Slashdot Mirror
The Link Between Polygamy and War (economist.com)
Is there a link between polygamy and war? The Economist explores (might be paywalled): Men in South Sudan typically marry as often as their wealth -- often measured in cattle -- will allow. Perhaps 40 percent of marriages are polygamous. "In [our] culture, the more family you have, the more people respect you," says William, a young IT specialist in search of his second wife. Few South Sudanese see the connection between these matrimonial customs and the country's horrific civil war. If you ask them the reason for the violence, locals will blame tribalism, greedy politicians, weak institutions and perhaps the oil wealth which gives warlords something to fight over. All true, but not the whole story. Wherever it is widely practised, polygamy (specifically polygyny, the taking of multiple wives) destabilises society, largely because it is a form of inequality which creates an urgent distress in the hearts, and loins, of young men. If a rich man has a Lamborghini, that does not mean that a poor man has to walk, for the supply of cars is not fixed. By contrast, every time a rich man takes an extra wife, another poor man must remain single. If the richest and most powerful 10 percent of men have, say, four wives each, the bottom 30 percent of men cannot marry. Young men will take desperate measures to avoid this state. A non-paywalled, syndicated source for the article.
The Mormons were violent when they practiced polygamy. Today it is not practiced by Mormons except for some fringe groups. One thing that is certain, young men without women are a problem regardless of religion.
This assumes there are equal numbers of men and women...
According to 2016 estimates of the South Sudanese population, the breakdown is about 46% men to 54% women. Hardly a huge imbalance with only about 12 million people.
Sensationalist trash like this perpetuates misunderstanding of polyamorous people.
How is it sensationalist, and how does it attack the polyamorous? It's not a mistake to believe that it will cause problems if there are no mates for many men. Denying them the opportunity to partner leaves them with a hole in their life. They're going to fill it with something. Polygamy is not inherently about love. It can be a loving relationship, but in a culture which promotes marriage for other reasons, that's unlikely. In a culture in which women have to marry a powerful man in order to be protected from other men, it's especially unlikely.
No culture that forces women to live in bags lest they be raped to death on the street can include any equitable relationships. There is always a power imbalance.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
It's *great* that you've cleared that up for everyone. It so perfectly explains polygyny among the Dinka, for example, what with their practice of non-Islamic religion. They must do it in a really Allah-y way.
Go on, show some stats for the male:female ratio in South Sudan that prove your point. Bet you can't.
To add, using a breakdown of only female to males age 15 and above the breakdown is pretty close to 50/50. So that sort invalidates your whole theory.
Data comes from: https://esa.un.org/unpd/wpp/Da...
Polygamy isn't responsible for violence. The Mormons, weird as they are, are not violent.
????? Want to check your facts on that? While that list contains incidents where Mormons were victims as well as perpetrators, they were pretty violent in the early days of the religion. Over the years Mormonism has gotten less violent (and also much less tolerant of polygamy, to the point now where it is no longer openly permitted if I understand correctly). It would be more fair to say that Mormonism has evolved so that it no longer promotes/tolerates violence nor polygamy, just as modern day Christianity mostly does not (barring of course evangelicals who are pushing for wars in the Middle East in order to start the second coming/rapture/Armageddon).
This is the issue for Islam: there are many within it that are resisting efforts to modernize the religion. If you want to fix things you can't demonize Islam, you have to support those within the religion who want to moderate and modernize Islam. Animosity and hatred only feeds those who seek to keep Islam in the past.
The only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for it to be pitted against a slightly greater evil
C'mon, you're among friends here. You can fess up and admit that you've done a lot of one-handed loving but never actually touched a lady's boobies. But that's fine, you're still only 26. One day, you might be able to redeem some of your most appalling personality features and persuade someone to have pity on you.
In a polygamous society war can produce a surplus of women. It certainly produces widows and orphans, which in a society with no state social welfare programs and limited economic opportunity for women is a huge problem.
Polygamy is also a way to establish dynastic ties between potential rival groups.
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
If you consider ejecting young men out of your society, into a foreign culture where they are entirely unprepared to survive much less succeed to be nonviolent, then the Mormon practice of polygyny would be nonviolent.
Simply put, polygyny leaves the unmarried men at a significant disadvantage, and in authoritarian societies can lead to such expulsions, or outright violence. Mormons are not so inclined to murder their young men, so expulsion was the most common result. Recently only the fringe fundamentalist Mormon sects practice this, and with predictable results.
deleting the extra space after periods so i can stay relevant, yeah.
Que? You need to spell your logic out a little more there, I think. There's not a thing in this article that suggested women in these societies are ever in the top 10% of society.
Compared to the Atlantic slave trade, which was mostly men for work, the Islamic slave trade was mostly women for sex.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
In contrast to the Atlantic slave trade, where the male-female ratio was 2:1 or 3:1, the Arab slave trade instead usually had a higher female-to-male ratio. This suggests a general preference for female slaves. Concubinage and reproduction served as incentives for importing female slaves (often Caucasian), though many were also imported mainly for performing household tasks.
In Islam you can have four wives and an unlimited number of sex slaves if you are male.
It's easy to see that polygamy and the inability of poor men to find a wife and thus legally have sex was a driver for this.
echo -e 'global _start\n _start:\n mov eax, 2\n int 80h\n jmp _start' > a.asm; nasm a.asm -f elf; ld a.o -o a;
Look up the documentary "The lost Boys" on how the Fundamentalist Church of Latter Day Saints (a Mormson off shoot that practices polygamy) Literally kicks out excess male children. May not be a war, but it is violent and sick regardless, and that is here in the USA.
I don't disagree, but that wasn't the AC's hypothesis.
The proportions seem to confirm what TFA purported. Polygyny leads to the death of male competitors.
deleting the extra space after periods so i can stay relevant, yeah.
This article does not talk about modern Western polyamory. It talks specifically about patriarchal polygyny.
Either your reading comprehension is terrible, or you are butthurt polyamorist with a persecution complex.
"If a rich man has a Lamborghini, that does not mean that a poor man has to walk, for the supply of cars is not fixed. By contrast, every time a rich man takes an extra wife, another poor man must remain single. If the richest and most powerful 10 percent of men have, say, four wives each, the bottom 30 percent of men cannot marry."
Sorry, but that's the dumbest comparison I've ever seen.
If anything, it disproves its case.
If you're just talking about Lamborghinis, there are only about 3500 made each year - pretty damned close to a fixed supply. If you're talking about cars generally, there are something like 60 million made every year.
In terms of people, there are something close to 70 million girls born every year - almost precisely the same "rarity' as cars.
And as far as utility, I'm going to guess that the useful reproductive life of a female human - what, 25 years now, nominally? - far exceeds the useful life of most autos.
I don't even disagree with the point of the article - that polygamy disenfranchises young angry poor men and causes social strife - just the dumb comparison.
-Styopa
I was unaware that defending yourself against an approaching army was considered being violent. And violence against Mormons started well before polygamy began.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Even if that is true, this doesn't mean that the women are culturally and possibly legally blocked from sleeping with other men. It doesn't lead to an enforced surplus of men that are chaste against their will because there are literally no available women to even compete for.
That's the problem that polygamy creates, rather than polyamory. People may choose to settle down to monogamy after playing the field, so even those who are not especially successful in their early adult years may still find someone later. Those people will be denied mates in true polygamy, since there will never be similar-age women available. They may then turn to younger women after they've established themselves financially, which then denies that generation's men the women that would normally make for natural mates, etc.
What do you do with a surplus of men that cannot find women? You have to get rid of them. War is a very efficient way to get rid of them.
Do not look into laser with remaining eye.
Okay Lennart, get laid already, I'll pay for a hooker weekly, just stop working on systemd
Custom electronics and digital signage for your business: www.evcircuits.com
Sometimes, we in the west foment war/mayhem with bribes too. Just look at what is happening in the Mid East...
Trump is just trying to get the maximum return on our investment into Israel, the entire point of which is to foment hatred and keep the brown people fighting amongst themselves so they don't realize how badly we've been fucking them for decades. His comments on Jerusalem are probably his single most cogent act. Everything else he has tried to do has been done with [tiny] hands of ham. I'm not in favor of his destabilization of the region any more than I'm in favor of our general policy of the same, but this is the one case where he's getting our money's worth.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
That must be why Slashdot is the most peaceful website on the planet.
America has a similar problem brewing with marriage age men who can't get wives, although here it's just the crappy economy rather than polygamy. They've loosely banded together under the banner of the "Alt-Right". Just a lot of angry men with no options since our manufacturing base is gone.
There's not a lot more dangerous in this world then a large group of men with no wives, no jobs and no future. All you need is a Strongman type to gather them into a fighting force and give them something to attack. Our current president tapped into them and it helped him win. Many of us are hoping he's too much of a buffoon to actual send them off on a killing spree. The rumblings over Iran & North Korea don't make us hopeful...
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
There is also the reverse cause and effect. After a significant war where many men have died, many women would be left husband-less as there aren't enough men to go around. Polygamy resolves the stigma for many otherwise unmarried women in some cultures.
Repeat after me : Correlation is not causation.
For all I know, they have polygamy, because they have war, so the women who would be otherwise unwed due to the lack of men (because they died) have a change to get married.
Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
... And I was disturbed about how the arguments really make good sense and how we looks way more "animal" than we would like when it comes to basic things like sex and family formation. As example has anyone seen in documentaries how a lions family works? Very similar, too much similar to my liking.
Religion: The greatest weapon of mass destruction of all time
On the other hand, in a country which is fighting a war war it is usually the men doing the fighting, and thus dying, resulting in an imbalance of women.
That's the concern, isn't it? China doesn't have a high tolerance for homosexuality, so what are they going to do with 25 million excess males? The traditional thing has always been to make war.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
Middle eastern culture transforms women (and men too to some extent, as servants or younglings who obey the elders) into property that can must be fought for and/or can be used for fighting.
Btw, I am saying it as an Israeli who's country is gradually adopting these perceptions due to orthodox jewish religion taking over.
Avantgarde Hebrew science fiction
Go back to /pol you damn dirty retard.
For all I know, they have polygamy, because they have war,
Dude, it's not the 1800s. We have wikipedia. We have google. You can find out why they have polygamy. And guess what? They treat women like possessions all day, every day. They are legally inferior. Arguably, all women in their culture are slaves. Polygamy in their culture isn't a disease, it's a symptom of a disease.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
Denying them the opportunity to partner leaves them with a hole in their life. They're going to fill it with something.
I wonder how the inability to get laid factors into someone's decision to strap on a bunch of explosives and take their chances on whether the 72 virgins story is bullshit or not.
-jcr
The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
The Mormons were violent when they practiced polygamy. Today it is not practiced by Mormons except for some fringe groups. One thing that is certain, young men without women are a problem regardless of religion.
That's why we need more soy products. Since soy beans make you gay *I'm joking, but some people do believe that*, we should feed kids soy beans to all young boys in hope that many of them will become gay. More gay boys means fewer single males causing trouble because they don't have a woman.
The boys who survive being turned to homosexuality by soy beans can have all the women they want. It's a win-win for everyone. Except the women if they don't want to share men, but who cares what women want, they're second class citizens. *I'm joking about that, I don't believe that either*
"That's the way to do it" - Punch
Look at it another way. Testosterone rides high until a man gets married. Being with a woman mellows a man out. It's one of the reasons married men gain weight: their metabolism slows.
If there are not enough women to go around, then you have a society with lots of restless and desperate men, resulting in war and chaos.
Table-ized A.I.
But being gay is also a nono. They got their bases covered, you can't get out of the game: Get rich or die trying.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
Because theyâ(TM)ll have 100 million excess young males due to gender specific abortions.
As I posted on The Economist, it is not salacious polygyny but anything that upsets the sex ratio that becomes profoundly destabilising: [Poor] young men see the [few] young women of their villages swept away to better [city] prospects. They can hardly stop it. But it gives them powerful motivation to improve their standing, including by military adventure. A clever "leader" (Bo Xilai?) can tap into this. Most worrying are China's "empty branches", excess young men as a result of China's "one child" policy generating selective abortion/infanticide.
It's not like other religions are more keen on wanking, which would certainly take care of that particular problem.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
China has mitigating social, cultural and political differences to places like Susan which prevent such wars.
I've had a fair number or friends in open relationships/marriages over the years. I'm not interested in one, but it dosent bother me at all so I was fine being friends with them. Over the long haul, maybe 15 years, I've seen how these play out versus traditional relationships. In most cases, for awhile, the relationships were mutually acceptable to everyone. However, eventually a particularly outspoken and judgmental individual started making waves which didn't combine well with the few polyamorists who couldn't just be chil and laid back but instead made the drama worse. There used to be 50 or so of us in the social circle (20 or so were in non traditional relationships) but this fractured the group into roughly 3 groups even though many members were friends for 20 years. It's sad because we all used to go out and do things, and now that is ruined. People have enough trouble in a 2 person relationship, 3+ becomes far more complicated and unstable and is far easier to devolve into fighting the larger the group gets. While it's obvious you can't only blame polygamy for violence, having men take multiple wives and never the other way around, only creates a shortage of women and is just asking for younger males to become violent in competition.
