Mormon Batalion

> and the bloody oaths in the pre1990 ceremony were NOTHING like the Gadianton Robbers.

Again, I won't discuss Temple ceremonies. I would point you to Isaiah 5:20

> Oh, and get a f---ing dictionary. Temple ceremonies are SECRET, as in kept private or concealed. "Sacred" just means holy or inviolable.

Secret. Sacred. When I read in the Book of Mormon that Secret Combinations like the Gadianton Robbers proved to be the downfall of an entire nation, I can draw a pretty clear distinction between them and the sacred teachings of the Temple that help me to be a better person, and a better citezen. (if not a better speller)

Sure it's fair to call the temple ordinances secret. But to compare the motives for secrecy with the corrupt secret cartels of the early Americas is not accurate. Information is power, as is the denial of information. The secret combinations of the Book of Mormon used their secret oaths and signs to deny information and their identities from the authorities, and to further their evil designs against the government

As far as I can see, the only reason God asks members of His church to refrain from disclosing temple ordinances is to test us, and to teach us faith. I don't see how my honoring a promise of silence advances my temporal prosperity, or undermines the freedom of our nation in any way.

> Jesus Christ is the most sacred thing in mormonism, yet that's what they are trying their damnest to present to the public.

Ok, so you're taking issue with my semantics. I think the word 'secret' carries a fairly negative connotation, so by using the word 'sacred', I'm attempting to convey a similar meaning, with an opposite connotation.

Do you not believe that God, occasionally, commands us to not share certain things with others?

> You just proved my point on this. BoM says little about "purpose".

The best answer I can give you with respect to those passages is in an address given by Elder Robert E. Wells

It talks about the Divine Sonship of Jesus Christ, and how He is Jehova, the God of the Old Testament/House of Israel. He is also the Divine Son of our Heavenly Father (Elohim).

> Unless God specifically commands it

> Some things don't match. The God giving Jacob 2 delighted in the chastity of women, and considered the acts of David and Solomon an abomination. Yet the God giving D&C seems to have changed his mind. David and Solomon did nothing wrong at all!

To clarify, The Book of Mormon and The D&C are consistent with respect to David: He lost his exaltation because took a wife (Uriah's) without the Lord's consent. This was an abomination. (See D&C 132:39)

I agree that the scriptures are unclear on Soloman, but I fail to find any explicit reference to Soloman in the D&C (or anywhere else) saying he was completely righteous. Maybe Jacob had access to more information than has survived to our time.

> Not to mention any man is entitled to 10 virgins!

I'd say that's a pretty loose interpretation. Look at D&C 132: 62 -- I don't see where you are getting the sense of entitlement. To me, it just states that if God sanctions a plural marriage, even 10 wives does not constitute a sin, so long as the people involved are obeying the commandments and entered into the marriages following the way God has ordained.

> I also must say that nowhere does either God command Joseph to take women as young as 14 or those already worthily married to other men...

I can't really comment on this, since I am not aware of any case where Joseph Smith married a woman of 14 years, or a woman already worthily married.

However, I will say that it doesn't sound completely unreasonable. If Joseph really was a prophet of God, and he was receiving revalations, it's not a stretch for me to believe God directed him to do this. It's not unusual for revalations given to a prophet to be kept from the public. (See Alma 12:9-10, 3Ne. 26: 16) even less surprising, considering the circumstances Joseph and the Church were in at that time -- heavy persecution from mobs.

> All normal acts of devotion are acceptable under "repentance", but telling me that secret handshakes and code names that will be required to enter into heaven(don't BS and say these don't exist, they do) are also included in repentance is a REAL hard sell.

"Normal acts of devotion" -- I think we're still largely in a semantic debate on this one. I'm afraid I am unwilling to discuss aspects of the Temple ceremonies, but I can say that I'm quite comfortable with the acts of devotion I perform there.

