Slashdot Mirror

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

And polygamy? Is that still practiced as well?

Why would a Mormon practice polygamy? Perhaps you are misinformed on this matter as well?

Do Mormons practice polygamy?

President Gordon B. Hinckley, prior president of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints made the following statement in 1998 about the Church’s position on plural marriage:

“This Church has nothing whatever to do with those practicing polygamy. They are not members of this Church.... If any of our members are found to be practicing plural marriage, they are excommunicated, the most serious penalty the Church can impose. Not only are those so involved in direct violation of the civil law, they are in violation of the law of this Church.”

What a load of Mormon-like nonsense!!! They like to think of Jesus as a space traveller. You said nothing valuable here, just read your Mormon-like beliefs into the text where it suited you, and ignored everything else (like divine sea monsters in Genesis 1:21 that translators gloss over with "large sea creatures", "big fish" or "whales").

That poster never identified himself as Mormon. Additionally, your understanding of Mormon beliefs is flawed. Mormons do not believe that Jesus is a space traveler. We believe he was born in Bethlehem (in the land of Jerusalem) to Mary. He learned line up line and precept on precept. Please visit mormon.org to learn what we really believe instead of parroting what our enemies claim we believe.

mormon === scientology you must mean stupidity not liberalism

If you equate Mormonism with Scientology, you have a lot to learn. Please study what we truly believe (http://www.lds.org and http://www.mormon.org/ instead of what people say we believe.

If the evidence stands on its own it should also be endorsed [by a bunch of people].

Nonsense. Our claims are far too extraordinary for people to be convinced by mere circumstantial evidence. To wit:

I saw a pillar of light exactly over my head, above the brightness of the sun, which descended gradually until it fell upon me. ... When the light rested upon me I saw two Personages, whose brightness and glory defy all description, standing above me in the air. One of them spake unto me, calling me by name and said, pointing to the other—This is My Beloved Son. Hear Him!

What circumstantial evidence will convince you that a 14-year-old boy saw God the Father and Jesus Christ and that they spoke to him? None. The only way to test the truth of that claim is to go to mormon.org, have a couple of missionaries come by your house with a Book of Mormon, read it, and try the experiment contained in its very own pages. (What have you got to lose?) If you then learn that the book is its own best evidence, then it follows that Joseph Smith was the prophet he claims to be, because good fruit does not come from a poisoned tree. Everything else is just window dressing.

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.

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.

Mormons believe the bible and in it that Jesus Christ, is the son of God, died on the cross, and was resurrected. Doesn't that make them christians? What makes them different from other christians is the fundamental belief that Jesus Christ also visited one of the lost tribes of Israel after he was resurrected "other sheep I have not of this fold..." as recorded in the Book of Mormon.
The site that goes over their beliefs is actually http://mormon.org/
For instance http://mormon.org/faq/baptism-for-the-dead is actually from the bible

Mormons believe the bible and in it that Jesus Christ, is the son of God, died on the cross, and was resurrected. Doesn't that make them christians? What makes them different from other christians is the fundamental belief that Jesus Christ also visited one of the lost tribes of Israel after he was resurrected "other sheep I have not of this fold..." as recorded in the Book of Mormon.
The site that goes over their beliefs is actually http://mormon.org/
For instance http://mormon.org/faq/baptism-for-the-dead is actually from the bible

Thats a good question. There are arguments for and against both polygamy and polyandry. The biggest problem with legalizing polygamy is that it is associated with certain religious cults that like to forcibly marry underage girls.

---

That's easy enough to fix. it's already illegal to forcibly marry anyone and underage marriages are also illegal. So I'd say since that's the case I'm curious what other issues people have with the practice of polygamy itself.

I hear people say it's immoral but by who's standard? If it's adults and everyone wants it then I don't see the issue.

Just saying...

Thats a good question. There are arguments for and against both polygamy and polyandry. The biggest problem with legalizing polygamy is that it is associated with certain religious cults that like to forcibly marry underage girls.