Was arresting Smith 'violence against Mormons' when he was just a conman? Did it only become 'violence against Mormons' when he became a prophet/conman?
Was it 'violence against Mormons' when he was tarred feathered and run out of town on a rail for what he said to the 15 year old daughter of the town banker? That was AFTER he started his big religion scam.
John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
It's got to be one heck of a job to teach 72 virgins how to please a man. Do you suppose some of those would-be martyrs are planning to have them exhibit lesbian fantasies for their entertainment purposes?
Wh47 d1d j00 541, 31337 15n't t3h r0xor5 ne m0r3???
According to what I've read, it's even stranger than that. In spite of there being an overabundance of single young men, there is an overabundance of unmarried women supposedly because men consider them marriageable once they reach age 30 or so.
Wh47 d1d j00 541, 31337 15n't t3h r0xor5 ne m0r3???
Polygamy is a VERY advanced topic for this crowd considering many of them have not had one sexual partner let alone MULTIPLE. It's definitely NOT news for nerds.
We'll make great pets
The multiculturalists are going to be up in arms over this comment. You should respect everyone culture, no matter how abhorrent it may be.
I don't have to respect the parts which are not just disrespectful, but actively harmful. I don't have to throw away the good parts because some parts are actively abhorrent, either.
I am not remotely against polyamory, polygyny, or polyandry when these lifestyles are lived by choice. I'm not even against wearing bags, given the same caveat. I believe that given a lack of force, natural tendencies will typically produce small relationship units. Most people seem to have little enough idea how to cooperate as a couple, let alone as a triad or beyond, and perhaps ought to get past that before they explore larger and more complex formal relationships.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
Interesting that I was just thinking about the Chinese and the problem with gender imbalance. I have no idea why I was thinking about it but I was.
One thing I was thinking is that the Chinese would upend their entire culture if they practiced polygyny - one woman has multiple husbands. Suddenly the power shift would be towards the females since they could pick and choose their spouses.
What would happen if that were possible? If multiple spouses, regardless of the primary gender, was accepted? How would that go over in the male dominated societies when women suddenly held the power to decide who they would marry. What traits would they consider in spouses?
Just a random thought while riding the train into work.
And you would quickly find yourself on the doorstep because you lost the competition. Perhaps you were attempting to be funny but if I had three husbands and one was acting like that then I would have two husbands who cared about our marriage and one ex husband who might try harder the next time he finds someone willing to marry him.
It's not that eating soybeans makes you gay, you are fake news. However, soybeans contain active compounds called isoflavones- these are plant derived phytoestrogens, many of which mimic female hormones such as estrogen and estradiol. There are a number of studies that suggest that soy does indeed have an estrogenic effect on the body, which in turn decreases testosterone levels. Eat too much soy and it makes you less of a man.
Shutting down free speech with violence isn't fighting fascism. It IS fascism!
The link between sex and paywalling would be more accurate.
Export them to Africa and pick up African woman as wives.
Vintage computer adverts: http://www.vintageadbrowser.com/computers-and-software-ads
Polygamy exists everywhere but nobody calls it that.
It's not polygamy if it's not a person married to multiple people at the same time.
It's just cheating/fooling around/open relationship/mistress/man-on-the-side/sleeping around/other term goes here. But it's not polygamy.
Knowledge is how to play a game, intelligence is how to win, wisdom is knowing what game to play.
In fairness to the Mormons, they'd been on the receiving end of a lot of violence in their earliest days; before they became somewhat militarized out west. After been run out of multiple original settlements its somewhat understandable they would choose to arm themselves and deal with likely malevolent outsiders and people encroaching on their territory violently. It might also be argued the polygamy, which was also not present in the beginnings of the movement was a borne out of need to rapidly increase their numbers, so they could ward off attacks.
Repeal the 17th Amendment TODAY! Also Please Read http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.html
So you are saying that the more young men who wear suicide vests in jihad, the more OK polygamy becomes?
Wouldn't this cause the leaders to call for jihad, so as to have more women for themselves?
Because I've never seen a jihadi leader actually wearing the vest...
with multiple marriages for all, where a man can have multiple wives and his wives can have multiple husbands, and so on and so on.
For good measure, let people marry animals and inanimate objects. Hello Alexa....
--
100% satire from concentrate
Knowledge is how to play a game, intelligence is how to win, wisdom is knowing what game to play.
While that list contains incidents where Mormons were victims as well as perpetrators, they were pretty violent in the early days of the religion.
For perspective, the only violence refers to a 4 day incident where the Mormons and a few Indian Tribes killed 120 emigrants crossing through Utah on their way to California. They did this because there was a lot of fear and anxiety about the US Army making their way into the Utah Territory.
However, the fear wasn't completely unjustified. The Mormons spent years being persecuted, raped, and murdered pretty much anywhere they went. They finally packed up their bags and moved as far west as possible where they could practice their religion in peace. When word got out that the US Army was heading into Utah, I'm guessing the Mormons weren't too comfortable with that situation.
Nonetheless, the massacre was horrific and unjustified. It was investigated and several of the crazy paranoid Mormon leaders who incited the violence were excommunicated and sentenced to death.
As bad as that situation was, I don't think it's completely fair to judge the Mormons as being "pretty violent" in the early days.
Trump recognizes Jerusalem as capital of Israel: WORST. HITLER. EVER!
Shutting down free speech with violence isn't fighting fascism. It IS fascism!
I was born an unattractive male in America. Girls, and then women, turned their noses up me for my entire life. I never married, had hardly any relationships and none of them lasted for more than a few months, and I have completely given up.
And I have never once been inclined to violence. I have been told that my lack of violent inclinations is part of what makes me unattractive to women...but that is a separate issue.
I know other men who are like me. Rejected, single, and not violent at all. Apparently, there are entire web communities of single men who aren't practicing violence (like, MGTOW).
My conclusion is that the no-women thing does not, in and of itself, motivate men to be violent. In cultures where there is an association, it is *also* true that men need wives as a matter of socio/economic elevation. The value of a wife is much more than love and sex, and I expect that THOSE are the real reasons for all the violence.
It may also be that such cultures are simply more primitive, and as such have a higher ratio of (genetically or otherwise) violent-predisposed men.
In any event, I am not ready to accept the conclusion that "no woman = violent man", though I will readily accept that violence is higher in cultures that practice polygyny.
Whaaa? The unmarried women are unmarried because they don't want anything to do with these lesser men. They would rather go childless and single than accept a man whose life will be that of a shopkeeper, or a factory worker. It's not the men who are causing the problem, it's the women's high standards for a mate.
Shutting down free speech with violence isn't fighting fascism. It IS fascism!
It's not that eating soybeans makes you gay, you are fake news. However, soybeans contain active compounds called isoflavones- these are plant derived phytoestrogens, many of which mimic female hormones such as estrogen and estradiol. There are a number of studies that suggest that soy does indeed have an estrogenic effect on the body, which in turn decreases testosterone levels. Eat too much soy and it makes you less of a man.
I remember years ago, before I had Sirius XM, flipping through radio stations trying to find something to listen to, ended up on an AM station and having a laugh at this one far-right loony (I'm a centrist- I think the extremes of both sides are idiots) calling soy beans a liberal conspiracy to make people gay. As ridiculous as it sounds, the guy was dead-serious (don't remember the name). He thought the "gay-epidemic" was caused by soy beans.
I've since heard a few other times some people blaming soy beans on making people gay. Of course it is ridiculous and yes, it is as you said, because they believed soy beans caused you to not produce testosterone.
"That's the way to do it" - Punch
yes, he got a large number of votes from folks who still had money, but when people dug into the data as to _why_ they voted for him they found it was mostly because their kids didn't have jobs, wives or futures. They saw Trump as giving those things, what with his left wing populist rhetoric. Meanwhile (as I've pointed out on other threads) Hilary was running the same campaign Romney did. An intensely conservative one focused on staying the course. The middle class didn't want to hear that because, well, the only middle class people left are in their 40s and 50s and they watched their kids grow up as a lost generation.
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
I am speaking in generalities. There are certainly exceptions.
In fairness to the Mormons, they'd been on the receiving end of a lot of violence in their earliest days; before they became somewhat militarized out west. After been run out of multiple original settlements its somewhat understandable they would choose to arm themselves and deal with likely malevolent outsiders and people encroaching on their territory violently. It might also be argued the polygamy, which was also not present in the beginnings of the movement was a borne out of need to rapidly increase their numbers, so they could ward off attacks.
The best you can say about the Mormon situation is that atrocities were committed by both sides, neither was blameless and neither was purely defensive. I like the Mormons these days though. They value family and work ethic and are generally helpful people.
a woman is thinking, "Can this Man raise children with me?" and the answer is more often than not 'no, he can't hold a decent paying job'. Two $7.50/hr or even $9.50/hr incomes can't raise children.
/. post. I don't know what you think you're doing, but you're not helping yourself. At best your a foot solider in somebody's war, at worst your a patsy who's going to get fleeced. Wake up already.
Also, you're last comment is a standard 'what-about-ism' talking point of the alt-right's 'leadership' (I put that in quotes because it's hard to call somebody a leader when they're really just taking advantage of a desperate group to hit them up for money and cheap political power). You should be ashamed of yourself for thinking it let alone writing it in a
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
While that list contains incidents where Mormons were victims as well as perpetrators, they were pretty violent in the early days of the religion.
As bad as that situation was, I don't think it's completely fair to judge the Mormons as being "pretty violent" in the early days.
They were violent, but you are right in that it is important to put them into context: the mid 1800s in the American West/Midwest was a pretty violent time anyway. Even today we recognize the inherent right of people to protect themselves, and you certainly can't blame people for reacting harshly when they were treated the way Mormons were. The Mormons came to the conclusion that they would need a certain level of ruthlessness to protect themselves. But this proves my point: as society evolved the Mormon church evolved with it, both to realize that they no longer need violence and that polygamy should no longer be accepted(it is also fair to note that they didn't exactly come to the conclusion regarding polygamy on their own, there was a certain amount of external coercion involved). We have to allow Islam to do the same.
The only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for it to be pitted against a slightly greater evil
What part of the Mormons' involvement in the Mountain Meadows Massacre was considered to be "defense", do you figure?
Quo usque tandem abutere, Nimbus, patientia nostra?
Individual single young men are not a problem for society, but large quantities of them are. Or, to be precise, too high a percentage of the population being single young men creates problems for a society. On the other hand, I suspect that having a limited number of single men is probably as beneficial for society as having too many. We can debate the reasons why having too many single young men is a problem, but history shows us that any society which has large numbers of single young men, especially single young men who have little chance of becoming married young men, tends to go to war (either with itself, or its neighbors).
The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
Just the tip of the iceberg.
Brigham Young also ordered the town of 'Mormon Island' outside Folsom CA (now under the lake) burned to the ground because they weren't tithing.
Dumb dumb dumb dumb....
John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
If these men are prone to fits of uncontrollable rage when confronted with scientific facts, it is likely they are abusing testosterone or anabolic steroids. Both of which have proven, highly negative effects on the male body but which do pump up the muscles.
Shutting down free speech with violence isn't fighting fascism. It IS fascism!
Lack of testosterone doesn't make men gay, it makes them weak and effeminate. Eating soy does in fact introduce estrogen-like chemicals and does in fact feminize men. Science, bitches.
Shutting down free speech with violence isn't fighting fascism. It IS fascism!
No one identified the real problem. Let's not dance around the issue because we're afraid to tell it like it is. The violence is caused by Islam.
This got labeled troll but it's very true that if you show me a majority Islam country I'll show you a shitty country. Yes a country can be crappy without Islam being a factor but when Islam is a factor it's all but guaranteed to be crappy.
Watch yourself around Mormons. They all present as 'family/work/values, but it's sometimes pure bullshit.
There is a significant % that are just flatout criminals. Mostly in the higher echelons. It's been that way since the beginning. With such an _obvious_scam_, you know that their are wolves among the trusting morons.
Yes I know a number of ex-mormons. The 'Mormon mafia' is real, just well hidden.
John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
Right, and Mormon Island just 'accidently' caught fire after they refused to tithe.
John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
Oh, you mean the "destabilization" that removed 98% of ISIS' territory out from under them (and dropped their fighters' numbers from a peak of 40k to less than 1k or so) starting when you-know-who took office and stopped micromanaging the whole affair from his desk?
Or maybe you meant the fact that Iraq is once again becoming stable after a certain previous president pulled out too early (on a massively flimsy excuse)?
Oh, maybe you meant the massive anti-Wahhabist royal purge/shakeup that recently occurred in Saudi Arabia after the rest of the royalty there realized that they're actually being watched and held accountable by the US, after decades of being ignored as the penultimate ideological source for all the jihadist garbage that's occurred for 50+ years now?
Perhaps you meant the impending removal of funding and support from Iran... you know, the folks who were busy finding Hezbollah and trying to make nukes in spite of promising on their bestest behavior not to?
Or could it be the fact that most of OPEC finally realized that they're no longer the petrol-soaked king-makers when it comes to geopolitcal affairs, and has to start playing nice with the rest of the planet?
The time to indulge this half-century-long aberrant behavior by various grudge groups in the ME is over, 'mano. By all appearances, they're realizing it fast and adjusting accordingly (c.f. Dubai)... so I doubt the old rules of analyzing the ME from left-wing eyes will apply for much longer.
