I've found that in the US people don't know there's a difference. It wasn't until my wife came back from a trip to Maine with actual maple syrup that I realized I had been eating maple flavored corn syrup. At my grocer, 100% pure maple syrup is 5-10 times as expensive, but worth every penny.
My family was poor when I was growing up. We didn't use store-bought syrup; we made our own! 3 cups white sugar, 1 cup brown sugar, 2 cups water, 2 tsp Mapeline, and 1 tsp vanilla (boil sugars and water, remove from heat and stir in flavorings). I dislike the fake stuff they sell in stores. I buy dark amber maple syrup from Costco.
Sugarcane is more efficient than corn, but the US doesn't have much land suitable for growing sugarcane that can't be more profitable with another use. I'm talking as someone who grew up in Hawaii.
Yeah, if you're giving it to someone else to use. You can't contaminate yourself with germs you expel from your own body. It's your hands you want to wash.
The point is that if you have germs on your hands (even if it's your own germs), you will pass them on - touching door handles, faucet handles, shaking hands, etc. You obviously do want to wash your hands soon.
When I was a missionary in Brazil, it was a mission rule to carry trial size containers of hand sanitizer.
This is doubly useful because it also keeps effluvia off your mitts. Not nice if you are wearing short sleeves, though. Personally I use a big bandanna when I can. These come in handy for lots of stuff, including sneezes, but especially to dry my hands in places that lack towels. Also... Along the same lines... Hard honking nose blows can be counter productive -- albeit satisfying. The best method is to gently blow one nostril at a time while sealing the other. Hard blows actually send material deeper into the sinus cavity as well as out. IANAD, but I dated any number of nurses -- back in the day.
Best not to dry your hands with a bandanna which was previously used to contain a sneeze (unless it's been washed since, of course); it just transfers the germs to your hands - which was the whole point of using a bandanna in the first place!
There are lots of other places in the world that do what ThosLives suggests. One approach is to take all the votes, then setup representation that is proportional to the votes. Suppose a state with 10 representatives that gets 60% dems and 30% repubs and 10% green. You will have 6 democrats 3 republicans and 1 green. Then you need a way to pick individual representatives out of the pool. The trade-off is you get less accurate local representation, but it is immunte from gerrymandering and increases the likelihood of multiple parties sharing power. That last one is real big in many European nations. (And many of those nations are similar in size to US states, so it can work on that kind of scale.)
I vote for the candidate and not the party. I'm conservative, but not affiliated with the Republican Party. Most of the time I do vote Republican, but the candidate matters more than party. For example, I wouldn't vote for someone with credible complaints of sexual harassment unless the other candidate is probably guilty of a worse offense.
trying to do some crappy workaround with arrows on each edge of the map where you click an arrow and the entire page refreshes with the map moved that direction is a stupid way to avoid Javascript.
Some anti-JavaScript hardliners here and on SoylentNews have stated that they actually prefer what you call "a stupid way to avoid Javascript." Or they would prefer to download, audit, compile, and install a native map viewer application distributed in source code form.
I've been creating web sites since the 1990s. I still believe that a site should "work" with JavaScript disabled. I like the idea of using AJAX type technologies to just refresh a small portion of the page (eg. scroll or zoom the map), but if JavaScript is disabled clicking on the buttons should cause the whole page to load with the desired adjustment applied.
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 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
Let me get this straight. If your missus kicked the bucket tomorrow you would not screw/marry or anyway get another woman because you do not want to spoil you wife's afterlife after hear demise? No pussy after your wife dies??!!
You really believe that crap?
The LdS Church teaches that all sex outside the bonds of marriage is sinful. I will not have sexual relations with anyone who is not my wife. As to your specific inquiry, that's kind of personal between my wife and myself. If my wife passes, I will have to assess the situation (including how old our sons are) at that point and do what's best for my family. I was a virgin when I got married. I can control my animal instincts, can't you? My mortal experience will probably last less than 100 years (my grandmother passed at 97 from pneumonia); eternity has no end. Would you want to spend forever with a woman who's mad at you?
