Slashdot Mirror

LDS Mormonism begins teaching about the infallibility of its leadership to children as early as age 3. This is why you have entire generations of Mormons who don't dare question what the leadership says or does. They're taught that to question is tantamount to forfeiting their eternal salvation. It's a fundamental cult tactic.

That is categorically false. Catholicism teaches that the Pope is infallible, but Mormonism teaches that Jesus was the only perfect individual to live on the earth. Joseph Smith History (canonized and part of the Pearl of Great Price) was written by Joseph Smith Jr and clearly states that "I frequently fell into many foolish errors, and displayed the weakness of youth, and the foibles of human nature; which, I am sorry to say, led me into divers temptations, offensive in the sight of God. In making this confession, no one need suppose me guilty of any great or malignant sins. A disposition to commit such was never in my nature." (JSH 1:28). LDS scripture says that when leaders speak "when moved by the Holy Ghost" it shall be scripture (D&C 68). In the April 1996 General Conference Elder Dallin H Oaks (of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles) wrote that Joseph Smith Jr "was mortal and therefore subject to sin and error, pain and affliction" source

Any time the church gets enough negative press on an issue it changes its stance. It is first and foremost a for-profit corporation after all.

Categorically false. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is a non-profit organization as per US tax law. Please provide evidence to support your claim the Church is a for-profit organization. The Church's commercial endeavors are properly taxed and are not funded by tithing.

Black people couldn't hold priesthood or attend temple (the pinnacle of LDS worship) before 1978. They changed their divinely inspired stance amidst social pressure. There are allegations that the BYU football program was being negatively affected. It happened before and it will happen again.

This question is more nuanced than you realized. Let me quote from the Church's page on race and the priesthood

In 1850, the U.S. Congress created Utah Territory, and the U.S. president appointed Brigham Young to the position of territorial governor. Southerners who had converted to the Church and migrated to Utah with their slaves raised the question of slavery’s legal status in the territory. In two speeches delivered before the Utah territorial legislature in January and February 1852, Brigham Young announced a policy restricting men of black African descent from priesthood ordination. At the same time, President Young said that at some future day, black Church members would “have [all] the privilege and more” enjoyed by other members.

There is no official reason provided as to why Blacks were denied the Priesthood beginning in 1852 - just lots of speculation. In 1857 the US Supreme Court declared that blacks possessed "no rights which the white man was bound to respect."

Point of clarification: In Mormon dogma (subset of Christianity), the idea that babies all go to hell without baptism is an abomination. That would make getting into heaven kind of a lottery (were you born at the wrong time in the wrong place? Your mom had an abortion? Tough beans...), vs. grace + repentance.

Moroni 8 (from the Book of Mormon) covers this idea in more detail, but in short God takes all unbaptized children that die under a certain age (where you start to know right from wrong) straight up into heaven. But that's another religious topic entirely...

The original group gets to define the term, no?

No, they do not or there would not be varieties of Christianity, Islam or Judaism. You have no reason or right to claim an exception. The fact that you do not understand this and want special treatment is because you believe you are special and better. You are not

I see we will never agree on this point of the conversation, so I won't respond further.

Can't it be both?

The profit making parts of it are subject to taxes. Because they trade they are allowed trademarks. Two companies may not use the same trademark or they lose it for non-enforcement. The church does not trade (or it is not a church) and is freed from taxes but it is not allowed trademarks.

You are correct that the for-profit entities owned by the LdS Church do pay taxes as required by law. I don't see how your comment adds anything new to the conversation. It is a for-profit entity (Intellectual Reserve Inc) which has the trademark on the term "Mormon".

As noted above, Mormon and LDS are Church trademarks. However, some uses of Mormon and LDS may qualify as "fair use" and, as such, do not require Church permission. Although "fair use" of a trademark is determined on a case-by-case basis, the guideline below may help you determine whether a particular use you intend to make is a "fair use."

Permission is not required when Mormon and LDS are used to simply refer to an official Church product or program that is known by that name, such as Mormon Tabernacle Choir or LDS Family Services. Similarly, you do not need permission to use Mormon or LDS when referring to Church members, as in the following examples:

• I am Mormon
• They are an LDS family.

However, you may not use Mormon or LDS (or other Church trademarks) in a manner that suggests or implies that you or your product or service is endorced by or affiliated with the Church or its leaders. Thus, the terms Mormon and LDS (or any other Church trademarks) should not be used in the name of an organization, product, or service that is not officially sponsored or endorsed by the Church. Such use can confuse others by giving the false impression of Church sponsorship or endorsement. For example, the following would not be appropriate uses of Mormon or LDS unless the Church gives you explicit written permission:

• Mormon Savings — as the name of a financial institution or program
• LDS Shopping Netwrk — as the name of an association of merchants

Guidelines for Use of Church Trademarks

I did not use gratuitous profanity I used entertaining (at least to me) profanity and we do not call the same thing profanity. I do not believe in god or creator simply because everything I have read and witnessed lead me to believe that if he existed he would have to be classed as an immoral psychopath. You gods do not live up to my requirements for divinity. You would call that sacrilege. I call it common sense.

To me tour proclamations that there is a god when there so clearly is not one is profanity and sacrilege to me. I find it offensive.

FWIW Profanity in writing is used to express emotion that would otherwise be conveyed by tone of voice. And that use is at times, quite valid and part of the Queen's English.

I use the term gratuitous profanity to mean profanity which adds nothing to the conversation. The so-called "f bomb" is considered offensive enough that a single occurrence used to be enough to force an "R" rating for a movie. There are times when emotions are too strong to express in polite vocabulary, but removing your profanity doesn't take away anything of value. This has nothing to do with being atheist, Christian, Muslim, etc, but rather being part of a polite society.

Our tithing does not make its way into leaders' pockets.

Then who pays their salaries?

We have a lay clergy. Local leaders have careers outside the Church to earn money to care for their families. Leadership positions do not require studies at a seminary. Only General Authorities (such as the Prophet and the Twelve Apostles) receive a living allowance, as these are full-time responsibilities. All worthy men are eligible for the Priesthood.

I should like to add, parenthetically for your information, that the living allowances given the General Authorities, which are very modest in comparison with executive compensation in industry and the professions, come from this business income and not from the tithing of the people.