Quo usque tandem abutere, Nimbus, patientia nostra?
What is the optimal number of spouses?
Two. Each will think I'm with the other. While I'm actually in the shop getting some work done.
Have gnu, will travel.
You don't know, maybe AC can lick his eyebrows.
John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
They managed to make it the woman's fault.
The problem with "reforming" Islam is that the typical way in which a religion is reformed is that someone, or multiple someones, goes back to the original scripture for that religion, ignores most of the tradition and interpretation which has grown up, and ossified, around it over the years, and freshly interprets that scripture. Doing that with the Islamic holy books is what gave us the basis for Al Qaeda, ISIS, and other groups which are promoting Islamic violence. It may be possible for a revival of Sufism to bring about the "modernization" you are calling for, but only time will tell. The original edge was taken off of the violence of Islam when it stopped working, when the expansion of Islam by conquest was halted and Islam's borders were pushed back.
The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
It would be more fair to say that Mormonism has evolved so that it no longer promotes/tolerates violence nor polygamy, just as modern day Christianity mostly does not (barring of course evangelicals who are pushing for wars in the Middle East in order to start the second coming/rapture/Armageddon).
Where would you get the idea that Christianity promotes violence? I know that's a popular meme but as with so many memes it lacks a basis in facts. Please point me towards the New Testament verses promoting wars, I must have missed them. Along the same lines, please point me towards the New Testament verses promoting polygamy as I must have missed those too.
Where did I say that? I said most Christians don't support violence.
This is the issue for Islam: there are many within it that are resisting efforts to modernize the religion. If you want to fix things you can't demonize Islam, you have to support those within the religion who want to moderate and modernize Islam. Animosity and hatred only feeds those who seek to keep Islam in the past.
You do know that the standard practice for an invading Muslim army is to give the conquered people 3 options: convert, die, or become a slave. That's literally taken out of the Koran, it cannot be attributed to wayward followers. There is no reforming that as it's directly from Mohammed. I'm curious where you got the notion that Islam can be reformed.
citation:
https://www.thereligionofpeace...
The natives of South and Central America would like to have a word with you regarding forced conversions to Christianity. And Christian Crusaders would often kill, enslave, and/or rape the entire population of a sacked city, including other Christians.
You missed the entire point of my post: Christianity evolved past the violence of the Crusades (of course it took plenty of wars, persecutions, and inquisitions for it to do so). Islam needs to be given the time and support to do so as well, and that change needs to come from within.
The only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for it to be pitted against a slightly greater evil
If I had mod points, I'd mod you up.
However, the Islamics get most of their stupid suicide squads from poor young men unable to afford wives. China has a similar problem due to sex-selective abortion. Men without women are brutes, and violent brutes at that.
SJW: a person who perceives an injustice, and while correcting it, commits a greater injustice.
given how many men there are compared to women, and how few are able to marry.
oh, wait.
has anyone seen my sarcasm key?
-- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
Attribute your para or its plagiarism.
John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
I am sorry, you are mistaking a "strong man" leader for rule of law. While a strong man leader who imposes the rule of law is the fastest way to get there, it is also inherently unreliable. Since for the strong man to rule he must be above the law, but if he is above the law then so is anyone he says is above the law. Of course, part of the reason you believe in the "strong man" method is because for too many years our society and political class have mistook democracy for rule of law. Democracy without rule of law is no better than any other form of government. One of the reasons why so many people mistake democracy for rule of law is because, at least as I see history, rule of law always results in the rise of some form of democratic government.
The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
Its mostly the other way around. A warlike culture has to either accept polygamy or accept lesbian marriage - children require a huge amount of attention and require multiple parents.
It is true that this kind of culture is slightly self-reinforcing, encouraging men to go to war to both maintain the shortage of men and collect the resources necessary to support the children.
But it is mostly the other way around.
Real polygamy takes too much work on the part of the man to be worth it for anyone not in the top 1% wealth wise. As such, while it is viewed as high status, it's actual presence does NOT lead to more war, but instead creates a desire for peace. And fishing. Lots of fishing. Anything to get away from the constant nagging.
excitingthingstodo.blogspot.com
Yep. That is exactly right
SJW: a person who perceives an injustice, and while correcting it, commits a greater injustice.
It would be more fair to say that Mormonism has evolved so that it no longer promotes/tolerates violence nor polygamy, just as modern day Christianity mostly does not (barring of course evangelicals who are pushing for wars in the Middle East in order to start the second coming/rapture/Armageddon).
Where would you get the idea that Christianity promotes violence? I know that's a popular meme but as with so many memes it lacks a basis in facts. Please point me towards the New Testament verses promoting wars, I must have missed them. Along the same lines, please point me towards the New Testament verses promoting polygamy as I must have missed those too.
Where did I say that? I said most Christians don't support violence.
This is the issue for Islam: there are many within it that are resisting efforts to modernize the religion. If you want to fix things you can't demonize Islam, you have to support those within the religion who want to moderate and modernize Islam. Animosity and hatred only feeds those who seek to keep Islam in the past.
You do know that the standard practice for an invading Muslim army is to give the conquered people 3 options: convert, die, or become a slave. That's literally taken out of the Koran, it cannot be attributed to wayward followers. There is no reforming that as it's directly from Mohammed. I'm curious where you got the notion that Islam can be reformed.
citation:
https://www.thereligionofpeace...
The natives of South and Central America would like to have a word with you regarding forced conversions to Christianity. And Christian Crusaders would often kill, enslave, and/or rape the entire population of a sacked city, including other Christians.
You missed the entire point of my post: Christianity evolved past the violence of the Crusades (of course it took plenty of wars, persecutions, and inquisitions for it to do so). Islam needs to be given the time and support to do so as well, and that change needs to come from within.
I think we're somewhat in agreement but I want to clarify on the Crusades. They were a response, albeit delayed and not entirely pure in motive, to the Muslim armies having taken over large chunks of what used to be Christian areas. The popular narrative is that the crusaders came out of nowhere to attack the peaceful Muslims. That's just not accurate. As for the Americas, it wasn't right to force conversions. It also wasn't mandated by Jesus the way that Mohammed mandated that non-Muslims (Infidels) be enslaved / killed. That's a key distinction. I would say it's less a case of Christianity evolved and more a case that it got back to its roots. Islam cannot do this as the roots were always violent. It would take a departure from the teachings of Mohammed to actually get a peaceful Islam.
When was that again?
SJW: a person who perceives an injustice, and while correcting it, commits a greater injustice.
This sounds like some grand plan to cut down on the hetro male population so you can get a date.
I browse on +1 so AC's need not respond, I won't see it.
The problem with "reforming" Islam is that the typical way in which a religion is reformed is that someone, or multiple someones, goes back to the original scripture for that religion, ignores most of the tradition and interpretation which has grown up, and ossified, around it over the years, and freshly interprets that scripture. Doing that with the Islamic holy books is what gave us the basis for Al Qaeda, ISIS, and other groups which are promoting Islamic violence.
All that it takes to fix that is enough clerics to come out with their own (or supporting another) counter interpretation. We already saw how much of the Muslim world pretty quickly denounced ISIS. Even al Qaeda basically said "this is too much".
It's a little bit simplistic, but one way I look at it is this: Islam started roughly 600-650 years after Christianity. Go back 650 years from now and you have the Spanish Inquisition. Take the Christianity from 1450 and stick it in the modern world and it will have issues just like Islam does. Think of what it had to go through between then and now to get where it is today, and realize that Islam basically has to go through that same process, but with modern technology, modern weapons, and access to modern levels of wealth and/or wealth inequality. The growing pains are going to be rough, and we sure aren't doing anything calculated to help.
The only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for it to be pitted against a slightly greater evil
Or 72 grapes. The Arabic is rather unclear.
SJW: a person who perceives an injustice, and while correcting it, commits a greater injustice.
you won't hear about it because the China worshiping socialist left wing media in this country won't criticize Chinese society
I don't know what socialist left wing media you've been reading but even "The Socialist Worker" is sometimes critical about China, and that's about as socialist left wing as you can get, though not exactly what one would call mainstream.
Perhaps you should should condider some more mainstream sources. It's not like there's any socialist left wing ones of them in America anyway.
SJW n. One who posts facts.
With Mao's one child policy in effect for so long and the preference for male children China now has a huge imbalance between marriage age men and women. Expect to see warfare break out in the streets of Beijing. Or maybe this Economist hypothesis is not worth the paper it is written on. There are plenty of women in other parts of the world. Why not travel to find a bride?
I do not think it would work. The average male still insists on try to kill all the competition and having all the resources for himself (food, property and females) than to share or collaborate with other males.
Religion: The greatest weapon of mass destruction of all time
I dunno, I converted to Islam to marry my wife, but I'm probably less religious now that I was when I was technically Christian. I always want to laugh at the 72 virgins thing... I mean have these men ever had to deal with 1 non-virgin women? Take those troubles and multiply by 72 virgins...
If someone can work that out to hogsheads per fathom, I'd appreciate it.
The multiculturalists are going to be up in arms over this comment. You should respect everyone culture, no matter how abhorrent it may be.
They are? Or are you just inventing strawmen to attack?
SJW n. One who posts facts.
Projecting your own local biases onto an alien culture is the sure sign of a parochial mind.
Shutting down free speech with violence isn't fighting fascism. It IS fascism!
Refusing to pay tithes isn't a very convincing argument for the fire, especially in a gold rush boom town a century before the idea of a fire code came into being.
"refusing to tithe" was (and is) common throughout the history of the church. It's still common, with fewer than half even claiming to pay it now.
Hell, the Mormon strictures against Alcohol, Coffee, Tea, and Tobacco didn't begin to be enforced until the 1920's.
-- Sometimes you have to turn the lights off in order to see.
See, one gets irritable.
Table-ized A.I.
It's not like other religions are more keen on wanking...
My religion heartily encourages wanking. You're welcome to join. It doesn't have a title, but there are no dues, fees, or meetings. The dogma differs from person to person and is largely generated on the fly. There are leadership positions available.
He's getting rather old, but he's a good mouse.
Yes I know a number of ex-mormons. The 'Mormon mafia' is real, just well hidden.
I can second this (am related to Mormons). They are a much more potent menace than their PR would suggest, and profoundly retrograde in their thinking. Evangelicals on steroids, but much more clever.
To anyone who wants to learn more on the subject, there is a non-trivial amount of work on this idea out there. One could do worse than starting with William Tucker's book "Marriage and Civilization."
I think it's their economy. It's entirely based on a single resource, oil. That means you end up with a top/down oligarchy built around that oil and a ton of rather nasty policies needed by those at the top to stay at the top.
I suppose you could argue they were like this before the oil money, but they were also insanely poor before that, and if you look at just about any really poor, agrarian society woman are treated as property. That's got nothing to do with culture and everything to do with giving men a reason to stick around once the sex is over. A woman and her children were your property, so taking care of them and raising them was desirable.
If you want to break that system down and replace it with the emotional benefits of marriage and child rearing you need to take care of your working class and pay them enough they can get emotional satisfaction from the system. Otherwise it breaks down when men can't afford to hold a family together and lack attachment to the family unit as property.
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
Once again, the problem with your idea is that The Reformation in Christianity was a return to the original scriptures that formed the basis for Christianity. Hassan-al-Banna is the Muslim Luther (or perhaps the Muslim Jan Hus). Those Muslims who have gone back to their original scriptures to reform Islam have universally taught violence. Of course, the biggest problem with your idea is that the practices of the "Christian Church" which you applaud as being "modernized" away during the Reformation were things they learned from the Muslims.
The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
I remember reading an article many, many, years ago that made exactly that connection. I think it was early 1990's, might have been in Time or The Wall Street Journal.
The males in Islamic counties who see little to no chance of ever getting a wife/mate because the rich/powerful have first dibs will be desperate enough that when they are told that if they fight Jihad and die a martyrs death you get, not just one, but 72 women (and virgins to boot) as your brides/consorts. In a culture that puts so much emphasis on male children and measures your worth as a person by how many wives you have this makes it easy to get people who are willing to die for whatever ideology you are pushing as long as they get the women.
Christianity evolved past the violence of the Crusades
A few things to consider about the Crusades.
Firstly they were largely a response to be cut off from "the holy land." Now I grant you perhaps a response of the wrong scale and done for faulty political ambitions trying to win favor with Rome etc, but on a very fundamental level the Crusades were a response to Islamic aggression and territorial encroachment! This is in direct contrast to Islam where Koran commands them to spread the faith by the sword.
Second, the Crusades were about ethno-politics and not Christianity specifically. Contemporaries parsed the Bible and found implicit justifications and excuses for their political, military and territorial ambitions but again that was reading things into the text. This stands in contrast with the Koran which specifically calls Muslims to the Jihad (holy war).
Third, and partly circling back to the first point about winning favor with Rome, the Pope more or less ordered the Crusades. The Pope may have suggested they were God's will and Roman Catholics do believe the Pope speaks for/is divinely inspired by God; however Roman Catholics were not the only Christian group at the time, and certainly are not the only group now. Different Christian groups have a wide variety of viewpoints about the authority of the Pope, ranging form "he is God's vicar on earth" to "he is some guy who wears a funny hat." This is quite a lot like Islam where there are a number of sects with different interpretations of at least some elements of the faith. We certainly cannot say "all Christians" supported the crusades, at the time and certainly not in hindsight today.
