NationStates Jolt Archive

First of all, that piece of info isn't in the Book of Mormon, so whatever source your'e parroting needs some work.

Second, when we say they're brothers it because God created Satan, He created Jesus, He created you, He created me. That makes us all siblings.
I think that point boils down to semantics, then. You see, I believe that
sibling literally means a biological brother or sister.

Or are you suggesting there's something/someone that God did NOT create?
Yes. Himself.

To repeat:

There was one, and only one Jesus the Christ, Son of the Living God who died on the cross for the sins of humanity. One either follows Him and takes upon oneself His name, or they do not.


I never denied that.
It's not for you to decide whether I am a Christian. That's between me and my Father in Heaven. You don't get to make that call.
Listen, call yourself whatever you want. I'll still disagree with you, but that won't stop you from calling yourselves Christians.

Trinitarians don't think Jesus is God.

See? There are still Christian beliefs that do not require the divinity of Christ.

http://cat.xula.edu/mark/low.htm



No current denominations, but certainly some ancient sects.

oh good. that way i dont have to look them up or diss some poor guy with such a belief.

ut o, its starting to rain, i gotta leave home before im soaked in. bye all.

nah. The quakers believe in that one and they are pretty non-mean mostly, pacifists even.

I think it's a jerky people believe they have the right to be jerky thing.

And Amish. Don't forget the Amish.

See? There are still Christian beliefs that do not require the divinity of Christ.

Trinitarians do believe in the divinty of Jesus Christ. Trinitarians make up like 95% of Chrisitanity.

Trinitarians do believe in the divinty of Jesus Christ. Trinitarians make up like 95% of Chrisitanity.

Then they believe that, in some way, Jesus Christ is God. That is what it means to be divine. I've just looked up Trinitarians (which is its own denomination from what I can tell, and nowhere near 95% of Christianity). They seem to believe that Christ is God's wisdom (going with the beginning of John) - a part of God, as it were.

Being a part of God would make the view heretical according to Catholic doctrine, but still leave Jesus to essentially be God.

Edit: Of course, this is getting rather off-topic, I suppose. Suffice it to say that the history of the church - particularly the early history - is really interesting, and most people never get more than, "There were Catholics, and then the Eastern Orthodox left them, and then Martin Luther started Lutheranism, and then there were Protestants, and then one day there were Mormons and JW's."

Trinitarians- Christians who believe in the Trinity. Catholics, Orthodox, Protestants, ect. Easily 95%.

Jehova's Witness think Jesus was God in the flesh.

God the Father, Jesus the Son, and the Holy Spirit are seperate and discint beings. http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/15047a.htm

You are also drawing you info from the non-synoptic Gospel. You might be better with the first three.

Mormons - the annoying people in white shirts and black pants who turn up on your doorstep? :D

I am a fundamentalist Christian what the hell else did you expect from me?

fundamentalists recognize 6 fundamentals of Christianity

# Inerrancy of the Scriptures
# The virgin birth and the deity of Jesus
# The doctrine of substitutionary atonement through God's grace and human faith
# The bodily resurrection of Jesus
# The authenticity of Christ's miracles

Mormons are missing a few of those.......quite a few actually.

I thought the basis of Christianity was"
1. Love God
2. Love everyone

On such are all rules and prophesies.

nah. The quakers believe in that one and they are pretty non-mean mostly, pacifists even.


If I were ever going to join a Christian sect (not very likely, sorry Smunk, I just have problems worshiping a god who made a mans life miserable over a bet), it would be the Quakers. They're pretty damn cool.

I have mixed feelings about Mormonism. On one hand, their emphasis on family and family togetherness is great. On the other, the whole 'keep the best genealogical records in the country so you can baptize your ancestors' thing kinda creeps me out. Overall, individual Mormons tend to be nice, if uptight, but I have problems with the organization re: goals, etc.

Also: Utah, according to those non-Mormons I've talked to, is not a very nice place for people who don't follow the church. This is a negative, in my book...

Actually it would be good if Mormons studied their own history. Joseph Smith was really a modified Methodist. Most of his beliefs and practices were pretty main stream. When the group got deeply involve with the Masons in Nauvoo Ill several temple rites were considered but were not a part of the general practice.

With the leadership of Brigham Young and the isolation in Utah most of the temple rites that many Christians object to developed. Sort of an example of evolution in an isolated group. Most of the rites have no Biblical foundation, but they are also not harmful to anyone.

I believe in the first amendment. As long as someone's beliefs don't hurt me or anyone else they are welcome to them. I've studied most of the major religions of the world including Mormon. The more I study the more similarity I see. It is sad that people argue over the paint when the foundation is the same.

Trinitarians- Christians who believe in the Trinity. Catholics, Orthodox, Protestants, ect. Easily 95%.

It is apparently also the name of its own sect - http://www.trinitarians.org/

Meanwhile, Catholic doctrine holds that Christ was both fully God and fully Man. Anyone who adopts the Catholic version of the trinity (and yes, that does include nearly every Protestant sect and Eastern Orthodox) believes that Jesus is God.

Jehova's Witness think Jesus was God in the flesh.

As do Catholics, just in a different way.