Gordon B. Hinckley, October 1985

life-size oxen made out of what appeared to be gold

Uh weird, I seem to remember there being a rule about that somewhere.

Check out a New Era article from 1976. Baptismal fonts in the temple do indeed rest on the back of 12 oxen representing the 12 tribes of Israel and mirrors the temple of Solomon. The material used varies from temple to temple. None of the fonts is pure gold. Some are bronze, others are stone, a few are wood.

I think a lot of that, for the religious orgs, goes into building massive churches. LDS is insanely wealthy and spares practically no expense in making huge, ornate temples. When they're about to re-dedicate one, us "impure" commonfolk can go inside, and I did that one time and saw some life-size oxen made out of what appeared to be gold surrounding a big ornate pool presumably used for baptisms, and then some expensive looking theaters (practically a multiplex) used for displaying religious propaganda to the public, and practically all of the floors and walls adorned with either granite or marble in pretty much the entire temple, with each room (and there are many rooms) being about two stories in height with really big chandeliers. I guess another way of describing it would be something four times as big, expensive, and decorated as the whitehouse. And in spite of the massive size of this thing, very few people even go inside, and they have about 170 of them throughout the entire US.

I'm a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. We have chapels and temples. You're off on some of your description of our temples. There are 151 temples throughout the world, not 170 in the US. We pay cash for our temples so we do studies to find how to lower costs without lowering quality and workmanship. The White House is approximately 55,000 square feet; approximately 25 temples are at least that large. The largest temple is in Salt Lake City (253,000 square feet); our smallest temple (Colonia Juárez Chihuahua Mexico) has 6,800 square feet. Only a few rooms in each temple have those huge chandeliers and 20+ foot ceilings. Building materials vary. The Provo City Center temple has mostly wood walls, for example.

And for some reason they see fit to ask that their members pay all of the expenses for their own missionary work, even though people of that age typically don't make much at all and it takes them years to save up for that. (My dad was required to save up for it by his parents for about 5 years, and then when he turned 17 he moved away from home and spent it on college and pretty much just ignored the church for the rest of his life.)

There is a standard amount for each missionary based on home country. During my mission, those from the US paid $350 / month while Brazilians paid R$100 / month. There is a general missionary fund available for those unable to pay. All money is pooled together and missionaries get an allowance based on mission. I received about R$100 / month (rent and utilities were paid before I received my allowance). As your dad left the Church at 17, I guess that shows your bias.

Mark this date, KGIII, you're going to hear me (semi) agree with a talking head at Fox News (are they still a talking head if on the radio?): I'm not generally a fan of lame duck* presidents doing anything too significant in their final days (although he has almost a year left, so it's hard to say if he qualifies yet - hence the 'semi-agree') as they have very little accountability and tend to do things they previously would not have done (pardoning their friends, etc). In this particular case, we have a constitutional law professor*** who seems to have no problem ignoring the constitution when it is convenient for him to do so selecting a SCOTUS ... in an ideal world, I'd prefer to wait for 'the next guy' but as this is not an ideal world (and whoever 'the next guy' is, we're not apt to be doing much better & quite possibly much worse) ... all I can say is ugh.

I can't stand Fox News - and I am quite conservative, both fiscally and socially** - so I don't see myself listening even for amusement, but I almost agree with part of what they said.

* I suspect you knew the definition of lame duck and were being funny, link was in case I was wrong

** (Warning, I'm going to stray off topic here) Something I have never shared on Slashdot before is that I'm a Mormon. I'm certainly not ashamed of this, but we're not always a very popular group & I've never wanted a troll of my own (though I have read your thoughts on the matter & am no longer concerned if I gain one), so I've previously kept it to myself (no worries, readers, now that I have mentioned it you know - I'm not going to try to convert anyone here :)). Most people know enough about us to know that we tend to be very conservative - and I am no exception - but for me, it is very important that I not seek to legislate my own morality. So while I abstain from alcohol and drugs, I am in favour of legalizing marijuana (for example). I'll likely never take advantage of it's legality (not for recreational use, anyway), but from what I have read, it's less harmful than alcohol & making that illegal didn't go over too well last time :)

You might guess my view on homosexuality (though good chance you'd be wrong - I believe all sexual activity [hetro or otherwise] outside marriage to be wrong), but I feel it is none of the government's (or military's) business. I'd personally like to see the government get out of the business of marriage altogether (and have an analogue that did roughly the same thing re: taxes, benefits, etc) and let consenting adults be consenting adults. While my own Temple marriage to my wife is very precious to me, it's significance is not universally applicable. My sister's (non-LDS) marriage to her husband is equally precious to her. I have friends that were married civilly that likely feel the same way about their marriage (sorry, it has never come up in conversation, but I feel it is safe to say). I'm ok with (well, more than ok, I would vehemently support) a church (any church, not just mine) not performing a ceremony in a way they feel is contrary to their doctrine, but to withhold the legal benefits based on morality? I do not think a thing should have both religious and legal significance (pretty much ever - things like Sharia law are worrisome to me). These are two different applications, let's have two different vehicles (that are not incompatible, so one can avail them selves of either, both or neither).

At the end of the day, I am accountable for my actions and not the actions of others. I don't see morality as necessary in the law past the golden rule as 'my right to swing my fist ends where your nose begins' - not because it's morally wrong for me to strike you (unprovoked, self defense

Others are biting on the other topics so I'll just mention the genetics bit.

What about the claim that Native Americans are a lost tribe of Israelites, something proven false.

That's too big of an issue to get into here, but suffice it to say that your statement of the claim is an oversimplification (the original and current editions of the Book of Mormon state that the peoples of the Book are descended of Joseph of Egypt, and among the ancestors of Native Americans), and the 'evidence' that has been posited against is does not stand up to scrutiny.

Weren't the people described be Semitic? In that case there would be signs of Semitic DNA in the Native American population, if the genes have spread through the genepool then genetic drift won't eliminate all traces. And the things they describe aren't population bottlenecks, for a bottleneck you really have to reduce the population to a small portion of their overall numbers. If a Semitic population had been there for several centuries the DNA would have spread throughout North America. To wipe out that DNA you'd have to drive the Native American to the brink of actual extinction.

Apropos, the answers to all of your questions and the cure to your misconceptions are readily found on the internet. Whether the internet makes some people into atheists, I do not know, but one this is for sure: knowledge, even readily available knowledge, does not by itself make one more informed. One has to know how to seek it out, filter the truth from the noise, and then judiciously apply it.