Repeal the 17th Amendment TODAY! Also Please Read http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.html
No one identified the real problem. Let's not dance around the issue because we're afraid to tell it like it is. The violence is caused by Islam.
Too bad South Sudan is predominantly Christian. Islam is such a small minority that it doesn't even make the CIA World Factbook on South Sudan. There are more animists than Muslims.
The only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for it to be pitted against a slightly greater evil
I am Mormon and the church does teach that family/work/values. Do all members follow that? No. Are there hypocrites in the church, yes. Do they go all the way to the top, possibly. I've always said the best people I know are Mormon and the worst people I know are Mormon. A core principle of almost all religions is that almost everybody is welcome in Gods house. It is a great place for a wolf to hide.
What appealed to me in the Mormon church was how they treated other religions. e.g. most other religions are mostly correct but incomplete. Meanwhile I was taught in a baptist church that Mormons were going to hell for following a false prophet. You can't convince me that any God would send Mother Teresa, Gandhi, or any other "good" person to hell because they didn't belong to the right club.
You may mock me but I've been surprised at how many members are not as ignorant as many suspect.
So, what you're saying is that the leadership is made up of people who strong-arm their way to the top.
So there's this feller, and he's been found guilty of taking and driving away a Lada. The judge asks if there's any other offences he wants taken into consideration. He admits to bigamy and pirating Star Wars DVDs.
The judge let him off with a warning, saying that he'd already suffered enough.
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
"Lack of testosterone doesn't make men gay, it makes them weak and effeminate. "
I fail to see your point. What is the difference?
Are you seriously that uneducated and ignorant?
One is indicating a persons sexual preference, the other is not at all.
Assuming the subject is a male as the quoted statement indicates:
Being a gay male means that male is sexually attracted to and desires being in a relationship with other males.
Being a weak and effeminate male doesn't mean shit regarding what the person is sexually attracted to. Such a male could be straight and so sexually attracted to females.
I'd argue in cultures such as America, you may actually be just as likely to find a subset of females that find gay men sexually attractive as you are to find a subset of females that find weak and effeminate men sexually attractive. And they are not the same subset.
That's what marriage is for - "equitable" relationship.
You are a dumbass.
I do not believe in karma. "Funny"=-6. Do good and forbid evil. Yours, Oft-Offtopic Flamebaiting Troll.
We're not talking about self righteous Mormons. Those are the average.
We're talking about _criminal_ Mormons. Those that _directly_ follow Joseph Smith's tradition of grifting the gullible. About 10% of Mormons, but 90% of Mormon bishops.
John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
Waint until China and India settle in. The real reason Hina switched to two kids per family is because families were aborting females to get males to inherit family name. China has massive imbalance in genders. India is doing the same thing only you can have more kids so it is less dramatic.
The real issue is male dominated society believe women are lesser.
i thought once I was found, but it was only a dream.
No strong-arming necessary and there is no top. In my religion, everyone's a leader! Just because I'm the only one following doesn't mean that I'm not leading myself at the same time. Give it a try. We don't guarantee salvation, but then again who can?
He's getting rather old, but he's a good mouse.
As it states in the summary, if the top 10% of men acquire 4 wives each, the bottom 30% of men will go wife-less. The wives of the top 10% would be included in the top layer of society thus leading to there being increasingly more women in the top layer as money accrues there, which would correlate to the main story of the article, that the bottom layer of men get increasingly violent and careless as their chances of reproducing dwindle. Thus, more women in top society -> more civil war and conflict.
If you were an epidemiologist you'd be laughing really hard.
You do realize all Mormon comes from 1870's ( year is slightly off) Rochester NY were a guy claimed to find a whole new book of the Bible. (book of Mormon). He found it there waiting for him.
I knew the full story once as I lived near the site. Still it is pretty Shakey.
i thought once I was found, but it was only a dream.
Its nearly impossible to not assume that selling your daughters against their will to men potentially twice their age and denying them any choices in their life is not seriously messed up.
That's damn near if not exactly slavery depending on the circumstances. I have known people who had arranged marriages BUT that was an entirely different and entirely consensual nuptial.
It is some seriously sick $hit when one person assigns a selling price and or purchase price for another human being. An when I thought it couldnt possibly be worse it is worse because this is talking about people selling their own children.
I read the entire article and I just keep iterating audible variations of wtf!!
OId Joe translated several books from 'reformed egyptian' to English that were present in his King James bible old testament.
What was amazing about those translations: They had exactly the same mistakes present in Smith's King James bible, translation mistakes that are understood in the context of the original Hebrew.
How did that happen? It is 'statistical proof' that Smith just copied that part of the 'Book for Mormon'. Which doesn't even get into Smiths use of language from the era of King James (thy, thee etc) to do his 'translations'. He wasn't a particularly good liar.
Dumb, dumb, dumb, dumb...
John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
This comment seems to completely ignore the entire history of Mormonism.
Also, small cults that exist in a wider society are not self contained. Mormonism has ways of removing excess males and bringing in additional females.
Troll is not a replacement for I disagree.
more thoroughly? I think it's alluding to some practice the Mormons had or used to have but I'm not sure.
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
the Abraham religions. That includes Christianity and Judaism. They're all cut from the same basic philosophical cloth: e.g. the heretic ("Gentile" in Jewish terms, they even have a word for it) is inherently less of a person than the faithful.
Furthermore given God's well publicized tendencies to punish the faithful for the sins of the heretic (Sodom/Gomorrah, Noah's flood, etc) every single Heretic is an existent threat to the faithful. And don't think they haven't noticed, either. Every single disaster is followed by a raft of preachers claiming it as divine punishment.
Family guy did a funny skit on it that I'm surprised didn't generate more controversy. A world without Christianity skips the dark ages and is 1000 years ahead, so much so that Meg is attractive. That last bit probably blunted the message; and court jesters have been ignored for centuries anyway.
Think of something you want to do, good or bad, and odds are you can find a justification and a reason in the various bibles out there. We shouldn't be surprised either. These books were written by hundreds of people over thousands of years for just as many reasons. My point is, a few words telling you to not be so damn awful in the old/new testament doesn't fix the fundamental underpinnings that allow people to do pretty much as they please to anyone they deem not faithful enough.
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
Oh cut the bullshit, eating soybeans does not make anyone "weak and effeminate." The number of ridiculous logical leaps in your argument renders it completely unscientific. Just because soybeans have some estrogen-like compounds in them does not mean they have enough to produce any real effect. But more importantly, you are flat out wrong about the effects of estrogen, which is produced in men's bodies as well as women's. Just read any recent bodybuilding publication to see them crowing about how much estrogen can do just the opposite, and help men build muscle mass.
https://www.ironmanmagazine.co...
https://www.bodybuilding.com/f...
- None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
I still fail to see your point, since homosexuality is only a delusion and does not exist.
SJW: a person who perceives an injustice, and while correcting it, commits a greater injustice.
So it could as well be a symptom of the wars, not a cause. Causation is not correlation.
Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
This was also my first thought. Sudan's cival war is crazy long. The first from 1955 - 1972, then another from 1983 - 2005, and now the south sudanese cival war from 2013 - presnt.
Wars often take the lives of far more men than women. Men taking multiple wives is a common historical practice from many cultures when other men die. In the Old Testament, "multiple marriage was considered a realistic alternative in the case of famine, widowhood, or female infertility. The practice of levirate marriage obligated a man whose brother has left a widow without heir to marry her." (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polygamy_in_Christianity)
I strongly doubt that polygyny led to the wars. Rather, the wars (and other instability issues) probably led to the polygyny.
Look up the documentary "The lost Boys" on how the Fundamentalist Church of Latter Day Saints (a Mormson off shoot that practices polygamy) Literally kicks out excess male children. May not be a war, but it is violent and sick regardless, and that is here in the USA.
First a little background. My family joined The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints in the 1830s. Several of my 3rd great grandfathers had multiple wives.
The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints officially prohibited new polygamous marriages in 1890, though existing polygamists were not forced to divorce any wives. The Endowment House in Salt Lake City was ordered destroyed by the Prophet based on rumors of unauthorized polygamous marriages being performed there. The Utah State Constitution explicitly forbids polygamy. In 1905 the First President reaffirmed that any member entering into a polygamous relationship would be excommunicated. The LdS Church has no formal relationship with any of the "fundamentalist" groups which splintered.
The Mormons were violent when they practiced polygamy. Today it is not practiced by Mormons except for some fringe groups. One thing that is certain, young men without women are a problem regardless of religion.
Do you care to provide evidence of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints being violent the decades we practiced polygamy? The only violence I am aware of was in self defense or retaliation for violence inflicted upon us first. You burn down my barn because of my religion and I might return the favor. You send an army to march against us and we may do damage to your supply trains and wagons. You come into our territory (we walked THOUSANDS of miles to avoid conflict) bragging about murdering our Prophet or one of our Apostles or yelling that you are going to kill some damn Mormons, then some individuals (condemned by the Church) may take matters into their own hands.
Was arresting Smith 'violence against Mormons' when he was just a conman? Did it only become 'violence against Mormons' when he became a prophet/conman?
Joseph Smith Jr was NEVER committed of any crime.
Was it 'violence against Mormons' when he was tarred feathered and run out of town on a rail for what he said to the 15 year old daughter of the town banker? That was AFTER he started his big religion scam.
You have your stories mixed up. Joseph Smith Jr was tarred and feathered multiple times before introducing polygamy.
What part of the Mormons' involvement in the Mountain Meadows Massacre was considered to be "defense", do you figure?
There is much misinformation about the Mountain Meadows Massacre. It was organized and carried out by a Stake President (Isaac Haight) and the bishops serving under him. The Church condemned the action of those who participated.
As to what part was self defense, there were numerous circumstances that combined to create a perfect storm. The US Army was marching against Utah territory in response to a non-existent rebellion (politicians back East were telling all kinds of lies to destroy the LdS for its practice of polygamy). It was speculated that this wagon train was an advance party of the army. Members of the caravan bragged of having been in the mob which murdered Joseph Smith Jr. Other members of the caravan bragged of helping track down Parley P Pratt (an Apostle) so that Hector McLean could murder him after McLean failed to get justice from 2 judges (Hector's wife left him because he beat her. Parley P Pratt knocked on her mother's door as a missionary. Hector's ex-wife got baptized and eventually became Parley's 12th wife). Part could be that Brigham Young, as Territorial Governor, had placed the Territory under martial law in preparation of the approaching army and prohibited trade with outsiders. Members of the caravan were counting on fresh supplies in Utah, but when city after city refused to sell them supplies, members of the caravan got more and more verbal in their threats against Mormons. Part could be that an ox owned by the caravan died and the body exposed anthrax into a city's well (to this day there are people who believe this was done on purpose in retaliation for not trading for supplies).
John D Lee is my 3rd great grandfather. He was a bishop in Cedar City under Isaac Haight. As the caravan approached, the bishops and the stake president met in counsel to decide what to do. Haight agreed to send a courier to Brigham Young for instructions. A few days later Haight claimed to have received a letter from Brigham Young to kill every man, woman, and child. The day after the deed was done, a rider came into town with the real letter from Brigham Young saying to let the caravan pass in peace. Haight's alleged letter from Brigham Young was never seen by anyone else. Once word of the massacre reached Brigham Young, he sent another letter to John D Lee (Brigham adopted John before the trek west) sending him into hiding.
So imagine that 99% of the male fetuses were aborted. Tough luck if you were never born, but I'll bet the remaining 1% of males wouldn't complain so much. Or fight any wars, except maybe against the Chinese Granny Amazons! Long story short.
Freedom = (Meaningful - Coerced) Choice != (Speech | Beer^2), and sad sock puppets' bad mods avail them naught.
If you consider ejecting young men out of your society, into a foreign culture where they are entirely unprepared to survive much less succeed to be nonviolent, then the Mormon practice of polygyny would be nonviolent.
Simply put, polygyny leaves the unmarried men at a significant disadvantage, and in authoritarian societies can lead to such expulsions, or outright violence. Mormons are not so inclined to murder their young men, so expulsion was the most common result. Recently only the fringe fundamentalist Mormon sects practice this, and with predictable results.
The practice of expelling young men was not done by the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints; this is something the fundamentalist splinter groups have started.
Hillary, please shut up and go away.
Here's a summary with evidence pointing in both directions.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3074428/
There are undoubtedly estrogenic chemicals in soy, but they cause problems only at high intake levels and the sorts of problems they cause aren't always in the direction implied by their nature as estrogens.
Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
Please explain China and its overabundance of young men who have no mates, nor will ever have any prospect of one. Why is there no civil unrest (or at least none to upset the balance of power) there? Answer:
...if you make problems, the death vans show up to take you away and they break you up for parts, because the Chinese have institutionalized organlegging.
China is a superpower, and they don't depend on delusional, horny young men with visions of virgin poontang dancing in their heads blowing themselves up to project global power. So the nail that sticks up isn't pulled out and sent to blow up a building somewhere, it's just pounded.