I can't speak for any other church or church-like organization, but my church, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (sometime called the mormon church), strongly encourages learning and analysis. Over all my years as a member, my deep-thought and study has only fortified my faith. Additionally, I have learned for myself that this is the one true church of God on earth. That is a key point. We teach that everyone can find for themselves personally, from revelation given by God, that this is the true church. We absolutely do not abide by the principle of blind-obedience, but we are encouraged to find out for ourselves if some principle or precept is from God (intelligent obedience). I am here to testify that we do have a living God that loves each of us. Aside from the many personal witnesses given to me from God, through the Holy Ghost, I have also been privileged to witness miracles of the caliber expressed in God's holy writ. There is far more sound reason and logic in the true principles given by God, which I know and personally testify of, than the worldly and sectarian views that are so strongly peddled by those who think that they know more than our all-knowing Creator. Additionally, in reply to some of the denunciations expressed toward christian philosophy in comments posted here, I must say, we have a far more loving understanding of God. We do not believe that those who never had an opportunity to learn the truth are implicitly condemned to some endless pit of fire and brimstone. We believe that God, to be entirely just, will give everyone an equal opportunity. We also believe that the way has been provided that all those who transgress the laws of God and truly repent are made clean and are partakers of the fullest of His blessings. The Atonement brings great hope to all who will heed its incessant call to be perfected by it. Now, I can't adequately portray all the truth I have come to know as truth from God here in these comments, but I do invite any who desire to gain this same knowledge from God to seek it out by study (via authoritative sources like http://www.mormon.org/) and honest prayer. If you do so with sincerity and real intent to follow whatever answer you are given from God, I know and promise you will find the same answer I have found from Him.

You have always been able to "explore a religion from an actual practitioner rather than words on a page." Just go to church.
It's a bit tougher if you want to explore Judaism and there is no local synagog. But the Mormons have always been willing to "loan out" not just one, but two missionaries for your curiosity. Jehova's Witnesses will also loan you out some "actual practitioners." As for Chinese lessons, try WOW.

How sad is it that people think real life can only be experienced through books. Books are great. But sometimes it helps to put the book down, walk outside, and say hello to your neighbor. Who knows, they might speak Chinese or practice a religion.

I don't know... Go ask the Mormons.

;-)

You obviously have no clue about "mormonism." Mormons have not practiced polygamy since the 1800s. Get an education man! http://www.mormon.org/

I would just add as a member of the LDS Church that the church is often misunderstood. Take the stories about the completely separate FLDS Church in this thread. Take issues of polygamy or any other confusion. At its core, it is an organization that tries to help its members follow the example of Jesus Christ, hence the name, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

I would just say that given the history of being persecuted for their beliefs, it's natural to want to avoid any unnecessary misunderstanding. They were forcibly kicked out of Missouri, Illinois, and other places. That's the reason they went west - to escape those who had murdered their first leader with a mob and burned their homes.

For better background information, here is a site that is for the news media that talks about statistics, core beliefs, and history. Here is a website that talks more about the basic beliefs.

So please just take in a bigger picture when deciding that they are just trying to censor or gag anyone. They just want respect for privacy like just about any slashdotter wants.

Get a free bible: http://www.freebibles.net/

Or Read or download one online with thousands of actually very useful footnotes and references: http://www.bible.org/

Get a free Koran: http://www.freekoran.com/

Get a free Book of Morman: http://www.mormon.org/bookofmormon

Estimated cost to get to read all the Scientology "holy" documents: $350,000.

I think you're confused. A temple is not where Mormons live, or even where most of us spend a lot of time, relatively speaking. Weekly meetings are held in relatively ordinary chapels. Also, temples usually serve between 60,000 and 150,000 members of the church.

I know you're asking how others portray us, but here are one or two sources of how we want others to perceive us. From my perspective, it's more or less accurate, depending on the members in question and other issues of context.

We aren't really all exactly the same, you know.