It's not about knowledge it's about evaluating evidence and arguments. Mormonism isn't just claiming a couple Semites showed up in North America, it is claiming four major kingdoms surviving for almost 1000 years. The problem isn't that there aren't ways you can explain away the evidence, it's that every time there's a way to test the claims of Mormonism you end up having to explain something away.

Why couldn't the plates be investigated by an impartial authority, or the original text transcribed? Well the angel didn't want that.

Why does the little we've seen of the scrolls from book of Abraham have nothing to do with the described text of the book of Abraham? Well it was written by a Jew who wasn't writing proper Egyptian.

Why is there no evidence, genetic or archaeological, of these four huge middle eastern kingdoms that lasted a millenia or more? Apparently Moroni wasn't talking about the Native Americans after all.

Imagine that tomorrow someone discovered the book of Abraham scrolls hadn't been destroyed in fire, and were found intact in some forgotten collection, or some expedition on Cumorah found a bag containing some golden plates and the bag was carbon dated to the 1830s.

They items in question were then scanned and put online. My prediction is that the plates would turn out to be gibberish and the book of Abraham would have nothing to do with Joseph Smith's translation. What do you think the result would be?

How do you rationalize Smith's behaviour with the gold plates that nobody but him ever saw

They were seen by the three witnesses. To what behaviour are you referring?

and when the transcriber "lost" the translations (to see if Smith actually did have a source document from which he could reproduce the same translation) Smith then provided a different translation

Where did you get the idea that Martin Harris's motivation in losing the document was to test Joseph? I've read a bit on the subject and found nothing to support that notion. In any case, Joseph did not retranslate that portion, and the rationale for that is laid out in clear.

How he translated some Egyptian scrolls into the Book of Abraham, but the scrolls in question have nothing in common with what Joseph Smith translated

I'm not familiar with that claim or its background so I can't address it.

What about the claim that Native Americans are a lost tribe of Israelites, something proven false.

That's too big of an issue to get into here, but suffice it to say that your statement of the claim is an oversimplification (the original and current editions of the Book of Mormon state that the peoples of the Book are descended of Joseph of Egypt, and among the ancestors of Native Americans), and the 'evidence' that has been posited against is does not stand up to scrutiny.

Apropos, the answers to all of your questions and the cure to your misconceptions are readily found on the internet. Whether the internet makes some people into atheists, I do not know, but one this is for sure: knowledge, even readily available knowledge, does not by itself make one more informed. One has to know how to seek it out, filter the truth from the noise, and then judiciously apply it.

How do you rationalize Smith's behaviour with the gold plates that nobody but him ever saw

They were seen by the three witnesses. To what behaviour are you referring?

and when the transcriber "lost" the translations (to see if Smith actually did have a source document from which he could reproduce the same translation) Smith then provided a different translation

Where did you get the idea that Martin Harris's motivation in losing the document was to test Joseph? I've read a bit on the subject and found nothing to support that notion. In any case, Joseph did not retranslate that portion, and the rationale for that is laid out in clear.

How he translated some Egyptian scrolls into the Book of Abraham, but the scrolls in question have nothing in common with what Joseph Smith translated

I'm not familiar with that claim or its background so I can't address it.

What about the claim that Native Americans are a lost tribe of Israelites, something proven false.

That's too big of an issue to get into here, but suffice it to say that your statement of the claim is an oversimplification (the original and current editions of the Book of Mormon state that the peoples of the Book are descended of Joseph of Egypt, and among the ancestors of Native Americans), and the 'evidence' that has been posited against is does not stand up to scrutiny.

Apropos, the answers to all of your questions and the cure to your misconceptions are readily found on the internet. Whether the internet makes some people into atheists, I do not know, but one this is for sure: knowledge, even readily available knowledge, does not by itself make one more informed. One has to know how to seek it out, filter the truth from the noise, and then judiciously apply it.

How do you rationalize Smith's behaviour with the gold plates that nobody but him ever saw

They were seen by the three witnesses. To what behaviour are you referring?

and when the transcriber "lost" the translations (to see if Smith actually did have a source document from which he could reproduce the same translation) Smith then provided a different translation

Where did you get the idea that Martin Harris's motivation in losing the document was to test Joseph? I've read a bit on the subject and found nothing to support that notion. In any case, Joseph did not retranslate that portion, and the rationale for that is laid out in clear.

How he translated some Egyptian scrolls into the Book of Abraham, but the scrolls in question have nothing in common with what Joseph Smith translated

I'm not familiar with that claim or its background so I can't address it.

What about the claim that Native Americans are a lost tribe of Israelites, something proven false.

That's too big of an issue to get into here, but suffice it to say that your statement of the claim is an oversimplification (the original and current editions of the Book of Mormon state that the peoples of the Book are descended of Joseph of Egypt, and among the ancestors of Native Americans), and the 'evidence' that has been posited against is does not stand up to scrutiny.

Apropos, the answers to all of your questions and the cure to your misconceptions are readily found on the internet. Whether the internet makes some people into atheists, I do not know, but one this is for sure: knowledge, even readily available knowledge, does not by itself make one more informed. One has to know how to seek it out, filter the truth from the noise, and then judiciously apply it.

If you have any glimmer of hope left, read this talk. You've probably seen it before, but perhaps you have not looked at it with an eye to the question you just asked. If you feel that God abandoned you, remember that even his own Son once felt (wrongly) that his Father has abandoned him. And as Elder Holland points out, it happened so that the rest of us could know, when we felt abandoned, that we are not alone in our suffering. God does keep his promises, but not always in the way that we hope or expect. I don't know your specific circumstances or what your wife was suffering, or how it turned out. I pray she was okay in the end. But if she was facing a critical or even terminal illness, and especially if your worst fears for her were realized, the most rational comfort I can think of is those very temple ordinances you were keeping. If you feared she may be taken from you, what greater comfort could he give you than to know that no power on earth or in hell can rend her from you permanently so long as you keep your temple covenants? If those temple covenants are true, how has God abandoned you in your moment of need, when he has promised you that you can be reunited with her? What better fruit could you ask for?