The Bible tells about rites of worship among the Israelites and Jews (animal sacrifice) that raise my eyebrows more than anything I've seen in the LDS church. My personal opinion is that there are things in the Gospel that will seem strange at first, but upon closer examination, become a lot easier to understand and appreciate.

As the Lord told Isaiah: " For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways, saith the LORD.

For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways, and my thoughts than your thoughts." (Isa. 55:8-9)

> I was more referring to the belief that people can progress even after the resurrection, just not to the highest degree of the Celestial Kingdom.

Sorry, I'm still unclear on your point here. Are you saying that modern LDS teachings contradict the Book of Mormon in the sense that one can not progress in the spirit world? Or after resurrection?

> oaths against the United States Government in the early temple ceremony

Sorry... quote a source for me on that one. I defy you to present any credible evidence. D&C 134 clearly directs members to respect and obey laws and government. For example, D&C 134:5 -

"We believe that all men are bound to sustain and uphold the respective governments in which they reside, while protected in their inherent and inalienable rights by the laws of such governments; and that sedition and rebellion are unbecoming every citizen thus protected, and should be punished accordingly; and that all governments have a right to enact such laws as in their own judgments are best calculated to secure the public interest; at the same time, however, holding sacred the freedom of conscience."

Again, Article of Faith #12: "We believe in being subject to kings, presidents, rulers, and magistrates, in obeying, honoring, and sustaining the law."

Not to mention documented acts of patriotism displayed by the early members. For example, the Mormon Batalion

> and the bloody oaths in the pre1990 ceremony were NOTHING like the Gadianton Robbers.

Again, I won't discuss Temple ceremonies. I would point you to Isaiah 5:20

> Oh, and get a f---ing dictionary. Temple ceremonies are SECRET, as in kept private or concealed. "Sacred" just means holy or inviolable.

Secret. Sacred. When I read in the Book of Mormon that Secret Combinations like the Gadianton Robbers proved to be the downfall of an entire nation, I can draw a pretty clear distinction between them and the sacred teachings of the Temple that help me to be a better person, and a better citezen. (if not a better speller)

Sure it's fair to call the temple ordinances secret. But to compare the motives for secrecy with the corrupt secret cartels of the early Americas is not accurate. Information is power, as is the denial of information. The secret combinations of the Book of Mormon used their secret oaths and signs to deny information and their identities from the authorities, and to further their evil designs against the government

As far as I can see, the only reason God asks members of His church to refrain from disclosing temple ordinances is to test us, and to teach us faith. I don't see how my honoring a promise of silence advances my temporal prosperity, or undermines the freedom of our nation in any way.

> Jesus Christ is the most sacred thing in mormonism, yet that's what they are trying their damnest to present to the public.

Ok, so you're taking issue with my semantics. I think the word 'secret' carries a fairly negative connotation, so by using the word 'sacred', I'm attempting to convey a similar meaning, with an opposite connotation.

Do you not believe that God, occasionally, commands us to not share certain things with others?

Sounds like the federal government is taking lessons from the mormon church in Salt Lake City. (All of the Mormon Church Geneology records are entoumbed in a Mountain in Big Cotton Wood Canyon in Salt Lake City, and up by McCall Idaho. They do it because of the fact that if the Apocolypse ever happens there are records.

The government must know somthing we dont...

For those of you who noticed that the submitter is dyslexic, the article is really about LSD, not DSL.

There is nothing whatsoever in the Bible that claims that the Earth is only 6000 years old. Instead, the chronology of the Bible only makes the claim that the Fall of Adam happened about 6000 years ago.

Genesis 1 only talks about the creation (and the term "day" can also refer to a period of time, not just a literal 24-hour period). The Fall doesn't happen until Genesis 3. The funny thing is that the Bible doesn't say anything about how much time went in between the two events. The age given for Adam when he died was measured from the time of his Fall.

It's funny how people don't read what it is saying because they only see what they want it to say.

There is nothing whatsoever in the Bible that claims that the Earth is only 6000 years old. Instead, the chronology of the Bible only makes the claim that the Fall of Adam happened about 6000 years ago.