On the other hand, they do have some 25 million plus excess men sitting around, and they simultaneously believe that women go bad around age 30 or something like that, so it's hard to imagine what they're going to do with all those people if not make war on someone.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
Mother Theresa was worse than Jack Kevorkian. She wanted to keep terribly suffering people alive so that they could suffer longer.
Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
.Yes it is as opposed to extreme pacifism which would let yourself be conquered. There was a joke that one of the extreme pacifism races in Star Trek's motto was. If you conquered us, you'd be home right now.
Wow, I had no idea bodybuilding magazines were respected peer-reviewed publications with double blind trials. I'll inform the academy immediately.
Shutting down free speech with violence isn't fighting fascism. It IS fascism!
Polygamy isn't responsible for violence. The Mormons, weird as they are, are not violent.
????? Want to check your facts on that?
1838 Mormon War was when Governor Boggs signed the Extermination Order legalizing the murder of Mormons. I believe that when you are attacked, you have the right to defend yourself.
Mormon War in Illinois. Non-Mormons organized a "wolf hunt" (wolf is code for Mormon). Governor Ford revoked ownership of Nauvoo from the Mormons. Joseph Smith Jr was murdered while awaiting a trial. As a result of this war, the Mormons walked to what was then a mostly uninhabited part of Mexico.
Battle Creek Massacre - Mormons attacked the Timpanogos Indians who had stolen horses and other livestock from Mormons. Between 4 and 7 Indians died.
Battle at Fort Utah - Mormons attack hostile Timpanogos Indians.
William McBride Massacre - conflict over natural resources and Goshute Indians stealing cattle from Mormons.
Walker War. James Walker Ivie killed a Ute Indian who was confronting his wife. The Utes demanded a White man to die to make things even. When the Mormons refused, it escalated into a war where about a dozen natives and a dozen Mormons died.
Mountain Meadows Massacre addressed elsewhere.
Utah War - the US sent the Army to march against Utah Territory; Mormons defended themselves by attacking supply trains and scattering livestock.
Morrisite War - the Utah Militia marched against the Church of the Firstborn (also known as Morrites). The Morrisite Church was a splinter group which lived in a commune. They felt dissenters were taking better material goods than when they joined. The militia was necessary to reach a settlement.
Black Hawk War - various tribes in Utah Territory attack the Mormon settlers; included the Circleville Massacre.
While that list contains incidents where Mormons were victims as well as perpetrators, they were pretty violent in the early days of the religion. Over the years Mormonism has gotten less violent (and also much less tolerant of polygamy, to the point now where it is no longer openly permitted if I understand correctly). It would be more fair to say that Mormonism has evolved so that it no longer promotes/tolerates violence nor polygamy, just as modern day Christianity mostly does not (barring of course evangelicals who are pushing for wars in the Middle East in order to start the second coming/rapture/Armageddon).
In 1890 the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints officially announced that no new polygamous marriages would be sanctioned. The Endowment House was destroyed because rumor had it there were rogue polygamous marriages performed there. In 1905 the First Presidency reaffirmed that anyone entering into a new polygamous marriage would be excommunicated. Polygamy is prohibited by the Utah State Constitution as a condition of statehood.
This is the issue for Islam: there are many within it that are resisting efforts to modernize the religion. If you want to fix things you can't demonize Islam, you have to support those within the religion who want to moderate and modernize Islam.
Right, and Mormon Island just 'accidently' caught fire after they refused to tithe.
Sammuel Brannan wasn't collecting tithing for Brigham Young.
Which completely fails to explain long periods in which people of different religions did quite well in Muslim lands. There could be a special tax for non-Muslims, but Muslims were required to be charitable (it's one of the Five Pillars of Islam), so I don't know how that worked out.
If it is in the Qu'ran, you should be able to cite it without going to an anti-Muslim site.
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
You do realize all Mormon comes from 1870's ( year is slightly off) Rochester NY were a guy claimed to find a whole new book of the Bible. (book of Mormon). He found it there waiting for him.
I knew the full story once as I lived near the site. Still it is pretty Shakey.
In 1820 Joseph Smith Jr had his First Vision in the Sacred Grove near Manchester, New York. On September 21, 1823 Joseph had a vision wherein he was first visited by the Angel Moroni. 4 years later he received possession of the Gold Plates from which he translated the Book of Mormon. The Book of Mormon was first published in 1830. The subtitle "Another Testament of Jesus Christ" was added later. Joseph organized The Church of Christ on 6 April 1830; this was later renamed The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.
Wanking is not an adequate substitute for marriage.
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
WTF dude. Pure projection here. We're talking about Sudan, remember? Where'd we suddenly change the topic? If we're talking about me personally, I can assure you I had no problem with the ladies back when I was on the market. ;)
Shutting down free speech with violence isn't fighting fascism. It IS fascism!
You've not read the article. Much of it focuses on pagan Africa, not Islamic territories.
Many of the examples are from pagan Sub-Saharan Africa, not Islamic territories.
YET!!
We don't know what the consequences of the gender imbalance will be...
True. I can wank with my other hand if I so choose without my house suddenly being gone.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
Sorry. I've already been a Discordian Pope, after that there's little you could offer to make me reconsider.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
Right, right, those weren't real mormons.
I'm a good cook. I'm a fantastic eater. - Steven Brust
Sounds like a tough gay guy beat you up once. It's ok to admit your feelings for him here, bro.
I'm a good cook. I'm a fantastic eater. - Steven Brust
Mother Theresa was a good person? Haha, good one.
I'm a good cook. I'm a fantastic eater. - Steven Brust
Totally believable and totally not a scam for the gullible.
I'm a good cook. I'm a fantastic eater. - Steven Brust
It's not multiple "marriages" when any are property and possession.
Hail Eris, full of mischief.
He's getting rather old, but he's a good mouse.
Polygamy is weak in USA, but the country ignited more wars than any other in the last decades.
They lost so many men in WW1 that there was a population shortage of soldiers by WW2. Those men that survived WW1 should have done the right thing and taken on mistresses.
Ha! You think being a dhimmi and paying the Jizya keeps you safe?
Why don't you actually read a Koran and see what Sharia law is really about?
You do realize that being a dhimmi allows you the privilege of being 1/3rd of a person compared to a muslim. You can get robbed, beaten, and cheated by a muslim and the courts won't prosecute it. You're lower than cattle in the eyes of a Mohammadin!
Your wife and daughters can be raped with impunity, again without punishment. In the Ottomon Empire, you had to give up your first born son as a baby to the army where he was raised a Muslim and never allowed to meet his parents.
Why don't you study Islam's religious texts for a fun lesson into why it's sarcastically called the religion of peace?
Or to shoot up a school like that Rodger guy... It definitely can cause mental health problems, and groups like the "incels" on Reddit just amplify the misery.
Some towns in the UK have this problem too. They tend to have a lot of pub fights.
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
You really should leave the compound more often
You have a very poor understanding of both evolution and genetics.
Those splinter groups call themselves Mormons. Thus they are Mormons. Look at all the splinter groups of Islam and Christianity. They are still regarded as Islamic or Christian even by each other.
Why do you think your (most populous) splinter of Mormonism is a special case? What gives you a golden ticket?
Joseph Smith initially claimed to have been visited by the Angel Nephi. "Moroni" was a retcon when the Mormon church realized his early stories were wildly inconsistent. Learn real Mormon history, not the synthetic tripe the church pushes, and you'll see Mormonism for what it really is.
Look up the documentary "The lost Boys" on how the Fundamentalist Church of Latter Day Saints literally kicks out excess male children.
It would be way more efficient if they used embryo gender selection to just avoid having the male children. If they look for it, I am sure they could find a justification in scripture.
Correlation or causation? As countries get less shitty they tend to get less religious too.
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
Almost all the non violent people I know are atheists. Almost all the religious people I know have an 'interest' in one side of one war or another. Most of them would support the death penalty in one form or another. It is 'spiritual armour' that allows people witness the suffering of others and to kill without conscience. You see the same thing in non-religious psychopaths. They cannot be convinced they are wrong.
"You cannot prove there is to god" is no reason for believing in one. It is not even entirely correct for while you cannot prove that no god exists you can most certainly prove that a specific god does not exist. Atheists shy away from that far too much. Fear of those "non-violent" religious people is probably the reason why.
A religious belief is one that is not subject to reason. Since we live in a world that functions, always, in a reasonable manner perhaps there is always a form of contra-spiritual tension that religious people must endure. Some find delusional ways to deal with it. But for the most, that tension is easily triggered to violence by those that they consider out groups.
You keep denying that and sounding like a damned idiot when you say it.
Get the point?
Only with artificial abundance. You do not see many fat peasants
In 1826, Joseph Smith was convicted of "glass-looking" (selling his services as a treasure hunter for which he used the same magic rock he later used to translate the Book of Mormon). In 1837, Joseph Smith was convicted of bank fraud. Why did you make a statement that is patently false? Oh right, to defend the reputation of your "prophet".
Legal polyamory presents a problem,. There are financial benefits t being in a partnership and other legal issues to boot. You will wind up with singles and small families subsidising the larger families who already have economies of scale. The only way this could work in a fair society is if marriage and partnership mean nothing and grant no special privileges.
The X chromosome of the English peasant in 1000AD is extinct. The remaining X chromosomes in the English population are from the aristocracy of those times or 'imported'. Sorry but I do not have a cite. This occurred without polygamy but there were plenty of wars.
We have to allow Islam to do the same.
Again, in defence of the Mormons, they figured these things out within 100 years or so. Islam has been around since... around 610AD IIRC?
How many people from that region have you met socially or professionally? My answer would only be "a few" (there are not that many) but I have never had issues with any of them.
Despite your headlines (and I dispute none of them) the actual incidence of crime, your chance of being robbed or murdered in your bed has steadily declined. I won't cite because those figures have been publicised enough and are really available.
We have problems with some of the immigrant (and local) youth that need addressing. When have we not? Australia has always had waves fo migration from different sources. We have watched "little italy" turn to "little greece" and then "little vietnam" and "little indonesia". We have been introduced to delightful cuisines as a result. But each and every wave brings it violence and concerns. They adapt after a few decades, no biggie. In Melbourne it has been ever so.
So I would ask you not to give my city, my society and country such a falsely earned reputation.
Melbourne is still regarded, year after year, as one the best cities in the world in which to live. If you do not like it, then please tell me where you would like to live?
You never heard of it? Jesus fucking wept, the actual article you're commenting on talked about it, you dumb fuck. It never ceases to amaze me how people like you proclaim your stupidity and ignorance as a badge of honour.
And learn the difference between its and it's, you ignorant shitpile. It's not that fucking difficult.
No, the wives of the top 10% of men in these societies really *wouldn't* be in the top 10% of their society, what with the forced marriage and marital rape and beatings and brideprice etc etc. This is stupid rhetoric you've used to make a 'ooh look how clever I am' argument.
If I were an epidemiologist, I would indeed be laughing really hard if someone presented me with an argument like that. I'd then ask:
- Why exactly did you think this argument was relevant to my field of study? Your argument has nothing to do with epidemiology. It does shed some fascinating insights into the mindset of the broflake, but it's not an epidemiological argument
- Did you want me to spell out just how shitty your argument is? I'm asking because as a broflake, it might hurt your feelings
We're talking about Sudan,
We're talking about a country where women are utterly powerless have no choice in who they marry and are treated as chattel yet you still found a way of blaming the lack of married men on them. They. Have. No. Say.
I honestly did not believe you were that stupid, so I made the logical assumption that you had changed the topic to your country. Don't worry I won't make that assumption again.
when I was on the market. ;)
Oh goodness you've not gone all MGTOW have you?
SJW n. One who posts facts.
tl;dr: I'm #1, so why try harder?
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
Solution: Mandatory wanking. Twice a day. Under supervision of some dominatrix. With your balls in her... erh...
'scuse me a moment, I have to take care of something.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
In the western world, a rich man can
* marry a young woman ("trophy wife")
* divorce after a dozen years
* marry another trophy wife
* divorce after a dozen years
* marry another trophy wife
He uses up the prime years of three women's lives. The women get dumped in their late 30's. Their reproductive years are over. And they may not want to re-marry, because they lose monthly alimony payments. As far as younger average males are concerned, there are that many fewer marriagable women around.
I'm not repeating myself
I'm an X window user; I'm an ex-Windows user
Not the concept that I was going for. It takes time to solve social issues, time for people to learn to live together. If you got better ideas then fine, let us hear them. But there is no point in trying to turn a molehill problem into a mountainous problem. It is like picking at an injury. Give it a chance to heal. Picking at it will only delay healing.
I can cite a bunch of examples where liberal atheists have run done things that run counter to their espoused ideologies too. "We need to spend more money on public housing just not in my neighborhood", comes up a lot.
People find reasons to justify what they know is bad and or hypocritical behavior. That isn't uniq to Christians or any other group. At least we can say Christianity explicitly teaches you should try not to do that. Of course a lot of people still fail in their attempt or fail to really make the attempt.
Repeal the 17th Amendment TODAY! Also Please Read http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.html
No, the wives of the top 10% of men in these societies really *wouldn't* be in the top 10% of their society, what with the forced marriage and marital rape and beatings and brideprice etc etc. This is stupid rhetoric you've used to make a 'ooh look how clever I am' argument.