As for why he did not give you the emotional comfort you desperately craved, there may be a rational reason for that too. I have been not necessarily in the circumstance you were, but certainly there were times I desperately needed emotional comfort and there seemed to be none. Why would God do that to us? My favorite analogy is the book Dune. Have you ever read it? Why were the Fremen so awesome? Because it was hard. They had to be awesome to survive. Why is Marine Corps boot camp so indescribably awful? Because if it was easy, Marines would be wimps. If God is trying to raise up a race of gods, why does he sometimes leave us casting about in the dark, feeling like there are no answers anywhere, and like we're on our own to figure it all out? Because that's how you raise up a race of gods. It's not just about "testing" us to see if we'll be good. If the Fremen got an extra cup of water, just for the asking, every time they were really, really thirsty, they wouldn't be the most fearsome army in the known galaxy. If God gave us relief from suffering, just for the asking, every time it really, really hurts, we wouldn't learn the fortitude necessary to become like him. But that doesn't mean that God isn't aware of us, or that he stopped caring. It just means that sometimes he gives us what we need instead of what we think we need, and sometimes what we need is the strength to persevere through grief.

Regarding the anti-Mormon stuff you've read, I've seen it. You're right that not all of it is false. Some of the troubling facts alleged (mostly about the prophet Joseph Smith) are true. Others are pure conjecture and innuendo. Some can even be partially verified on the church's own familysearch.org website. But anti-Mormon literature also tends to assume a great deal. It is highly selective in choosing those facts that cast the prophet in the worst light, raising an eyebrow, and assuming bad motives. Unfortunately, many Mormons are just as bad about ignoring the troubling or difficult facts of the prophet's life because they don't want to have to deal with them, or they make silly conjectures like believing none of Joseph's plural marriages were consummated (despite abundant evidence that at least some of them were). I have studied the prophet's life extensively. I'm aware of the facts that are supported by credible evidence. And I am quite pleased to see that the church is recently starting to open up about some of the difficult incidents in our history. I hope they will start to do even more of that. In the meantime, we can ask for each fact alleged: (1) What is the source? (2) How reliable is it? (3) Is it corroborated, and if so, by whom or what? (4) Are there other indicia of reliab

Do not take it personally, but here it goes: What does happen when scientific evidence contradicts something you believe in? Religious "zealots" simply discard any evidence, faith should be preserved at all costs, because it has SO MANY implications in how they conduct their lives. For me, if new evidence comes up that contradict my previous beliefs, I simply adapt my beliefs.

The problem with religion is that it tries to mess with all of your life.

The point is that there are only a few things that I have any kind of certain knowledge of based on my religious convictions, and none of them have to do with the mechanics of the universe. But let's look at an example. I'm a Mormon, and we believe in the Book of Mormon as a volume of scripture that contains an account of actual people who lived somewhere in the Americas between about 2,000 BC and 400 AD. People have many times made archaeological discoveries that seem to contradict certain accounts in the Book of Mormon. But I know that archaeology is an imperfect and inexact science. Every one of those discoveries that I've seen was ultimately adjusted or brought into question as new evidence came to light. None of them made me feel the need to deny the Book of Mormon, because my belief in that Book is not based on archaeological evidence, it's based on my personal experience with the book itself. On the other hand, there is a great deal of Mormon tradition that gets built up around the Book of Mormon, including the belief (still popular in some circles) that the people of the Book of Mormon ranged all over North and South America, and were the principal ancestors of all native Americans on both continents. That idea has been widely discredited based on finding genetic markers that tie North American natives to Mongol ancestors rather than near eastern ancestors. I was never really on board with the idea anyway. I personally favor the theory that they lived in a small area of the Yucatan. But that belief is subject to adjustment as additional evidence comes to light.

So in short, if I find scientific evidence that seems to contradict a religious belief, I keep an open mind while understanding that science evolves, and that my religious knowledge is not comprehensive. To quote from the Book of Mormon, "Yea, wo be unto him that saith: We have received, and we need no more!" And furthermore, "But to be learned is good if they hearken unto the counsels of God." Far from discouraging inquiry, my religious conviction demands it.

Do not take it personally, but here it goes: What does happen when scientific evidence contradicts something you believe in? Religious "zealots" simply discard any evidence, faith should be preserved at all costs, because it has SO MANY implications in how they conduct their lives. For me, if new evidence comes up that contradict my previous beliefs, I simply adapt my beliefs.

The problem with religion is that it tries to mess with all of your life.

The point is that there are only a few things that I have any kind of certain knowledge of based on my religious convictions, and none of them have to do with the mechanics of the universe. But let's look at an example. I'm a Mormon, and we believe in the Book of Mormon as a volume of scripture that contains an account of actual people who lived somewhere in the Americas between about 2,000 BC and 400 AD. People have many times made archaeological discoveries that seem to contradict certain accounts in the Book of Mormon. But I know that archaeology is an imperfect and inexact science. Every one of those discoveries that I've seen was ultimately adjusted or brought into question as new evidence came to light. None of them made me feel the need to deny the Book of Mormon, because my belief in that Book is not based on archaeological evidence, it's based on my personal experience with the book itself. On the other hand, there is a great deal of Mormon tradition that gets built up around the Book of Mormon, including the belief (still popular in some circles) that the people of the Book of Mormon ranged all over North and South America, and were the principal ancestors of all native Americans on both continents. That idea has been widely discredited based on finding genetic markers that tie North American natives to Mongol ancestors rather than near eastern ancestors. I was never really on board with the idea anyway. I personally favor the theory that they lived in a small area of the Yucatan. But that belief is subject to adjustment as additional evidence comes to light.

So in short, if I find scientific evidence that seems to contradict a religious belief, I keep an open mind while understanding that science evolves, and that my religious knowledge is not comprehensive. To quote from the Book of Mormon, "Yea, wo be unto him that saith: We have received, and we need no more!" And furthermore, "But to be learned is good if they hearken unto the counsels of God." Far from discouraging inquiry, my religious conviction demands it.

They are actively fulfilling a Biblical prophecy ONLY by determining genealogical lineage AND then baptizing the dead. Simply baptizing them just makes them Mormon. In the minds of the LDS followers.

No, no, no, no, no.

http://mormon.org/faq/proxy-baptisms
Jesus Christ taught that baptism is essential to the salvation of all who have lived on earth (see John3:5). Many people, however, have died without being baptized. Others were baptized without proper authority. Because God is merciful, He has prepared a way for all people to receive the blessings of baptism. By performing proxy baptisms in behalf of those who have died, Church members offer these blessings to deceased ancestors. These individuals in the next life can then choose to accept or decline what has been done in their behalf.