The link he gave wasn't specific enough. It talks about the why here: http://mormon.org/mormonorg/eng/basic-beliefs/heavenly-father-s-plan-of-salvation/your-life-on-earth Basically, we are beings that existed before in another form and will continue to exist in another form. Life on Earth is a kind of school. It is very often hard, but necessary to learn the things we need to know. God set things up so that we could learn the difference between good and evil and have choices and consequences to those choices to learn from. It is important to be separated from God to learn things for ourselves. Of course, that is a really simplified explanation of a deep subject. Now many people believe that faith is just accepting something without proof. If someone told me the story above and asked me to just believe it I would have laughed in their face. (In fact it took me a long time to go from being a firm atheist to an agnostic who could accept that such a story *might* be possible.) Real faith, rather, is trying an experiment, believing that you will get an outcome. Scientists have faith that their experiments will lead them to the truth so they exercise that faith and perform the experiment. The LDS have an experiment to try, but it's not easy, which is part of the point. God could come down right now and announce that he does, in fact, exist, but that would undermine the entire reason for the existence of the Universe. He does show things and give evidence to individuals when they have faith and do the experiment. I personally believe in evolution and I don't see any conflicts with evolution and my religious beliefs. They are simply unrelated. Knowing how my body developed is unrelated to knowing why my body developed. I think it's important to make that distinction. Too many people confuse the issue.

Take a look at the LDS faith. Regardless of whether you accept the teachings or not, this religion does put forth an explanation of the why, in much more detail than I have found elsewhere.

I normally try to avoid the flamewar which is Slashdot religion discussion, but hey, you asked ;-)

Cheers

I know this might be a little against the slashdot grain, but I think this speaks to the idea that there is a God who is the master scientist and who inspires men and women with the secrets of His creations as a Father teaching His children. There is a speech given by a leader in my church that talks about the subject of the scientific method and how it compares and contrasts with divine revelation. The leader was a nuclear physicist for many years who helped pioneer the technologies behind nuclear submarines.

I thought it was an interesting mix of faith and science in a world where the two, for some reason, have become separated.

I'm not sure about Scientology, but it was tactless for Jeremiah Cornelius to bash the LDS church: http://www.mormon.org/.

IMHO, you're absolutely correct; it is worth looking into. I suggest the following:
http://tinyurl.com/2kk53s (Redirect to Google Books)
or this:
http://www.mormon.org/

This is the only logical path that I've ever found.

-Dave

dirty little secret for how they put more names in the Book of Mormon

Not being one myself, I consider a religion Christian if it's based on Jesus. If that particular religion adds a bunch of crazy nonsense to the Jesus worshiping, it doesn't make its followers non-Christians, it just makes them Christians who also believe a bunch of crazy nonsense.

What if it's fairly easy to objectively show that some key parts of the "crazy nonsense" they've added is in direct conflict with the words of Jesus? Then can you really say the religion is "based on Jesus"?

For the record, the particular words of Jesus I'm talking about relate to marriage after death. The LDS ("Mormon") church is very clear that they think marriage continues after death. In fact, it's a key part of their religion. It's not an exaggeration to call it a cornerstone of Mormonism. (I have personally spoken to a man who converted to Mormonism specifically because it included this belief.) Jesus seems very clear on the subject as well, and it's also hard to mistake his intent since three gospel writers give almost the exact same version of this story: Matthew, Mark, and Luke. The only problem here is that Jesus and the Mormons have the exact opposite position of each other. Mormons say marriage is eternal; Jesus says it isn't.

Now, I'm sure this has come up before, and I'm sure the Mormons have a way of explaining it, but I have a feeling it'll be one of those "it depends on what the meaning of the word 'is' is" kinds of explanations.

Hi, completely OT and I hope you don't mind me jumping in.

I'm LDS (mormon), or more accurately a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Ladder Day Saints.
and the short answer to you question is no. But I can see where you may have heard that.