No, they do not or there would not be varieties of Christianity, Islam or Judaism. You have no reason or right to claim an exception. The fact that you do not understand this and want special treatment is because you believe you are special and better. You are not
I see we will never agree on this point of the conversation, so I won't respond further.
Can't it be both?
The profit making parts of it are subject to taxes. Because they trade they are allowed trademarks. Two companies may not use the same trademark or they lose it for non-enforcement. The church does not trade (or it is not a church) and is freed from taxes but it is not allowed trademarks.
You are correct that the for-profit entities owned by the LdS Church do pay taxes as required by law. I don't see how your comment adds anything new to the conversation. It is a for-profit entity (Intellectual Reserve Inc) which has the trademark on the term "Mormon".
As noted above, Mormon and LDS are Church trademarks. However, some uses of Mormon and LDS may qualify as "fair use" and, as such, do not require Church permission. Although "fair use" of a trademark is determined on a case-by-case basis, the guideline below may help you determine whether a particular use you intend to make is a "fair use."
Permission is not required when Mormon and LDS are used to simply refer to an official Church product or program that is known by that name, such as Mormon Tabernacle Choir or LDS Family Services. Similarly, you do not need permission to use Mormon or LDS when referring to Church members, as in the following examples:
I am Mormon
They are an LDS family.
However, you may not use Mormon or LDS (or other Church trademarks) in a manner that suggests or implies that you or your product or service is endorced by or affiliated with the Church or its leaders. Thus, the terms Mormon and LDS (or any other Church trademarks) should not be used in the name of an organization, product, or service that is not officially sponsored or endorsed by the Church. Such use can confuse others by giving the false impression of Church sponsorship or endorsement. For example, the following would not be appropriate uses of Mormon or LDS unless the Church gives you explicit written permission:
Mormon Savings — as the name of a financial institution or program
LDS Shopping Netwrk — as the name of an association of merchants
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.
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.
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.
I'm sorry to come on so strong. My coffee maker's on the fritz, so I'm really irritable.
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
Why? There is proof that that God doesn't exist, so being an atheist is not incongruent with this approach. There may be some other force, but God as described in the Bible clearly does not exist.
What proof is there that God doesn't exist? I can reasonably accept that someone says there's not evidence of God's existence, but proof of non-existence? I've had personal experiences which are sufficient to convince me that God does exist, but such evidence does not qualify as empirical so it may not apply to others.
Please stop being that guy who always has to explain what UFO means.
Yes, it can mean any unidentified flying object.
But it also specifically means non-terrestrial alien-made spacecraft. Even after one were fully identified, or it stopped flying e.g. by landing, people would still call it a UFO.
This is called a "homonym". Look it up. Then learn to see from context which definition is being discussed. Playing Miss Smartypants by purposefully confusing homonyms brings nothing useful to a discussion.
Once identified it's no longer a UFO; it would be an extraterrestrial craft. The general populous can't distinguish UFO from flying saucer, but the difference exists.
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.
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???
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"?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Slashdot Mirror
I've found that in the US people don't know there's a difference. It wasn't until my wife came back from a trip to Maine with actual maple syrup that I realized I had been eating maple flavored corn syrup. At my grocer, 100% pure maple syrup is 5-10 times as expensive, but worth every penny.
My family was poor when I was growing up. We didn't use store-bought syrup; we made our own! 3 cups white sugar, 1 cup brown sugar, 2 cups water, 2 tsp Mapeline, and 1 tsp vanilla (boil sugars and water, remove from heat and stir in flavorings). I dislike the fake stuff they sell in stores. I buy dark amber maple syrup from Costco.
Sugarcane, see Brazil
Sugarcane is more efficient than corn, but the US doesn't have much land suitable for growing sugarcane that can't be more profitable with another use. I'm talking as someone who grew up in Hawaii.
Yeah, if you're giving it to someone else to use. You can't contaminate yourself with germs you expel from your own body. It's your hands you want to wash.
The point is that if you have germs on your hands (even if it's your own germs), you will pass them on - touching door handles, faucet handles, shaking hands, etc. You obviously do want to wash your hands soon.