You're missing a very, very key element here. Nobody is making anybody else Mormon. That would violate agency. Baptism is a covenant, like a contract. It is a two sided promise. It is valid if, and only if the deceased accepts it. Thus, they are NOT recorded as becoming Mormon, but as having had the saving ordinances performed on their behalf. It is up to them to decide whether the ordinance is valid or not.

This misunderstanding has lead to a lot of unnecessary anger (and heated rhetoric) over the years. Please don't perpetuate it.

Further, it is widely accepted that there will be a thousand years of peace, called the millennium after the return of Christ during which angelic messengers will facilitate cleaning up records that are inaccurate, or no longer exist on behalf of those who still want ordinances performed. The reason to not wait stems from the desire not to make those who are eagerly awaiting the work wait any longer.

For more information on the motivation for Temple proxy work, see:D&C 137. (Note that the Biblical term "prison" is understood as a spiritual state regarding sin, and not a literal one, that baptism facilitates freedom from.)

Do you really think those twinks are a substantial percentage even of the prepper population? Realize that from a certain standpoint, Mormons are preppers, and they use vaccines. I don't think that the anti-vaxxer religious prepper types are really that big a blip. If you're sure god will take you, you don't need supplies for the rapture.

On the contrary, many if not most prepper sites include notes on which animal antibiotics you can safely use — you can get them over the counter.

No because no one claims they came from on high.

Thomas Jefferson did in the Declaration of Independence when he called certain things "unalienable" rights "endowed by their Creator". I suppose I could google for "founding fathers" who attributed the US Constitution (or the accompanying Bill of Rights) to divine provenance or the like. It is worth noting for an interesting example, that the Mormon Church holds that the US Constitution is divinely inspired based on a scripture that states:

According to the laws and constitution of the people, which I have suffered to be established, and should be maintained for the rights and protection of all flesh, according to just and holy principles;

This may be a bit vague, but it was supposedly was part of a revelation given to Joseph Smith, the founder of the Mormon Church, who was a US citizen at the time in the state of Ohio.

No because no one claims they came from on high.

Thomas Jefferson did in the Declaration of Independence when he called certain things "unalienable" rights "endowed by their Creator". I suppose I could google for "founding fathers" who attributed the US Constitution (or the accompanying Bill of Rights) to divine provenance or the like. It is worth noting for an interesting example, that the Mormon Church holds that the US Constitution is divinely inspired based on a scripture that states:

According to the laws and constitution of the people, which I have suffered to be established, and should be maintained for the rights and protection of all flesh, according to just and holy principles;

This may be a bit vague, but it was supposedly was part of a revelation given to Joseph Smith, the founder of the Mormon Church, who was a US citizen at the time in the state of Ohio.

The official Bible translation for Latter-Day Saints is the KJV.

Small Joseph Smith Translations (JST) are put in the footnotes for reference, and larger translations are kept separately.

LDS Scriptures online (Genesis 1:31): http://www.lds.org/scriptures/ot/gen/1?lang=eng#31
None of the footnotes there are JST footnotes.

Joseph Smith Translation: http://www.lds.org/scriptures/jst?lang=eng
No JST for Genesis 1.

The official Bible translation for Latter-Day Saints is the KJV.

Small Joseph Smith Translations (JST) are put in the footnotes for reference, and larger translations are kept separately.

LDS Scriptures online (Genesis 1:31): http://www.lds.org/scriptures/ot/gen/1?lang=eng#31
None of the footnotes there are JST footnotes.

Joseph Smith Translation: http://www.lds.org/scriptures/jst?lang=eng
No JST for Genesis 1.

Nobody has said this yet and I really mean it when I say the Book of Mormon has had a significant impact on my life. It has for any person who grew up in an LDS family by virtue of being a significant part of that culture. But it also has for me because I've read it many times and I know it's true. I've personally felt the power of the Holy Ghost testify to me it's true. The Bible is also the word of God and I love reading the teachings of Jesus in the New Testament. I can definitely say that I'm a better person as a result.

You can get a free copy of the Book of Mormon, too, or read it online.

43 And he called unto him his disciples, and saith unto them, Verily I say unto you, That this poor widow hath cast more in, than all they which have cast into the treasury

44 For all they did cast in of their abundance; but she of her want did cast in all that she had, even all her living.

Or in other words, a man paying $100,000 in taxes when he earned $10M pays less taxes than the man earning $45,000 and pays $10,000. The raw dollar amount spent does not tell the whole story - not even close.

If "enough" for me to pay in taxes is X% of my earnings, "enough" for him should not be X-Y%. Even moreso if you chose to acknowledge the moral implications as he is paying 'of his abundance' whereas the tax dollars I pay could have purchased a second car for my family or been put away towards college for my children. I do not begrudge (much) paying taxes (primary exception is sales tax on food, collecting this is an evil practice as it only really impacts the poor - I'm looking at you, the State of Utah), it is my duty as a citizen; I do, however begrudge the wealthy exploiting the system to pay a much smaller share than I while at the same time proclaiming that they carry the greater tax burden. It's just dishonest.

As for Mitt, I respectfully ask you to put your money where your mouth is. You claim to have payed no less than 13%, well the proof of the pudding is in the eating. Your father knew this; said T. George Harris in "Romney's Way, A Man and an Idea"

"He balked when I badgered him for a copy of his latest Form 1040, the Federal Individual Income Tax Return," Harris wrote. "Release of the document, while it might serve a political purpose, would not prove very much, he argued. One year could be a fluke, perhaps done for show, and what mattered in personal finance was how a man conducted himself over the long haul."

"Stumped by this argument, I was not prepared for the move that it eventually led him to make: He ordered up all the Form 1040's that he and Mrs. Rome had filed over the past twelve years — including those profitable ones from when he saved the American Motors Company from bankruptcy and became a millionaire on the company's stock options."

I want to like you, Mitt. The promises of Obama that caused me to vote for him have largely not come into fruition (Guantanamo Bay detention camp is still open, Patriot Act is still law, TSA is bigger and stronger than ever), but you appear to also be no different. It's no wonder so many are completely disenchanted by the whole system of politics today.