We Believe that the Godhead (convenient work like trinity) consists of God the Father, Jesus the Christ his son, and the Holy Ghost. Three separate beings united as one in purpose and mind (They are really in sync. Example: God could be talking to you and stop midsentance give Jesus or the Holy Ghost the nod and they would finish the point/sentence just as God would have).
-fill free to stop reading here-
If I may point you to John 17, Christ is giving a intercessory prayer for the Apostles and Saints of that time. (http://scriptures.lds.org/en/john/17/22#22) We believe that the oneness referred to here is a good example of the oneness Jesus so often talked of with his Father.
In particular verses 21,22,23. in 22 Jesus asks that his Apostles "may be one, even as we are one". Obviously he is not expecting the saints and apostles to form mega-apostle-zoids (joke). He wants them to be in sync with one another and most importantly with God. Kind of like a spiritual NTP server setup.

BTW we do believe Jesus == Jehovah != God the Father

But that is another discussion.

P.S. Most mormons love to talk religion, we all hope to convert you, we mostly understand you don't feel a need to convert, but are still happy to talk religion with you. As a bonus many will occasionally invite you for free food or to activities offering free food just in case you may some day think about converting. ;-) We make good friends all the same.

http://www.mormon.org/ is a site dedicated to answering questions about our beliefs.

Link to Mormons(LDS) http://www.mormon.org/

Buddhist Bible, by Dwight Goddard http://hinduwebsite.com/sacredscripts/buddhist_bib le.asp

I don't have all the answers about creation and existence, but i believe as far as Christians go the mormons(LDS) have got it right. http://www.mormon.org/learn/0,8672,792-1,00.html

The key word you missed was "free". The Scientologists charge you for the book; the Diantetics ads were straight ads. The Mormons will send you the book for free.

http://www.mormon.org/bookofmormon

For further contrast, they also have the Book of Mormon online so that you can read it. And you've probably heard how keen the Scientologists are on having their religious texts posted online for all to read.

Familysearch is run by the Mormons. In the world of genealogy you can't get away from working with our resources, we have the best resources available, so any serious genealogist has to get over their anti-Mormon xenophobia. We will be glad to help anybody with their genealogical needs, whatever their intentions are.

These are all good points.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Sam

As one of the parents so aptly put it, chech out the facts

For the record, its The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. And for a more accurate view of the church, check out mormon.org.

5 mods points, or clear things up....decisions decisions.

Against the law in Utah? Yes.
What happens if you're a Mormon praticing polygamy? Excommunication. (Source, via AC that no one will mod up in this thread.)

It's just just because it's a law, that all Mormons don't pratice it. I can say all in that statment, because as soon as you do, you're given the option to stop, or to be excommunicated. (This was not directed at you, TMM. This was just in general, and I know that I'm going to lose my karma bonus for this too, so I might as well go all the way as I do it.)

You're also correct that Utah has a higher percentage of polygamy per person than most other states. If all of those polygamists moved up from Utah to California, that percentage would drop to something that rounds out to 0.000000000001% instead of 0.00001%. I'm not saying that there's MORE polygamists in California than Utah, but I AM saying that due to Utah's relatively small population, people tend to think that Utah is a polygamist state. Guess what, it's not.

You're absolutely correct that if you google for any of those terms, up comes Utah. But, want to know why? People like you who keep that alive :P. No offense, but it's true. It's the word of mouth that goes on. It's all of those google sources, which typically say that Utah still pratices polygamy, or one way or another aligns the state of Utah with polygamy. That's the sole reason you, and tends of millions of others think that way.

It's only the polygamy state if you make it that in your mind. Likewise, in some people's worlds, the sky is green and the grass is red, but as long as you're in the majority, who cares, right?

• it is extremely easy for its ISPs to implement an *optional* filth screen for their customers.
• The society would be better off without it

Who needs porn when you're allocated 10 wives?

Perhaps you should check your facts.

As for putting words in your mouth, please forgive me.

Instead of simply forgiving you, I'll ask that you just don't do it again, to me or to others. I'd rather see you be honest and loving out of genuine personal character, rather than apologetic for past hypocrisy / angry replies.

The church is called what it is called because that the name that the Lord gave it. You can take the issue up with Him, ok?

Consistency, isn't it about time?

Yeah, you can just imagine a user going...

"Right, whats that company called.. Tiger... Tiger something."