Genesis 1 only talks about the creation (and the term "day" can also refer to a period of time, not just a literal 24-hour period). The Fall doesn't happen until Genesis 3. The funny thing is that the Bible doesn't say anything about how much time went in between the two events. The age given for Adam when he died was measured from the time of his Fall.

It's funny how people don't read what it is saying because they only see what they want it to say.

• Part 1: Preparation
• Part 2: The Journey

• Part 1: Preparation
• Part 2: The Journey

According to this article, "Components of the atmosphere, like ozone and water, are changing in different levels of the atmosphere." According to Martinez-Frias, these changes are BAD

However, did you know that the change taking place is not what you thought??? The ozone hole is actually getting SMALLER!!!

So we hear for 10-20 years that we are ruining the environment, damaging the ozone layer, and that this damage is irreparable (OK, so it takes a long time...but I don't want to wait 50 years). However, come to find out that it is reparable. I'm going back to using AquaNet!

But that's not enough for those environmentalists out there...they need to have something to whine about. Since they can't complain that the ozone is getting bigger, they'll say that "changes" (they won't specify for the better or for the worse) are causing the "sky to fall!"

The only thing that this teaches me is to never trust an evironmentalist. Not only was the "irreparable" ozone hole, in fact, reparable, it is BAD to fix it...it causes ice to fall out of the sky.

Now, I don't know much about weather or the environment, and I don't doubt that changes in the environment are causing some weird things to happen, but I do know that some really freaky stuff has happened in the past, and will probably continue to happen in the future.

Just stop complaining about it!!! :)

The quote you provide from Elder Ballard is both accurate and in context, and you are quite correct that the proper place to find out about what Mormons believe is to visit either lds.org or mormon.org, both of which are operated and overseen by the Church and can be trusted to contain correct information.

However, byu.edu cannot be trusted as a source of doctrine, and particularly, the page you visited seems to just be the reflections of a random student or professor. The link does not work, so I can't see who wrote it, and I can't claim any more authority to define church doctrine than the author, so I will defer you to the pages at lds.org and mormon.org above. Some of those assertions you will find on the pages above, and those you can call LDS doctrine (you are quite correct that many of them will be different from what you believe). Others you will not find (I do have to address the worst fallacy: Yes, God did create us. I don't know what the context of that quote was or what the author was trying to point out, but it simply is not true. Gen 1:27 -- God created man in his own image. The only thing I can think of, besides the author just being whacko, is that we believe that God the Father directed the creation through Jesus Christ, who is also God, but since you believe they are one and the same, I can't see a whole lot of divergence there).

If you are seriously interested in what we believe on those subjects, there is a link to the scritpures on the lds.org site, and you can look up the following references, which pertain to the assertions in the page you found:
Gen. 1:26-27 (Bible); Alma 34:8-10(Book of Mormon); Doctrine and Covenants 131:22-23; Moses 1: 10-17, 31-42 (Pearl of Great Price); Rev. 12:1-11 (remember, we identify Lucifer with Satan) (Bible).

The scriptures are the basis of our beliefs, and anything else you happen across on that site, you can trust, especially if it is a quote from one of our General Authorities (like Elder Ballard), who are the ones authorized to interpret scripture.

In summary, yes, we believe in Christ and all of his teachings, yes, we believe in the Holy Bible (we particularly prefer the KJV), yes, we probably have very similar beliefs about what is right and what is wrong, yes, we celebrate holidays, birthdays, Easter, Christmas, and any other excuse we can find to serve red punch and cookies, yes, there are sometimes substantial differences between Mormons and other Christians, but no, that is not a reason that we cannot all work together for good common causes. If you know many Mormons, you will probably find that they are overall pretty normal folks. So, I think that other than a difference in definition of the word "Christian," we pretty much agree with each other. And that is indeed the most religious and off-topic discussion I have ever had on Slashdot.