AS an FYI: Mormons also believe women are 2nd class citizens.

As a member of the LDS faith, who are frequently called "Mormons", I can tell you that we certainly do not consider women to be 2nd class citizens. We consider women to be equal to men, not more, not less. We believe that the man of the house is in charge of making the final decision if there is a dispute, but we are also taught that trying to force anyone to believe our way or do what we want is wrong. I'm sad that you are willing to make such accusations without evidence. The Family: A Proclamation to the World

Says Wikipedia: USADA is "is taxpayer-funded non-profit organization."

So, just like Congress spending time on baseball persecutions, this is tax money being spent on enforcing the rules in non-essential, voluntary, recreational activities -- even it's not an official government bureaucracy, funding means control, so this is essentially a gov't body.

Personally, I have no problem with any given organization (for Scrabble, for competitive waiting http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Op39GUkQhmc, for concrete canoes -- http://concretecanoe.org/, for particular religious beliefs http://www.lds.org/?lang=eng ...) setting whatever rules they want, so long as the people involved choose to accept it, or choose to challenge it, etc, so long as there's no coercion. If you don't like the big chili competition in Terlingua (as some didn't), you can break off and start *another* big chili competition in Terlingua (and some people did: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terlingua,_Texas). If the govt's going to get involved, it should be a matter of public safety, preventing fraud, etc. .

By contrast, I'm offended that so much as a single penny of taxpayer money went toward this.

AS an FYI: Mormons also believe women are 2nd class citizens.

Who, these Mormons?

Do you really thing it's appropriate to use Java and .NET?

Some religious groups do understand technology, and are using it appropriately http://tech.lds.org/

- Women cannot ascend to the "highest level" unless dragged there attached to a man.

You forgot: Men cannot ascend to the "highest level" unless dragged there attached to a woman. Perhaps you should check out The Family: A Proclamation to the World to see what the "LDS 'religion'" really believes rather than what you claim they believe.

Although many women do wait to go through the temple until they get married, it is not a requirement. Many women choose to go through the temple long before they get married. Having children has NEVER been a requirement to become "garmented"

And, for the record, the world's oldest and largest women's organization was founded in 1842 by the LDS church. And Utah granted women full voting rights in 1870 while they were still a territory. Although the US government tried to take away those rights, when Utah was admitted into the union in 1896, women had full voting rights again. Most states east of the Mississippi River did not give voting rights to women until forced to by the 1915 passage of the 19th Amendment. But yeah, those mormons always thought women were second class citizens that shouldn't vote or work. Keep believing that if it makes you feel better.

tl;dr version: No disrespect was meant. The proxy baptism for your father was an act of love and friendship, which he is free to reject if he doesn't want it. I'm sorry if you were offended.

The long version:
I think you misunderstand the nature of the ordinance. Here's the logic we Mormons use to justify this:

• We believe that to go to Heaven you must be baptized by proper authority - since we're True Believers, that's us these days.
• Since God wants everyone to come to Heaven, He prepared a way for an authoritative baptism to be performed, even if someone didn't have or take the opportunity to do so in life: proxy baptisms for the dead.
• Since God respects everyone's free will He won't force anyone to join Him in Heaven if they don't want to go; this means that if your Father chooses to reject the proxy baptism, God will respect that.

Where's the disrespect in that? If we're right, and he needs it and accepts it, we're doing him a favor. If we're right, and he doesn't want it, it wouldn't matter if we'd done it or not. If we're wrong, then why does it matter?
Furthermore, church policy is that names submitted for baptisms must be from the submitter's own family; this was reinforced just this past weekend during the semi-annual General Conference (prophet + apostles speaking to the entire church membership, happens twice a year). Unless a mistake was made you should be asking your own relatives to find out which one is a closet Mormon, not lashing out angrily at our entire community. When you find out who it was, please be kind; they truly believe that without this ordinance the gates of Heaven are closed to your Father, and they love him enough to arrange for them to be opened.

By the way, you wrote:

A person's right to practice their religion should be conditional on respect for others and their beliefs or lack thereof.

Ummm... wow. Posting anonymously in case you take this post as disrespectful and try to take away my right to practice religion.

I agree with you, though, that leaving others free to worship as they choose is important; it's one of the central doctrines of my religion:

Eleventh Article of Faith: We claim the privilege of worshiping Almighty God according to the dictates of our own conscience, and allow all men the same privilege, let them worship how, where, or what they may.

I realize that my tone in the long version has been somewhat defensive and can be interpreted as confrontational; I'm sorry about that. I respect your choice to live according to your own beliefs, and I hope you can see that I'm not trying to deprive your dearly departed Father of his choice either. It's not my intent to offend you, only to persuade you that whoever arranged for your Father to be baptized postmortem did so in a spirit of love.

You're mostly right. I'm a Mormon, let me straighten you out on the rest.

We believe that there will be a great final battle ("Armageddon"), and that things will be better after it. So there's room in our philosophy for Armageddon to happen.

The important thing is that we definitely do not want to bring it about any earlier than it needs to be. Scriptural accounts of the last days are horror stories, with lots of death and destruction to go around for the righteous and wicked alike. My favorite is from the Book of Matthew, chapter 3:

19 And woe unto them that are with child, and to them that give suck in those days!

  20 But pray ye that your flight be not in the winter, neither on the sabbath day:

  21 For then shall be great tribulation, such as was not since the beginning of the world to this time, no, nor ever shall be.

  22 And except those days should be shortened, there should no flesh be saved : but for the elect’s sake those days shall be shortened. (emphasis added)

To put it bluntly, anyone trying to force this to happen is out of their mind; and if they think that being God's elect will save them, they're wrong there, too.

The world's plenty messed up, and I believe that things will be better after Christ's return; on the other hand, there's plenty of joy and happiness to be enjoyed even in today's world, and I'm not looking forward to the transition.

There is no hidden conspiracy about it, the LDS church is very open that Scouting is the activity arm of the male youth program.

http://www.lds.org/pa/display/0,17884,5166-1,00.html

In 1913, the Church adopted Scouting as part of the activity program for Aaronic Priesthood quorums. By providing opportunities for young men to put into practice the gospel lessons they learn in the home and at Church, Scouting programs have supported the priesthood. Under priesthood leadership, Scouting can complement the purposes of Aaronic Priesthood quorums and the Aaronic Priesthood Duty to God program in building testimonies in boys and young men. Scouting can help boys and young men love and serve the Savior and honor their parents.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boy_Scouts_of_America_membership_controversies

The LDS Church is the largest single sponsor of Scouting units with over 30,000 units nationwide, which comprise about 13% of BSA's youth members.