A family with an income in the top 10% is counted as part of the top 10%. This should be pretty obvious. Jumping through 15 mental hoops to pretend otherwise is sad, and just goes to show how far people will go to never question their own perspective of the world. And no, it wasn't an "ooh look how clever I am" argument at all, it was just a funny observation on covariates, just like how alcohol drinking correlates with lung cancer yet alcohol doesn't actually increase the risk of lung cancer. If you hadn't been pre-occupied looking for something to get offended by, you probably would have picked that up.
If I were an epidemiologist, I would indeed be laughing really hard if someone presented me with an argument like that. I'd then ask:
- Why exactly did you think this argument was relevant to my field of study? Your argument has nothing to do with epidemiology. It does shed some fascinating insights into the mindset of the broflake, but it's not an epidemiological argument
- Did you want me to spell out just how shitty your argument is? I'm asking because as a broflake, it might hurt your feelings
I think it safe to say now that you would never ever be an epidemiologist, you are far too occupied with your feelings. You'd do great in the social sciences though.
Also, epidemiologists are required to laugh, or at least smile once a year, and I think that would be a challenge for you. That also answers the first question you stated - epidemiologists sometimes want to laugh, and believe it or not, there are more fun things to do than getting offended.
The second question is just strange. You reinforce your emotional approach by calling my argument shitty, as if that would somehow make it incorrect. Then you call me a 'broflake', yet from your response you are clearly the one lacking emotional control. It makes no sense.
Causation is not correlation.
I think you need to work on that one a bit more.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
Oh, you mean the "destabilization" that removed 98% of ISIS' territory out from under them (and dropped their fighters' numbers from a peak of 40k to less than 1k or so) starting when you-know-who took office and stopped micromanaging the whole affair from his desk?
So IOW, that stuff was going to happen anyway, and Obama's strategy was the correct one. That some generals say "we're glad nobody is checking up on us" does not prove that this is what helped us get these wins against ISIS. In fact, that was Obama's doing, by choosing a correct strategy that eventually paid dividends. So that's one for Obama.
Or maybe you meant the fact that Iraq is once again becoming stable after a certain previous president pulled out too early (on a massively flimsy excuse)?
We destabilized Iraq under Bush by forced segregation of communities which were peacefully coexisting for the first time in decades without our influence.
Oh, maybe you meant the massive anti-Wahhabist royal purge/shakeup that recently occurred in Saudi Arabia after the rest of the royalty there realized that they're actually being watched and held accountable by the US,
But they aren't. Remember how the hijackers came from Saudi Arabia? Remember how Trump didn't bother to put Saudi Arabia on any of his no-fly lists, because oil money? The US is not doing the things you imagine.
Perhaps you meant the impending removal of funding and support from Iran... you know, the folks who were busy finding Hezbollah and trying to make nukes in spite of promising on their bestest behavior not to?
How quickly you forget that we created this situation.
Or could it be the fact that most of OPEC finally realized that they're no longer the petrol-soaked king-makers when it comes to geopolitcal affairs, and has to start playing nice with the rest of the planet?
Well, no. No it couldn't. But even if it were, that would have jack to do with Trump, and everything to do with additional sources of oil being exploited, which long predated his presidency.
The time to indulge this half-century-long aberrant behavior by various grudge groups in the ME is over, 'mano. By all appearances, they're realizing it fast and adjusting accordingly (c.f. Dubai)... so I doubt the old rules of analyzing the ME from left-wing eyes will apply for much longer.
Dubai is still one of the foremost abusers of human rights on the planet, and a center for slavery. But that's okay with your kind, I'm sure.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
Oh, I'm aware of the Epigenetics lie.
SJW: a person who perceives an injustice, and while correcting it, commits a greater injustice.
Sexual preference is for predators- who can I rape today.
SJW: a person who perceives an injustice, and while correcting it, commits a greater injustice.
Preference isn't real. It's imaginary. It is no more real than the software I write.
SJW: a person who perceives an injustice, and while correcting it, commits a greater injustice.
More like a bunch of gay whimps tried to rape me. I cut them up good.
SJW: a person who perceives an injustice, and while correcting it, commits a greater injustice.
Right, right, those weren't real mormons.
I'm not pulling a "no true Scottsman". The issue is that a group of Mormons acted without guidance or support from the leadership. So, while some Mormons killed 120 settlers, the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints did not.
Joseph Smith initially claimed to have been visited by the Angel Nephi. "Moroni" was a retcon when the Mormon church realized his early stories were wildly inconsistent. Learn real Mormon history, not the synthetic tripe the church pushes, and you'll see Mormonism for what it really is.
Do not ask a Muslim to accurately portray Catholic history. If you want to learn real Mormon history, go to the source and not our enemies.
Those splinter groups call themselves Mormons. Thus they are Mormons. Look at all the splinter groups of Islam and Christianity. They are still regarded as Islamic or Christian even by each other.
Why do you think your (most populous) splinter of Mormonism is a special case? What gives you a golden ticket?
The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints was the largest group after the Succession Crisis. We won the legal right to continue to use the name of the sect founded by Joseph Smith Jr (yes, there were several lawsuits concerning intellectual and real property, mostly between the Strangites and LdS). The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has a trademark on the term Mormon. The LdS Church wants to distance itself from the splinter groups; in order to do so its media guidelines ask journalists to use the full name of the Church in the first instance and subsequent mentions be the LDS Church (technically LdS would be more correct).
As far as the splintering of Christianity goes, Christianity is a religion, so all the various denominations and sects still are Christian. Groups that split off the Roman Catholic Church (a specific sect) do not call themselves Roman Catholics nor are the recognized as such. Mormonism is a denomination within Christianity. The LDS Church is the largest of about 200 sects within the Mormon denomination.
I do not trust Mormon history from official Mormon sources. Neither should you. âoeI have a hard time with historians... because they idolize the truth. The truth is not uplifting; it destroys. Historians should tell only that part of the truth that is inspiring and uplifting.â - Boyd K Packer, Mormon Apostle
In 1826, Joseph Smith was convicted of "glass-looking" (selling his services as a treasure hunter for which he used the same magic rock he later used to translate the Book of Mormon). In 1837, Joseph Smith was convicted of bank fraud. Why did you make a statement that is patently false? Oh right, to defend the reputation of your "prophet".
Please limit yourself to the truth. I stand corrected that he was wrongfully convicted twice.
Because of contradictory accounts, the validity of the 1826 charges are called into question. Also note that Josiah Stowell refused to testify (it was his nephew which brought up charges) and according to Joseph's testimony, Stowell instigated the search for lost Spanish gold.
The 1837 bank charges are against the Kirtland Safety Society and not Joseph individually. The Kirtland city charter had given permission to print money, but the state later refused to recognize it, leading to the bank fraud charges when the bank failed. As an aside, the bank failed when members failed to repay loans.
Do you believe that polygamy is only temporarily forbidden, that polygamy is common in the afterlife, and that God has multiple wives? If you marry and remarry in the Mormon temple, do you keep both wives in heaven? These are all mainstream Mormon doctrine. Mormons are polygamists at heart.
It's more complicated than that, and more nuanced. Polygamy is strictly forbidden in mortality as of 1890. You may have serial wives (eg. you may remarry after your previous spouse dies or if you get a divorce), but only one wife at a time. It would take a revelation to change this.
The true answer for the afterlife depends on your understanding of the afterlife. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints teaches that there are two realms in the Spirit World (paradise and hell) where we await judgment and the resurrection. We believe that all mankind will be resurrected. Upon judgment, we are sorted into three main kingdoms of glory while an insignificant number of individuals go to "Outer Darkness". LdS believe that families which are "sealed" in the temple are valid after death for all parties which make it into the highest kingdom of glory - the Celestial. Marriages don't exist in Outer Darkness nor the two lower kingdoms of glory (Terrestrial and Telestial).
Is polygamy practiced in the Celestial Kingdom? Yes, but only for those couples sealed in temples. Is it common? Probably not. At any given time, less than 10% of adult males in the LdS Church have practiced polygamy in the tradition sense. Even considering serial wives, many widowers are only sealed to their first wife unless the subsequent wife is not already sealed to a previous spouse. Women can only be sealed to a single husband. On top of that, I ask you a serious question: would it be heaven if you could not be with your family? If a widower gets remarried, do you expect him to choose which wife to have for eternity?
My own wife has threatened to haunt me if I remarry should she die before I do. As a loving husband I wouldn't do anything to make her eternity a hell.
Why don't you read a history book and find out how it worked in practice? You're claiming that Islam is inherently bad, and ignoring the times when it wasn't.
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
We're not talking about self righteous Mormons. Those are the average.
We're talking about _criminal_ Mormons. Those that _directly_ follow Joseph Smith's tradition of grifting the gullible. About 10% of Mormons, but 90% of Mormon bishops.
How did unsubstantiated bull get moderated as "Insightful"?
OId Joe translated several books from 'reformed egyptian' to English that were present in his King James bible old testament.
Strike One! Only the Book of Mormon was purported to have come from records written in Reformed Egyptian. The Book of Moses (found in The Pearl of Great Price) is an extract from the Joseph Smith Translation of the Bible. In all fairness, it's not a translation in the traditional sense, so it's a bit of a misnomer. Joseph called it the Inspired Version. The Book of Abraham (also found in the Pearl of Great Price) was purported to have been translated from some Egyptian papyrus. The original is thought to have been destroyed in the great Chicago Fire.
What was amazing about those translations: They had exactly the same mistakes present in Smith's King James bible, translation mistakes that are understood in the context of the original Hebrew.
The Joseph Smith Translation of the Bible is incomplete. Joseph went through the King James Version and started making "corrections". Joseph was murdered before calling this work complete. The Reorganized Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (RLDS, now called the Community of Christ) retained legal rights to Joseph's manuscripts and published them. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints obtained permission from the RLDS to include portions of the JST in the LDS Edition of the JST. It is impossible to say how many more changes Joseph would have made had his life not been cut short.
How did that happen? It is 'statistical proof' that Smith just copied that part of the 'Book for Mormon'. Which doesn't even get into Smiths use of language from the era of King James (thy, thee etc) to do his 'translations'. He wasn't a particularly good liar.
Another plausible explanation is that the chapters of Isaiah which Nephi and Jacob quoted were already changed by the time Lehi's family left Jerusalem circa 600 BC. The footnotes in the Book of Mormon note that roughly half the verses of Isaiah quoted have different wording than the KJV.
As for the use of thee / thy / ye / etc, remember the Book of Mormon was translated in the late 1820s and published early 1830. This more formal language was common in religious texts and prayers. Mormons still use this archaic language for our prayers, even if our sermons use modern terms. Spelling and grammar were in flux, so subsequent editions standardized spelling and grammar.
Dumb, dumb, dumb, dumb...
You are seriously relying on South Park for Mormon history???
>The Mormons, weird as they are, are not violent.
They were violent, you obviously haven't read up on the Mormon wars.
Perhaps YOU should read up on the Mormon wars. These wars are when outsiders attacked Mormons and the Mormons defended themselves. The Mormons even walked THOUSANDS of miles to Mexico in order to avoid future conflict.
Joseph Smith was advertising himself as being able to scry for buried pirate treasure with a rock he found. Josiah Stowell believed this and hired him. However, whenever Stowell dug to where the treasure was supposed to be, Smith would tell him that an enchantment had caused the treasure to sink deeper. Stowell's son saw this as an obvious con and brought in the authorities, but Stowell believed in Smith and refused to testify. Smith was convicted anyway. At this time in official Mormon history, Smith was getting regular visits from the Angel Moroni and was just about to get the Golden Plates, which he would then translate using that same rock. Something smells really fishy.
God told Smith to form a bank (that bit's usually not mentioned). He and associates formed the Kirtland Safety Society and applied for a state banking permit, but were denied twice. At that point, they said "fuck it", formed the "Anti Banking Company", and fired up the printing presses. Smith then told his flock "It is wisdom and according to the mind of the Holy Spirit, that you should [...] call on us and take stock in our Safety Society." These days he'd be pushing BTC futures on slashdot. He took in his flock's gold and silver and printed far more money than he ever had collateral for. When the bank collapsed and the money in his followers' hands became worthless, he fled to Canada and was convicted in absentia, leaving lots of his followers bankrupt. Mormonism nearly died with the bank, but he managed to keep enough followers to start over when he returned to the US.
These are the kinds of things that the Mormon church tries to hide, as they are inconsistent with the myth that has been built up around Joseph Smith. I've forgotten the point of all this though. Polygamy and Mormon violence, maybe? The Mountain Meadow Massacre? That was likely directly ordered by Brigham Young, though any evidence is long since destroyed, and he absolutely approved of it after the fact, as recorded by the next Mormon prophet, John Taylor.
Mormonism has such an ugly history. The version peddled by the church as "Mormon History" has so many deliberate omissions and distortions of the truth, it's easier to just call it a lie.
In the early days of the Mormon church they were mostly the VICTIMS of violence. They were driven out of Missouri and Illinois by mob violence. And in those early days polygyny may have helped stabilize the society; the people who died in the attacks were mostly men, so there was a shortage of men in Mormon society.