The quote you provide from Elder Ballard is both accurate and in context, and you are quite correct that the proper place to find out about what Mormons believe is to visit either lds.org or mormon.org, both of which are operated and overseen by the Church and can be trusted to contain correct information.

However, byu.edu cannot be trusted as a source of doctrine, and particularly, the page you visited seems to just be the reflections of a random student or professor. The link does not work, so I can't see who wrote it, and I can't claim any more authority to define church doctrine than the author, so I will defer you to the pages at lds.org and mormon.org above. Some of those assertions you will find on the pages above, and those you can call LDS doctrine (you are quite correct that many of them will be different from what you believe). Others you will not find (I do have to address the worst fallacy: Yes, God did create us. I don't know what the context of that quote was or what the author was trying to point out, but it simply is not true. Gen 1:27 -- God created man in his own image. The only thing I can think of, besides the author just being whacko, is that we believe that God the Father directed the creation through Jesus Christ, who is also God, but since you believe they are one and the same, I can't see a whole lot of divergence there).

If you are seriously interested in what we believe on those subjects, there is a link to the scritpures on the lds.org site, and you can look up the following references, which pertain to the assertions in the page you found:
Gen. 1:26-27 (Bible); Alma 34:8-10(Book of Mormon); Doctrine and Covenants 131:22-23; Moses 1: 10-17, 31-42 (Pearl of Great Price); Rev. 12:1-11 (remember, we identify Lucifer with Satan) (Bible).

The scriptures are the basis of our beliefs, and anything else you happen across on that site, you can trust, especially if it is a quote from one of our General Authorities (like Elder Ballard), who are the ones authorized to interpret scripture.

In summary, yes, we believe in Christ and all of his teachings, yes, we believe in the Holy Bible (we particularly prefer the KJV), yes, we probably have very similar beliefs about what is right and what is wrong, yes, we celebrate holidays, birthdays, Easter, Christmas, and any other excuse we can find to serve red punch and cookies, yes, there are sometimes substantial differences between Mormons and other Christians, but no, that is not a reason that we cannot all work together for good common causes. If you know many Mormons, you will probably find that they are overall pretty normal folks. So, I think that other than a difference in definition of the word "Christian," we pretty much agree with each other. And that is indeed the most religious and off-topic discussion I have ever had on Slashdot.

I seem to recall a teacher violently escorting a student out of the classroom who refused to say the pledge.

You'd be surprised though, by how tolerant of other views some religious people can be, and likewise, how intolerant some atheists can be.

There was a girl in my AP calculus class who was an orthodox atheist, and I'm a devout Christian. Naturally there were never arguments, but quite frequently the teacher had to interrupt our class-wide discussions because class had ended. Everyone was mature enough to acknowledge and accept others beliefs, and I'm [ABORTION IS MURDER] sure most of those involved found the discussions to be educational and interesting, including the teacher.

Well...once when I was a missionary in California City, I got a call from someone alledging to be from the Bakersfield FOP. He asked if I would be interested in giving them money. I replied with "I'm a missionary, so I don't have a whole lot of money...but if you're interested, I could arrange to have some missionaries from The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints some share a message about Jesus Christ." He hung up pretty quickly...

Its not like it changes, or has new chapters, "book of george bush" or anything.

www.lds.org

Ummm. www.mormon.org and www.lds.org. Utah is perenially in the top five most wired states, and has scored #1 for number of PCs per capita for the last 2 or three years.

If any Morman reads this, can you tell me why we haven't been getting the Church of Latter Day Saints TV commercicals in Canada anymore? What happened? I always loved those ads when I was young.

Take it up with your local TV station. They run just about everywhere else. I have heard that some TV stations won't run them, I guess because the insiduous message of Mormonism might "get you"?

It seems that web design has changed over the years in order to better accommodate database-driven websites. Text graphics, for example, are pretty much out.

Check out the big boys and see what they've been doing with their sites in order to compensate for massive quantities of content.

I'm biased, but I've got to say that the LDS Church website has done a remarkable job of integrating content and design in an attractive and useful way.