Maybe, but I think he was cribbing from the bible:

As a dog returneth to his vomit, so a fool returneth to his folly. (Proverbs 26:11)

Joseph Smith was no con man. Read D&C section 121. Beyond anti-Mormon literature and overlooking some obviously bad things Joseph said and did (as well as other prophets and church members), you will find some of the most beautiful and sound Christian principles and practices anywhere.

They all claim to be peaceful, but criticize them - and you'll see their true nature.

Had you done your homework, you would have seen that this is untrue:

http://newsroom.lds.org/article/church-statement-regarding-the-book-of-mormon-broadway-musical

Did the Mormons condemn Parker and Stone? Did they condemn people for watching the show? No, they just shrugged it off and went on with their lives.

I am not even a Mormon, and I can see that they took the satire in good spirit. People can have religion without becoming violent in the face of criticism.

"There is no post hoc explanation that makes Abraham a good person for almost killing his son by the demand of his powerful benefactor."

I understand this to say there is no explanation that makes a person good for killing another person because someone demanded it. By this reasoning, there is no post hoc explanation that makes God a good person for killing his Son by the demand of Himself. The two stories (Abraham sacrificing Isaac and God sacrificing Christ) are very closely tied together.

If you read the Book of Mormon and Pearl of Great Price, then you should also know there is a Joseph Smith Translation to the Bible. There is one the specifically covers Lot's proposition: http://lds.org/scriptures/jst/jst-gen/19?lang=eng. You are right that no righteous father would ever give his daughters over to a crowd to be raped.

While I agree with you that Battlestar Galactica (sp?), Star Wars, et. al. are just cowboy movies shifted to space, and not realistic goals for our future as a race, I disagree with your assessment of the space program. As someone else pointed out already, the space program is a good place to sharpen the tools we call our technology.

Tools are usefull things, and keeping them in good working condition is important.

Promoting the worship of technology is bad, whether through space fantasy or game machines, but until we can teach the majority of people what true religion is, we can of have to let them get by on what they can believe in.

And, either way, space exploration is (or can be) a valid way to refine and add to our technological toolset.

Adding a little from the quote that got cut precariously close to out of context:

“Here's the bottom line: We rely on the Internet to do too much and be too much to let it decay into a lawless Wild West. We are confident that America's technology community, which leads the world in innovation and creativity, will be capable of developing a technical solution that helps address the serious challenge of rogue sites,” said Paul Brigner, chief technology officer at MPAA.

In other words, "our geeks are Gods, and they'd damned sure better do our bidding!"

I'm thinking this is the same kind of political behavior that caused that incident with a tower in Babel. (Whether you take the Bible literally about that or not, the metaphor is quite instructive.)

I don't know the Ecclesiastes reference, but here is one that is Book of Mormon flavored: And there shall also be many which shall say: Eat, drink, and be merry; nevertheless, fear God—he will justify in committing a little sin; yea, lie a little, take the advantage of one because of his words, dig a pit for thy neighbor; there is no harm in this; and do all these things, for tomorrow we die; and if it so be that we are guilty, God will beat us with a few stripes, and at last we shall be saved in the kingdom of God. Book of 2 Nephi 28:8 http://lds.org/scriptures/bofm/2-ne/28.8?lang=eng#7

And Christianity asserts individuals can test its claims as well. (See New Testament, James 1:5):

If any of you lack wisdom, let him ask of God, that giveth to all men liberally, and upbraideth not; and it shall be given him.

Mormonism, in particular is even more specific (Book of Mormon; Moroni 10:4-5):

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.

So they assert their claims are testable and observable. (And many have tested and observed.) What's your point?

And Christianity asserts individuals can test its claims as well. (See New Testament, James 1:5):

If any of you lack wisdom, let him ask of God, that giveth to all men liberally, and upbraideth not; and it shall be given him.

Mormonism, in particular is even more specific (Book of Mormon; Moroni 10:4-5):

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.

So they assert their claims are testable and observable. (And many have tested and observed.) What's your point?

Here is part of the method: "Yea, there are many who do say: If thou wilt show unto us a sign from heaven, then we shall know of a surety; then we shall believe. Now I ask, is this faith? Behold, I say unto you, Nay... Now, as I said concerning faith—that it was not a perfect knowledge—even so it is with my words. Ye cannot know of their surety at first, unto perfection, any more than faith is a perfect knowledge. But behold, if ye will awake and arouse your faculties, even to an experiment upon my words, and exercise a particle of faith, yea, even if ye can no more than desire to believe, let this desire work in you, even until ye believe in a manner that ye can give place for a portion of my words. Now, we will compare the word unto a seed. Now, if ye give place, that a seed may be planted in your heart, behold, if it be a true seed, or a good seed, if ye do not cast it out by your unbelief, that ye will resist the Spirit of the Lord, behold, it will begin to swell within your breasts; and when you feel these swelling motions, ye will begin to say within yourselves—It must needs be that this is a good seed, or that the word is good, for it beginneth to enlarge my soul; yea, it beginneth to enlighten my understanding, yea, it beginneth to be delicious to me. Now behold, would not this increase your faith? I say unto you, Yea; nevertheless it hath not grown up to a perfect knowledge. But behold, as the seed swelleth, and sprouteth, and beginneth to grow, then you must needs say that the seed is good; for behold it swelleth, and sprouteth, and beginneth to grow. And now, behold, will not this strengthen your faith? Yea, it will strengthen your faith: for ye will say I know that this is a good seed; for behold it sprouteth and beginneth to grow." (Book of Mormon, Alma 32: http://lds.org/scriptures/bofm/alma/32.17-43?lang=eng#16).

I've done that and have that experience. First you have to want to believe. Then you need to act on that belief. You have to have faith first if you want to know. As part of this process you also need to read the scriptures, which include the Bible and the Book of Mormon, and do this:

"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." (Book of Mormon, Moroni 10:3-5: http://lds.org/scriptures/bofm/moro/10.3-5?lang=eng#2).