The Mormons largely escaped violence after they moved to Utah, a place where they could be the majority. Eventually the gender ratio of their society returned to normal as new generations of children were born, and the main Mormon church eliminated polygyny. Some splinter groups continued the practice and still do to this day.
I have known polygamous relationships of two women for one man. The women actually liked the situation. Sex is enjoyable for man seven days per week, but not for women.
The women were able to divide the household chores. Cleaning, cooking, making beds, courses in university, time for hobbies. The woman between them decided which of them would sleep with the husband that night.
There were no threesomes.
Leslie Satenstein Montreal Quebec Canada
a common trope among women is believing a man will change. Actually it's not just women. Several of my loser buddies parents pushed them to have kids in the hope it would straighten them out. Yes, people make bad decisions. But that doesn't change the logic underpinning those decisions, and in the case of many, many women it's "Will this man support my kids?". Yes, lots of them answer 'Yes' when any rational person would say 'No', but that doesn't mean they aren't asking the question, or that many of them don't answer in the affirmative, leaving millions of men without wives.
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
Polygny "causes war", but Christian, Islamic, Jewish countries are embroiled in war all the time.
I understand what this article is about. It's one of those articles that show fake concern for a little-reported on country so as to advance a xenophobic image of them as backwards so as to justify in the public aggressive political or military intervention.
"You should never doubt what nobody is sure about." -- Willy Wonka
polygyny leaves the unmarried men at a significant disadvantage
I don't disagree. I will, however, share the perspective of a pair of friends of mine - 2 women who share a man: "We decided to share rather than compete after years of dating and only finding one man worth staying with. The pool of available men who are even worth dating is dismal. We're very happy sharing the one we did find."
Don't try to out wierd me, three-eyes. I get stranger things than you, free with my breakfast cereal. --Zaphod Beeblebr
I've never known any who weren't- on either side of that statement. All feminists are most certainly SJW snowflakes (having abortions turns women into one) and yes, after reading Moira Greyland's recently released biography, I understand the role of pedastery in creating homosexuals much better.
SJW: a person who perceives an injustice, and while correcting it, commits a greater injustice.
I have known polygamous relationships of two women for one man. The women actually liked the situation. Sex is enjoyable for man seven days per week, but not for women. The women were able to divide the household chores. Cleaning, cooking, making beds, courses in university, time for hobbies. The woman between them decided which of them would sleep with the husband that night.
There were no threesomes.
My personal opinion is that just about anything should be legal among consenting adults. The state of Utah rarely prosecutes anyone under the anti-bigamy laws unless the family makes a big deal out of it or flaunts that they are breaking the law (case in point: the family from Sister Wives were on national tv). The state goes against fraud (eg. de fato polygamous wives claiming to be single mothers for government assistance), spousal abuse, or child abuse. Child abuse includes forcing a minor into a marriage. There are programs to help those wishing to leave polygamous relationships.
On the flip side, I believe that sects should be free to teach that certain activities and relationships are against God's will. Abuse and violence against those of different morals should not be tolerated. Saying someone will go to Hell is okay, but defacing their property is not.
I'm sorry to come on so strong. My coffee maker's on the fritz, so I'm really irritable.
Joseph Smith was advertising himself as being able to scry for buried pirate treasure with a rock he found. Josiah Stowell believed this and hired him. However, whenever Stowell dug to where the treasure was supposed to be, Smith would tell him that an enchantment had caused the treasure to sink deeper. Stowell's son saw this as an obvious con and brought in the authorities, but Stowell believed in Smith and refused to testify. Smith was convicted anyway.
Actually it was Stowell's nephew who brought up the charges, not his son. I'm unable to find any source for Joseph advertising his services to find pirate gold except on well-known anti-mormon sites. I distinguish between critic and anti-mormon. Joseph was in Canada preaching, not trying to escape the arm of the law (there were other times he fled).
At this time in official Mormon history, Smith was getting regular visits from the Angel Moroni and was just about to get the Golden Plates, which he would then translate using that same rock. Something smells really fishy.
God told Smith to form a bank (that bit's usually not mentioned). He and associates formed the Kirtland Safety Society and applied for a state banking permit, but were denied twice. At that point, they said "fuck it", formed the "Anti Banking Company", and fired up the printing presses. Smith then told his flock "It is wisdom and according to the mind of the Holy Spirit, that you should [...] call on us and take stock in our Safety Society." These days he'd be pushing BTC futures on slashdot. He took in his flock's gold and silver and printed far more money than he ever had collateral for. When the bank collapsed and the money in his followers' hands became worthless, he fled to Canada and was convicted in absentia, leaving lots of his followers bankrupt. Mormonism nearly died with the bank, but he managed to keep enough followers to start over when he returned to the US.
These are the kinds of things that the Mormon church tries to hide, as they are inconsistent with the myth that has been built up around Joseph Smith. I've forgotten the point of all this though. Polygamy and Mormon violence, maybe? The Mountain Meadow Massacre? That was likely directly ordered by Brigham Young, though any evidence is long since destroyed, and he absolutely approved of it after the fact, as recorded by the next Mormon prophet, John Taylor.
Mormonism has such an ugly history. The version peddled by the church as "Mormon History" has so many deliberate omissions and distortions of the truth, it's easier to just call it a lie.
The Bank's problem was that it was too trusting of people to pay back loans they took out.
Brigham most definitely did not order the Mountain Meadows Massacre. It was orchestrated by the stake president (Isaac Haight). Haight claimed to have received a letter from Brigham ordering the killing of every man, woman, and child, but the real rider from Brigham arrived the day after the massacre. The rider's letter (with Brigham's seal) said to let the settlers pass in peace, but not to trade with them (Utah Territory was in a state of martial law in preparation of the approaching army; thus all supplies were to be kept for Mormons to survi
You just confirmed you are ignorant. Bye, bye
Perhaps “advertised” is the wrong word. Still, his neighbors described his magical treasure-hunting (and the treasure people searched for at that time and place was pirate treasure. Aargh).
The loans were no problem. The Bank printed the banknotes to be lent. It failed when people tried to redeem those for gold/silver the Bank didn’t really have.
Given the near-absolute control Young had over the territory, it’s hard to believe that his followers would dare undertake the massacre without permission, especially with the US Army marching towards Salt Lake City. The Mormon Reformation had just reinforced the important of obeying Young, and blood atonement was the doctrine du jour. Mormons were also making their secret oath of vengeance. Add in Young’s actions and remarks when he visited the site, and it seems clear that he ordered the massacre. Still, we'll never be completely sure.
Do you really believe they killed John D Lee?
1. You didn't answer the question. Why is your splinter group (splinter of mormonism or splinter of religion) a special case? Why do you get to decide and no one else? Because you are the "one true religion"? (Semantic equivalent of 'god's own wanker')
2.
The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has a trademark on the term Mormon
I am not sure how to explain this to you but you are up your exceptionalism if you think that makes a difference. You (may) have trademarked a word, a combination of letters but that is all. It is not as you think. Bill Gates tried to trademark the word 'windows' (and failed because of common usage). Copyrighting a word does not make it a religion it cannot do so because of separation of church and state. The state can allow you exclusive use of that term for trade - that is all. Nota Bene: It is a trademark. If you are going to use this as an indication of strength of your argument then you have to accept (or propose) that the LdS is a trading organisation and not a religion.
3.
Groups that split off the Roman Catholic Church (a specific sect) do not call themselves Roman Catholics nor are the recognized as such
You know this is false don't you? Some do and some don't. Fuck it, there is more than one Catholic Pope. If you do not know it then fucking go learn. It is not my responsibility to educate you.
4. You are even more retrograde than Muslims asre in both Quran and hadiths it states that no muslim may say another is not one. Followers of Allah may not set rules for other muslims as to whether they can be called muslim or not. That is one reason ISIS is in such shit with many other muslims.
You clearly believe in you religion but is at the cost of rationality and reality.
Perhaps you're just too damn sensitive?
42.
You're in deep trouble. Not only have you passed a non-return valve in your legal status, but you've also, by your statement that " I'm probably less religious now that I was when I was technically Christian," laid yourself open to charges of apostasy and thereby capital charges in around a dozen countries in the world. Be very careful about your travel arrangements, including possible diversion routes (I nearly got re-routed through a lethal country a few years ago when my scheduled plane got struck by lightning and had to do an emergency landing in a 4th country. First option out would have put me with a 6-hour stop over in a lethal country. I took the option of an extra 18 hours in the departure lounge and a direct flight to Europe.)
By making a statement like that in a public forum, you've provided an excuse for lunatic co-religionist who wants to kill you for undermining his (almost always) faith in his interpretation of your shared religion. That includes in your home country.
Birds are not dinosaur descendants;birds are dinosaurs, for all useful meanings of "birds", "are" and "dinosaurs"
By the time the men come back after spending their 20s in a basic barracks in a foreign country with a half-day off per fortnight and not speaking the local language, they're thirty-something and much less likely to cause trouble at home. Plus, the Mother Country has a huge amount of influence in a resource-rich country and the roads/ railways/ ports needed to export those resources.
It's an old strategy. In Europe we used to call it "Empire Building", and later "colonisation". Outside the Philipenes, Banana-vile, Puerto Rico and Hawaii, I'm not sure Americans have mastered it. Certainly, the Chinese are beating the Americans at this game hands-down for the last couple of decades.
Birds are not dinosaur descendants;birds are dinosaurs, for all useful meanings of "birds", "are" and "dinosaurs"
Excess males without a mate are prone to antisocial behavior such as crime and violence. When they congregate in groups they tend to organize, form paramilitary groups or join the military or engage in revolution or terrorism. See https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/p... 94% of unmarried males in China are poor and uneducated because they are the least desirable partners. They are more likely to be susceptible to demagogues or nationalists. Sex ratio imbalance in the other direction is also a problem. A shortage of men results in fewer committed relationships, more single parent households headed by women. Men in these situations tend to be underemployed because they have less reason to work and are often supported by women... because they can. Even small imbalances can have these effects; a sex ratio imbalance of 110 in a population of 100 million will result in 10 million people without a mate.
Actually, I'm quite well studied- but I don't believe that people using appeals to authority and circle jerks of confirmation bias are doing science.
SJW: a person who perceives an injustice, and while correcting it, commits a greater injustice.
Liar.
Name a non-Mormon sect that believes men can have multiple wives in heaven, while women are limited to one husband.
Name a non-Mormon sect that believes God is a polygamist.
Then stop doing it.
Mormons now, no. Except some offshoots not recognized by the LDS church. A cynical person not of their faith might conclude the change in their theology was politically motivated, rather than divinely inspired.
Apparently Vikings were polygamous, too. Not just a "Muslim thing" or an "Arab thing" or a "brown people thing".
And they were not especially nice, either, it seems. Having a lot of young men without women tends to be unconducive to niceness, no matter where it happens, or to whom.
Go figure.
There's no time like the present. Well, the past used to be.
Long ago did, which is why I don't believe in the Epigenetics lie, which is not real science.
SJW: a person who perceives an injustice, and while correcting it, commits a greater injustice.
1. You didn't answer the question. Why is your splinter group (splinter of mormonism or splinter of religion) a special case? Why do you get to decide and no one else? Because you are the "one true religion"? (Semantic equivalent of 'god's own wanker')
The original group gets to define the term, no? By applying the term "Mormon" to all splinter groups it causes confusion and damages The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. How many times have I seen a newspaper heading about a "Mormon bishop" or "Mormon prophet" doing something horrendous, only to find in the middle of the article it was the FLDS or some other splinter group? If 85-90% of the population equates "Mormon" with the sect with its headquarters in SLC, then the LdS Church needs to fight incorrect / misleading use of the word Mormon.
2.
The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has a trademark on the term Mormon
I am not sure how to explain this to you but you are up your exceptionalism if you think that makes a difference. You (may) have trademarked a word, a combination of letters but that is all. It is not as you think. Bill Gates tried to trademark the word 'windows' (and failed because of common usage). Copyrighting a word does not make it a religion it cannot do so because of separation of church and state. The state can allow you exclusive use of that term for trade - that is all. Nota Bene: It is a trademark. If you are going to use this as an indication of strength of your argument then you have to accept (or propose) that the LdS is a trading organisation and not a religion.
Can't it be both? The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is comprised of many legal entities, some of which are for profit. Some of the entities are Intellectual Reserves, Inc (IRI); Corporation of the Presiding Bishopric of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints; Corporation of the President of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints; Deseret Media, Inc; Deseret Books; etc. The LdS Church does publish the LDS Edition of the King James Version of the Bible, The Book of Mormon, The Pearl of Great Price, Doctrine and Covenants, and various manuals. The LdS Church has a financial interest in the term "Mormon" as it pertains to religion or religious organizations (Note: the state can decide which religions / sects it recognizes).
3.
Groups that split off the Roman Catholic Church (a specific sect) do not call themselves Roman Catholics nor are the recognized as such
You know this is false don't you? Some do and some don't. Fuck it, there is more than one Catholic Pope. If you do not know it then fucking go learn. It is not my responsibility to educate you.
4. You are even more retrograde than Muslims asre in both Quran and hadiths it states that no muslim may say another is not one. Followers of Allah may not set rules for other muslims as to whether they can be called muslim or not. That is one reason ISIS is in such shit with many other muslims.