[cue user whipping out their trusty google webpage]

"Ahh thats it, Apple Tiger."

[user buys Mac OS Tiger instead of buying a new hard drive for their PC]

In other words: Fucking morons. Ah shit, can't say morons, its been copyrighted... Fucking dick'eds.

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

Absolutely not. The Church stays strictly out of politics, except where a serious moral issue is involved, and then only the moral at issue is taught, but the vote and the law is up to the members individually.

Explain Ezra Taft Benson's affilation with the Birch sociecty then; not to mention his political appointments. How about the bank that Joseph Smith founded to print money? Who was the governer of Navoo? What about the law of consecration and Brigham Young's confescation of all wealth (or the Nation of Deseret, for that matter)?

Including a majority of the Utah state government, of course. What of a church that routinely gets such perks as the land swap for the "reflecting pool" in downtown Salt Lake (complete with a censoship zone); or how about the temple ceremony, in which members swear to uphold their leaders on penalty of death? Here are some quotes by the church's prophets, seers and revelators on the subject.

On the contrary, the Church is only homogenous in that we share certain core beliefs.

Wow, that list doesn't even scratch the surface of what I was taught while growing up in the church:

• All religions apart from Mormonism are an "abomination" in the sight of God
• People of "dark skin" were less valiant in the pre-existence, so God cursed them in this life
• American Indians are really errant Jews, who lost the gospel when they rebeled against God
• There are three levels of heaven, and you can only get to the highest level by practicing polygamy; then you will be a God and have your own planet
• John the Beloved and the Three Nephites are eternal beings that roam the planet, even today, doing the work of God (and the prieshood needed to be restored through Joseph Smith... why exactly?)
• Joseph Smith could translate a common Egyptian Funeral Book, to find that it contained extensive writings by father Abraham
• Homosexuality is a disase that you must suffer for (I wonder when the 1978-esque "oops, my bad, blacks can have the priesthood now" gay revelation will come). Masturbation is almost as bad.

To be fair, the church has changed dramatically over the past 50 years, and it continues to evolve into a more mainstream puritanical protestant sect (I bet Joseph Smith is rolling in his grave). Most of the members are people of high quality; heck, all my extended family are still members. They are generally great people to know, associate with and love. Despite that, I just get ruffled when the church portrayed as something that it really isn't; I did enough of that on my 2-year mission with the ultra-simplistic 6 discussions.

If you are interested in apologetic responses to any of the above, feel free to visit the FAIR website.

So to those who have more familiarity with the region I have two questions.

I'm a "Mormon", or more accurately, a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

1) Did this legislation come about as a result of the elders in the church?

Absolutely not. The Church stays strictly out of politics, except where a serious moral issue is involved, and then only the moral at issue is taught, but the vote and the law is up to the members individually.

And 2) Is this basically an accurate summation of Mormon politics?

No. Even among the members of the Church, it is a matter that often brings up discussion (sometimes heated) as to whether or not laws to restrict rights to behave immorally should be made. But this is not Church mandate or policy. It's up to the members.

If so, that seems scary to me. I wouldn't want a society where there is so much homogenity, even if everyone were basically like me.

On the contrary, the Church is only homogenous in that we share certain core beliefs. I'm often amazed at how much variety fits within the Church. I disagree with political and ethical views with many good, active members of the Church that I know. The Church encourages us to seek out answers for ourselves.

In conclusion, be sure to research "the Mormons" using legitimate sources. That means: if you want to know what we "Mormons" believe in, ask a good, practicing Mormon.

So to those who have more familiarity with the region I have two questions.

I'm a "Mormon", or more accurately, a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

1) Did this legislation come about as a result of the elders in the church?

Absolutely not. The Church stays strictly out of politics, except where a serious moral issue is involved, and then only the moral at issue is taught, but the vote and the law is up to the members individually.

And 2) Is this basically an accurate summation of Mormon politics?

No. Even among the members of the Church, it is a matter that often brings up discussion (sometimes heated) as to whether or not laws to restrict rights to behave immorally should be made. But this is not Church mandate or policy. It's up to the members.