When I was a missionary in Brazil, it was a mission rule to carry trial size containers of hand sanitizer.
This is doubly useful because it also keeps effluvia off your mitts. Not nice if you are wearing short sleeves, though. Personally I use a big bandanna when I can. These come in handy for lots of stuff, including sneezes, but especially to dry my hands in places that lack towels. Also... Along the same lines... Hard honking nose blows can be counter productive -- albeit satisfying. The best method is to gently blow one nostril at a time while sealing the other. Hard blows actually send material deeper into the sinus cavity as well as out. IANAD, but I dated any number of nurses -- back in the day.
Best not to dry your hands with a bandanna which was previously used to contain a sneeze (unless it's been washed since, of course); it just transfers the germs to your hands - which was the whole point of using a bandanna in the first place!
There are lots of other places in the world that do what ThosLives suggests. One approach is to take all the votes, then setup representation that is proportional to the votes. Suppose a state with 10 representatives that gets 60% dems and 30% repubs and 10% green. You will have 6 democrats 3 republicans and 1 green. Then you need a way to pick individual representatives out of the pool. The trade-off is you get less accurate local representation, but it is immunte from gerrymandering and increases the likelihood of multiple parties sharing power. That last one is real big in many European nations. (And many of those nations are similar in size to US states, so it can work on that kind of scale.)
I vote for the candidate and not the party. I'm conservative, but not affiliated with the Republican Party. Most of the time I do vote Republican, but the candidate matters more than party. For example, I wouldn't vote for someone with credible complaints of sexual harassment unless the other candidate is probably guilty of a worse offense.
trying to do some crappy workaround with arrows on each edge of the map where you click an arrow and the entire page refreshes with the map moved that direction is a stupid way to avoid Javascript.
Some anti-JavaScript hardliners here and on SoylentNews have stated that they actually prefer what you call "a stupid way to avoid Javascript." Or they would prefer to download, audit, compile, and install a native map viewer application distributed in source code form.
I've been creating web sites since the 1990s. I still believe that a site should "work" with JavaScript disabled. I like the idea of using AJAX type technologies to just refresh a small portion of the page (eg. scroll or zoom the map), but if JavaScript is disabled clicking on the buttons should cause the whole page to load with the desired adjustment applied.
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 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
Let me get this straight. If your missus kicked the bucket tomorrow you would not screw/marry or anyway get another woman because you do not want to spoil you wife's afterlife after hear demise? No pussy after your wife dies??!!
You really believe that crap?
The LdS Church teaches that all sex outside the bonds of marriage is sinful. I will not have sexual relations with anyone who is not my wife. As to your specific inquiry, that's kind of personal between my wife and myself. If my wife passes, I will have to assess the situation (including how old our sons are) at that point and do what's best for my family. I was a virgin when I got married. I can control my animal instincts, can't you? My mortal experience will probably last less than 100 years (my grandmother passed at 97 from pneumonia); eternity has no end. Would you want to spend forever with a woman who's mad at you?
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
Why? There is proof that that God doesn't exist, so being an atheist is not incongruent with this approach. There may be some other force, but God as described in the Bible clearly does not exist.
What proof is there that God doesn't exist? I can reasonably accept that someone says there's not evidence of God's existence, but proof of non-existence? I've had personal experiences which are sufficient to convince me that God does exist, but such evidence does not qualify as empirical so it may not apply to others.
Please stop being that guy who always has to explain what UFO means.
Yes, it can mean any unidentified flying object.
But it also specifically means non-terrestrial alien-made spacecraft. Even after one were fully identified, or it stopped flying e.g. by landing, people would still call it a UFO.
This is called a "homonym". Look it up. Then learn to see from context which definition is being discussed. Playing Miss Smartypants by purposefully confusing homonyms brings nothing useful to a discussion.
Once identified it's no longer a UFO; it would be an extraterrestrial craft. The general populous can't distinguish UFO from flying saucer, but the difference exists.
>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.
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???
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"?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.