The method thus far is want to believe. Act on that belief, read the scriptures (including the Book of Mormon), remember the mercies of Jesus Christ, really think about them, then pray to God in the name of Christ with a sincere heart, real intent, with faith in Christ. Then you will feel the Holy Ghost (Spirit) and know that what you have read and what you are doing are true.

It's simple but you have to be willing to do it just like that. That's the method, or at least a portion of it. If it came across as preachy, that's the way it is. I've done all that and have the evidence provided by God's Spirit that it's true. I've seen other things, miracles if you will, but Slashdot really is not the forum for sharing those experiences. I've seen this process change people's lives, all for the better.

There are other experiments that can be done but the process I wrote is the start and then you can go from there. You might ask, where's the knowledge - t

Here is part of the method: "Yea, there are many who do say: If thou wilt show unto us a sign from heaven, then we shall know of a surety; then we shall believe. Now I ask, is this faith? Behold, I say unto you, Nay... Now, as I said concerning faith—that it was not a perfect knowledge—even so it is with my words. Ye cannot know of their surety at first, unto perfection, any more than faith is a perfect knowledge. But behold, if ye will awake and arouse your faculties, even to an experiment upon my words, and exercise a particle of faith, yea, even if ye can no more than desire to believe, let this desire work in you, even until ye believe in a manner that ye can give place for a portion of my words. Now, we will compare the word unto a seed. Now, if ye give place, that a seed may be planted in your heart, behold, if it be a true seed, or a good seed, if ye do not cast it out by your unbelief, that ye will resist the Spirit of the Lord, behold, it will begin to swell within your breasts; and when you feel these swelling motions, ye will begin to say within yourselves—It must needs be that this is a good seed, or that the word is good, for it beginneth to enlarge my soul; yea, it beginneth to enlighten my understanding, yea, it beginneth to be delicious to me. Now behold, would not this increase your faith? I say unto you, Yea; nevertheless it hath not grown up to a perfect knowledge. But behold, as the seed swelleth, and sprouteth, and beginneth to grow, then you must needs say that the seed is good; for behold it swelleth, and sprouteth, and beginneth to grow. And now, behold, will not this strengthen your faith? Yea, it will strengthen your faith: for ye will say I know that this is a good seed; for behold it sprouteth and beginneth to grow." (Book of Mormon, Alma 32: http://lds.org/scriptures/bofm/alma/32.17-43?lang=eng#16).

I've done that and have that experience. First you have to want to believe. Then you need to act on that belief. You have to have faith first if you want to know. As part of this process you also need to read the scriptures, which include the Bible and the Book of Mormon, and do this:

"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." (Book of Mormon, Moroni 10:3-5: http://lds.org/scriptures/bofm/moro/10.3-5?lang=eng#2).

The method thus far is want to believe. Act on that belief, read the scriptures (including the Book of Mormon), remember the mercies of Jesus Christ, really think about them, then pray to God in the name of Christ with a sincere heart, real intent, with faith in Christ. Then you will feel the Holy Ghost (Spirit) and know that what you have read and what you are doing are true.

It's simple but you have to be willing to do it just like that. That's the method, or at least a portion of it. If it came across as preachy, that's the way it is. I've done all that and have the evidence provided by God's Spirit that it's true. I've seen other things, miracles if you will, but Slashdot really is not the forum for sharing those experiences. I've seen this process change people's lives, all for the better.

There are other experiments that can be done but the process I wrote is the start and then you can go from there. You might ask, where's the knowledge - t

Just find your nearest Mormon neighbor and mooch off them.

This brings us to one of the first claims of religion:
    to know god, god must first reveal himself to man

and also to one of the claimed claims of God that he will reveal himself to all his creations: http://lds.org/scriptures/bofm/mosiah/27.30?lang=eng#29
"I rejected my Redeemer, and denied that which had been spoken of by our fathers; but now that they may foresee that he will come, and that he remembereth every creature of his creating, he will make himself manifest unto all."

- now when? That's his business, but it would be a low sort of creator that forgot his creations.

Anway, I just wanted to demonstrate where philosphy leads when it considers science and religion. Maybe Godel got there first.

Science and religion are useful independent, but the quest for truth makes a tool of them both; and I'm after truth, not a plausible debating position. If there is a god, and one worth knowing, I expect him to notice that and take an interest; I expect to find him. I find the journey very satisfying, very delightful, and very subject to rational scrutiny. One might wonder if god is more scientist than religious - after all superstition so often masquerades as religion.

What in the world do the mormons have to do with it?

Sounds like we need another testament of the gospel Jesus taught.

Sounds like we need another testament of the gospel Jesus taught.

In building, "implementation" means leveling ground, pouring concrete, fabricating structural members, welding, etc.

In software, "implementation" means writing a bunch of code. It's not nearly the same. Rework the design, rework the code; not that big a difference.

I feel there's a big difference between reworking the design and reworking the code.

Firstly, it has been shown empirically over and over in studies that the later in the process that you catch and fix bugs, the more expensive they are (for deeper analysis, see The Cost of Bugs.) Design bugs should be caught early, because they ripple through the whole project and can cost an enormous amount.

Secondly, unless you are working alone or in a tiny team there is a significant difference between design and implementation: you have a larger team working on implementation than on design. If you sign off too soon on a bad design, you'll have a lot of people writing a lot of code in a short time. Depending on how "off" the design was a lot of that code may have to be thrown away, and when you go into redesign, a lot of the team has to be idled because you can't all work on the design efficiently.

It is domestic conservative and religious organizations that are poisoning the American spirit and sapping the will to learn from the people.

Maybe some do, but my church, at least, encourages its members to obtain as broad a secular education as possible, and as a whole it's what you'd call "conservative".

The difference between the Taliban and the Mormons is that the Mormons allow others to "worship how, where, and what they may". You conveniently leave out that to attend BYU is a choice, not an imposition. Being a private university, they are free to decide on their educational environment.

Fear of gays? Hardly. A statement that homosexual behavior is unacceptable at the university.

Fear of the female body? Hardly. A statement of reverence for the beauty of the female body and a statement that modesty is an important show of respect.

Forced religion? Hardly. A statement that belief in God is an important part of the educational experience.

If you find that this kind of educational environment is too restrictive, you're welcome to attend another school. And, by the way, there would be plenty of Mormons who would agree with you. But you're missing out on a world-class education that can be offered at a fraction of the cost of other universities.