If so, that seems scary to me. I wouldn't want a society where there is so much homogenity, even if everyone were basically like me.

On the contrary, the Church is only homogenous in that we share certain core beliefs. I'm often amazed at how much variety fits within the Church. I disagree with political and ethical views with many good, active members of the Church that I know. The Church encourages us to seek out answers for ourselves.

In conclusion, be sure to research "the Mormons" using legitimate sources. That means: if you want to know what we "Mormons" believe in, ask a good, practicing Mormon.

Though, it seems as of recent "bloggers" wouldn't be counted as "journalists" especially those running "rumor" sites (that I often read more than "the news")...ahem....I can therefore assume that those who post on a blogging sites could be counted even less in the category of an official "journalist" and therefore even less reliable/responsible when it comes to the facts.

so...

Easy as it is to pun and say that Utah (a predominantly Mormon State) who legislates for better restrictions/safeguards on immoral internet material should actually look to have the majority of its dwellers not practice illegal and even more immoral plural marriage, it is not a joke based on fact.

The joke is based on OLD news. Which is really what irks me. Its as if I were to bash Mac users for being such zealots for a platform that DOESN'T multitask aswell as windows (which was arguably the case YEARS ago). Being that now with the advent of their *nix flavored OS it is not only an OUTDATED joke that doesn't apply it makes the poster seem uninformed and , himself, worthy of a dunce cap.

So instead of poking fun at the Mormons (who do not practice poligamy -- their stance on poligamy) why don't we focus on what the poster stated.

And to throw two more cents in, the legislation is actually a great idea!

The Problem ( not just in Utah -- I live in Texas ):
- There are millions of people (not just in Utah) who don't want Porn to be thrown on their doorsteps.
-There are millions of people (also in Utah - not everyone religious is void of this vice) who don't want to be deprived of porn
-There are millions of people who don't care about the Porn but don't want this to affect free speech

-Porn advertisers are doing everything they can to sell their product (which is natural of any lucrative company) and trying to be found.

The Solution (could be -- if internationally recognized..sigh)
-Metadata ( simple STANDARDIZED tags that denote your site to a web browser that your site is for such and such crowd of consumers or age group)
-More descriptive extensions for the internet than .com, .net, and .org (and not more like .biz that treads on .com) such as .porn or .sex or .xxx (to keep with the three letter scheme) so those who are looking can find and those who simply don't want it can filter it out

my take: what is so wrong with giving consumers more choice and control over their lives; currently we have no choice when it comes to the web, we're like pedestrians walking through crowds of trench coated sex-maniacs, we're bound to be flashed. It's illegal in real life, and the internet is part of real life, and therefore subject to its criticisms. Why should one consumer be bound to teach his children the way another parent wants to teach his children (the fact that we would have power to filter content doesn't mean that you would have to filter it out)?

The fact of the matter is that currently the internet is not standardized and is losing out on a lot of power it could generate from being so.

Mormon != LDS. The Latter Day Saints split from the Mormon church when polygamy was outlawed (as far as i know).

"Mormon" is the acceptable-but-not-encouraged nickname for members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, numbering about 11 million strong. Those who split off a century ago are typically referred to as "fundamentalist Mormon" or members of the The Reorganized Church, and I'd be surprised if there's significantly more than a few thousand of them.

To learn more about The Church, www.mormon.org is a good starting point.

Kim Peek Versus Ken Jennings on Jepordy

And here's your host for Jeopardy... Joseph Smith.

Your details are correct.

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

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

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

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

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

Your details are correct.

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

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

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

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

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

I'm a Mormon, but that still doesn't answer my question. Does he read a lot? Has he studied jeopardy for years and years preparing? Or has he just worked hard to get a good education and memorize lots of facts not really important to every day life? Scientifically Mormons have just been shown to have less cancer and better health, and Mormon men generally do have more education than non-Mormon men.

Glad I gave it up early, then. (No, this is not a joke, but it's still funny).

PS: I do still have a cup every now and then. Odie well...

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