You clearly believe in you religion but is at the cost of rationality and reality.
I am only aware of a single active Roman Catholic Pope (Benedict XVI is an emeritus pope). I am aware of the anti-popes of the past, as well as other Catholic sects (such as the Palmarian Catholic Church) which have their own Pope. Islam is a religion and not a denomination or sect (Sunni, Shia, Kharijites, etc).
Technically speaking, a Mormon could be anyone who accepts the Book of Mormon as Scripture, but this isn't even true of all groups which split from the LdS Church. Mormon could also be applied to the Mormon denomination, but this causes confusion as most of the general population isn't aware of the hundreds of sects. Shoot, there is even a sect which calls itself The Church Of Jesus Christ Of Latter Day Saints which has nothing to do with the LdS Church except claiming to be the legitimate successor to the sect founded by Joseph Smith Jr.
For what it's worth, you should be able to express your thoughts without reverting to gratuitous profanity.
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
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.
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.
Given the near-absolute control Young had over the territory, it’s hard to believe that his followers would dare undertake the massacre without permission, especially with the US Army marching towards Salt Lake City. The Mormon Reformation had just reinforced the important of obeying Young, and blood atonement was the doctrine du jour. Mormons were also making their secret oath of vengeance. Add in Young’s actions and remarks when he visited the site, and it seems clear that he ordered the massacre. Still, we'll never be completely sure.
Another person who believes in the misinformation about Blood Atonement? Argh! Boiled down, Blood Atonement is the belief that certain sins (such as murder) are so severe that a person cannot fully repent of them during this life; the person will have to be purged in Spirit Prison before being allowed into Paradise. This belief is the basis for Mormon acceptance of capital punishment. No one was killed against their will under the guise of Blood Atonement (such an act would go against the principle of Blood Atonement).
Look at the size of Deseret; it included parts of Oregon, California, Nevada, Arizona, New Mexico, Utah, Wyoming, Colorado, and Idaho. I highly doubt Brigham Young was aware of all activities within the territory. Additionally, as I mentioned, the stake president (Haight) claimed to have a letter from Brigham Young commanding the bishops to kill every man, woman, and child. The bishops and those under them thought they were acting under the command of the Prophet (who also happened to be the territorial governor).
Do you really believe they killed John D Lee?
John D Lee was arrested in 1874. His first trial resulted in a hung jury when prosecutors tried to paint Brigham Young as mastermind. The federal prosecutor threatened Young that they would go after the Church if the same happened in the next trial. This second trial (1877) put all the blame on Lee and he was executed by firing squad at Mountain Meadows on 23 March 1877.
John D Lee did not fire a single shot during the siege and massacre. Local natives kidnapped John's adopted son Laman (an Indian) and threatened to kill him if John was not present during the attack.
Regarding sources: Mormonism Unveiled; Or The Life and Confessions of the Late Mormon Bishop, John D Lee (Written by Himself) was written by his attorney, not by John D Lee. Lee could not afford the attorney, so the attorney wrote the book for financial gain. D. Michael Quinn was excommunicated from the LdS Church in September 1993 after years of conflict.
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".
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.
I see we will never agree on this point of the conversation, so I won't respond further.
Oh, wow. Then what is het waddle in the rest of your post? Something to accept without response? You just told yourself a lie. (Saying I am not going to respond further and then you respond). Supposedly I am no longer to do so. Obscene principals at work here. Do you expect me to be impressed by your holiness? You are just dishonest. Your morals are a clear fail.
Your statements about trademarks is reasonably accurate this time. Except the fair use bit. The church can call itself Mormon but so can anyone else and the church cannot sue for it. It is not a trademark.
"Fuck" gets you an 'R' rating in a movie? That alone? I doubt you can find anyone in the civilised world who believes or accepts that. In Iran, or parts of Asia maybe. Cite me the regulations where that is true because I believe you are just lying again. If it is the case in all or parts of the USA then you should be thoroughly ashamed.
And liars are not part of polite society. They do not understand what it means. You fail to see that you can never, ever be part of polite society as long as you are peddling lies. Just like Hubbard FWTIW. You show an excellent example when you say you will not respond because we will never agree. I wouldn't say never, but not until your morals improve and you raise you are no more special (or right) than anyone else. There is a reason why you "don't discuss politics or religion at the dinner table", as no cilvil discourse or polite society can arise. Either or both sides will be lying through their teeth.
Why do you think that you can set the limits of 'polite society'? Research has shown that people who use profanity tend to be more honest than those that don't. I am not going to cite because it was all over the news just recently. You might also note that I don' use profanity all that much, just to reinforce things (and partly, I admit, to see how you would react. You reacted by focussing on the words not their meaning. You are just not self-honest and cannot be honest to others. The only reason that profanity can impair a situation is when one side won't listen to it (and then dismiss the argument).
The act of marrying all these women is the problem.
The better solution is just to have a harem. Don't have all the legal entanglements, and you can push them out the door easily if they misbehave.
Lots of benefits, IMO, to having multiple "girlfriends" or whatever you want to call them.
I see we will never agree on this point of the conversation, so I won't respond further.
Oh, wow. Then what is het waddle in the rest of your post? Something to accept without response? You just told yourself a lie. (Saying I am not going to respond further and then you respond). Supposedly I am no longer to do so. Obscene principals at work here. Do you expect me to be impressed by your holiness? You are just dishonest. Your morals are a clear fail.
Can you honestly not see that my comment only applied to one point of the conversation (eg. whether the original group gets to define the term it uses for itself) and not to the whole conversation?
Your statements about trademarks is reasonably accurate this time. Except the fair use bit. The church can call itself Mormon but so can anyone else and the church cannot sue for it. It is not a trademark.
I quoted a swath from the Church's own statement on trademark and servicemarks. Intellectual Reserves, Inc (IRI), does have a trademark on the term Mormon and has filed lawsuits to enforce the trademark. One such lawsuit was against "Mormon Match" (a dating service) in 2013. Can the Church of Latter-Day Saints Trademark the Word 'Mormon'?
"Fuck" gets you an 'R' rating in a movie? That alone? I doubt you can find anyone in the civilised world who believes or accepts that. In Iran, or parts of Asia maybe. Cite me the regulations where that is true because I believe you are just lying again. If it is the case in all or parts of the USA then you should be thoroughly ashamed.
Please read the Ratings Rules of the MPAA. It used to be (eg. 1990s or earlier) that a single F-bomb was all it took for a movie to carry an R rating. Currently, a single F-bomb could be PG-13 depending on other criteria, but 2 F-bombs force an R-rating or NC-17.
And liars are not part of polite society. They do not understand what it means. You fail to see that you can never, ever be part of polite society as long as you are peddling lies.
But I don't peddle in lies. One question on the temple recommend interview is of I'm honest in all my dealings.
Just like Hubbard FWTIW. You show an excellent example when you say you will not respond because we will never agree.
When neither side is likely to change their viewpoint, what's the point in repeating the same arguments ad nauseum? Rather than waste each other's time on that one point, let's agree to disagree.
I wouldn't say never, but not until your morals improve and you raise you are no more special (or right) than anyone else. There is a reason why you "don't discuss politics or religion at the dinner table", as no cilvil discourse or polite society can arise. Either or both sides will be lying through their teeth.
You don't discuss religion in polite society because a certain amount of faith is required. There is no repeatable empirical evidence to scientifically prove who is correct.
Why do you think that you can set the limits of 'polite society'? Research has shown that people who use profanity tend to be more honest than those that don't. I am not going to cite because it was all over the news just recently. You might also note that I don' use profanity all that much, just to reinforce things (and partly, I admit, to see how you would react. You reacted by focussing on the words not their meaning. You are just not self-honest and cannot be honest to others. The only reason that profanity can impair a situation is when one side won't listen to it (and then dismiss the argument).
I addressed all your initial points and included an aside on your potty mouth; you turne
Look, that you acknowledge that you think you are special and that special rules apply to you (Mormons) and only you puts you in a class of people that are a danger to society. As long as you believe you are better than other people you are a risk, a menace. If you believe you are better than non-Mormons and willing to think and act in that manner you should be excluded from the society that you scorn so much. You are in fact evil.
Thank you for acknowledging I am correct. The Mormon church does not have a trademark on 'Mormon and cannot unless it is a commercial, trading, company. If the church 'trades' it is no longer a religion and not a church.
Think you for acknowledging you are incorrect. Your claim was false. It is good that you admit that. I may be old but I do not live in the 90's. Admit you actually lied when you claimed otherwise. You provided the evidence to prove you did, and you claim you don't peddle in lies. You do. Most of what you say is lies, but bound up in your corner with like liars you can't see that. You tell yourself the most lies of all. You just do no recognise your lies as lies even when your posts contradict yourself.
Here is an example of your lies. You said that I admitted I used 'vulgarities' to get a rise out of people. I did not do so, I never said that ay all. I said I did it to see how you reacted. That was what I said (you can read it again) and you lied about what I said. Here and in black and white. Get that through your head, you lied, right here in this discussion. Whatever you consider yourself to be you are demonstrably a liar. Mind you so is everyone else on the planet.
In your last paragraph you use ad hominem to falsely denigrate me and try to invalidate my argument. Logic does not work that way. So, you are not even capable of logical argument. Why would you bring my mother into this if you had a case? My, mother, BTW was born nearly a century ago and lived through the Nazi occupation of Germany (something few people think about). I have never worried about swearing in front of my mother. She was fluent in several languages. And you know nothing about sex. Sometimes it is one thing and at other times another. Sometimes you want one thing and sometimes another. You want to explain about holes in sheets and magic underwear? I am getting sex advice from a Mormon? Are you serious? "Understand and meet your partner's needs instead of always taking" Is this what I do? How do you know? Are you trying to claim I am a dud shag? How would you know? Why would you even think it?
You are actually a nasty piece of work, aren't you? Look at what you said and tell me it comes from christian attitudes. That's why I am not a believer. I never found a god (or his followers) that even attempted to live up to my moral and ethical standards. Your gods are not good enough and nor are you.
YOU went ad hominem so I followed suit.
Look, that you acknowledge that you think you are special and that special rules apply to you (Mormons) and only you puts you in a class of people that are a danger to society. As long as you believe you are better than other people you are a risk, a menace. If you believe you are better than non-Mormons and willing to think and act in that manner you should be excluded from the society that you scorn so much. You are in fact evil.
You are putting words into my mouth. At what point did I say that special rules apply to Mormons?
Thank you for acknowledging I am correct. The Mormon church does not have a trademark on 'Mormon and cannot unless it is a commercial, trading, company. If the church 'trades' it is no longer a religion and not a church.
Intellectual Reserves, Inc, is a commercial entity owned by The Corporation of the First Presidency of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints which is owned by the LdS Church. IOW, the LdS Church does own a trademark albeit indirectly. Even the Church's document I quoted earlier says that it's IRI or the Corporation of the President which owns the trademarks and / or service marks. Please be honest in your attacks.
Think you for acknowledging you are incorrect. Your claim was false. It is good that you admit that. I may be old but I do not live in the 90's. Admit you actually lied when you claimed otherwise. You provided the evidence to prove you did, and you claim you don't peddle in lies. You do. Most of what you say is lies, but bound up in your corner with like liars you can't see that. You tell yourself the most lies of all. You just do no recognise your lies as lies even when your posts contradict yourself.
Please keep a bit of context in your replies. I assume this paragraph is in regards to the MPAA ratings? I did not lie about the ratings. I said A single occurrence used to be enough to force an "R" rating for a movie. My later reply clarified as to when "used to be enough" was and what the current rules are.
Here is an example of your lies. You said that I admitted I used 'vulgarities' to get a rise out of people. I did not do so, I never said that ay all. I said I did it to see how you reacted. That was what I said (you can read it again) and you lied about what I said. Here and in black and white. Get that through your head, you lied, right here in this discussion. Whatever you consider yourself to be you are demonstrably a liar. Mind you so is everyone else on the planet.
Are you aware of the difference between quoting and paraphrasing? My paraphrasing was in the spirit of what you wrote. You used profanity (profane is a synonym of vulgar) to ruffle my feathers. Your last two sentences condemn you as a demonstrable liar.
In your last paragraph you use ad hominem to falsely denigrate me and try to invalidate my argument. Logic does not work that way. So, you are not even capable of logical argument. Why would you bring my mother into this if you had a case? My, mother, BTW was born nearly a century ago and lived through the Nazi occupation of Germany (something few people think about). I have never worried about swearing in front of my mother. She was fluent in several languages. And you know nothing about sex. Sometimes it is one thing and at other times another. Sometimes you want one thing and sometimes another. You want to explain about holes in sheets and magic underwear? I am getting sex advice from a Mormon? Are you serious? "Understand and meet your partner's needs instead of always taking" Is this what I do? How do you know? Are you trying to claim I am a dud shag? How would you know? Why would you even think it?
Go back and get some context! You accused me of "focusing on words and not their meaning". The word in question was the F-bomb, so I point
I already have and came to the conclusion that Islam has and will continue to be bad for the foreseeable future.
Here's hoping you don't find your wife and daughter gangraped because they god forbid decided to go outside with your protection!