God the Father, Jesus the Son, and the Holy Spirit are seperate and discint beings. http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/15047a.htm

Separate and distinct, but also the same. This is one of those weird doctrinal things that was argued about in the church for decades - centuries even. Both the viewpoint that they are fully separate (ie. three totally different beings) and the viewpoint that they are totally the same (ie. representations of a single being) have been declared heretical. Hence the reason that people get so confused over the doctrine.

The eventual Greek word arrived on was (this may be spelled wrong) homousious which can be roughly translated as "of the same substance." However, the Eastern and Western churches, due to a language difference, still viewed the Trinity differently. It was part of the reason for the schism that led to the two becoming separate. Even within one denomination, you'd probably get vastly different descriptions of the Trinity and how it works. All most people can tell you that would be consistent is that the Trinity consists of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost but that these three somehow make up a single God.

You are also drawing you info from the non-synoptic Gospel. You might be better with the first three.

Nothing in the first three requires that Jesus be divine. It is hinted at, but only John really makes it explicit. This is part of the reason for all of the different beliefs in the early churches. All of the disciples were setting up churches (and not just those whose Gospels were eventually incorporated into the official canon). Different churches had different versions of the Gospel and different texts they used. While the Catholic church will claim that the texts eventually made into official canon were those that had been used by all Christian churches everywhere, it simply isn't true. There were no such texts.

Also: Utah, according to those non-Mormons I've talked to, is not a very nice place for people who don't follow the church. This is a negative, in my book...

This was my aunt's experience. It was damn near impossible for her to find a decent job, not only because she was not Mormon, but also because she is a woman. After numerous interviews in which they said they would "let her" (read: have as part of her job description) do the job she was qualified for while her job title and pay would be at a much lower level, she finally lied on her resume, taking out her qualifications for the higher job. She was pretty much flat-out told that she wouldn't advance in any of these companies, because, she was told, it isn't right for a woman to be the boss. In fact, the problem of women taking "men's jobs" was a big discussion in the church (and thus, all over the news) when she was there.

This was my aunt's experience. It was damn near impossible for her to find a decent job, not only because she was not Mormon, but also because she is a woman. After numerous interviews in which they said they would "let her" (read: have as part of her job description) do the job she was qualified for while her job title and pay would be at a much lower level, she finally lied on her resume, taking out her qualifications for the higher job. She was pretty much flat-out told that she wouldn't advance in any of these companies, because, she was told, it isn't right for a woman to be the boss. In fact, the problem of women taking "men's jobs" was a big discussion in the church (and thus, all over the news) when she was there.

I find that very difficult to believe at face value.

I thought the basis of Christianity was"
1. Love God
2. Love everyone

On such are all rules and prophesies.

true, but, what part of evil fundie don't you understand?

Well if you say so... it must be true.

not because i say so, but because it is. amerind languages were isolated for so long that they evolved into dozens of distinct language families, not a single one of which has any relation to any of the semitic subfamily of languages found in the levant.

Then explain why they were found inside structures that date back to Incan civilization.

source?

Except when someone like yourself has a chip on his shoulder, perhaps?

what chip would that be?

And there haven't been dozens or hundreds of studies on this issue.

dude, go look at any journal article on the subject of human genetic relatedness and start counting citations. it's not an anti-mormon conspiracy. native americans ain't jews, pacific islanders ain't jews, and native americans and pacific islanders ain't even closely related to each other.

true, but, what part of evil fundie don't you understand?

Are you talking of yourself making rules that others can't follow, like the Pharisees of old. Or are you talking of someone you should love?

Ahem.

Mormons are not Christians.Yes they are.

I find that very difficult to believe at face value.

You can find it difficult to believe all you want, but that was her experience in Salt Lake City.

not because i say so, but because it is. amerind languages were isolated for so long that they evolved into dozens of distinct language families, not a single one of which has any relation to any of the semitic subfamily of languages found in the levant.


And I have information that conflicts with that. Shall we play a game of "my source is better than yours?"


source?


You first.


what chip would that be?


:rolleyes:


dude, go look at any journal article on the subject of human genetic relatedness and start counting citations. it's not an anti-mormon conspiracy. native americans ain't jews, pacific islanders ain't jews, and native americans and pacific islanders ain't even closely related to each other.

That's funny, because I recall a study which was used to counter the Bearing Strait migration theory in which it was demonstrated that there IS a link between Pacific Islanders and South American aboriginals.

You can find it difficult to believe all you want, but that was her experience in Salt Lake City.

So I'm supposed to take your second hand info at face value, despite it being in direct contrast to my own observations, anti-discrimination laws, and a general tendency for embellishment in stories like that?

In my place, would you? I suspect not.

I find that very difficult to believe at face value.
Wild guess:

You're male, Christian, heterosexual, and probably light-skinned.

Wild guess:

You're male, Christian, heterosexual, and probably light-skinned.

Of course. It can't possibly be anything else. :rolleyes:

(I find it amusing that that was an inherently sexist/racist remark aimed at trying to characterize me as a sexist.)

Of course. It can't possibly be anything else. :rolleyes:

So that's a yes?


(I find it amusing that that was an inherently sexist/racist remark aimed at trying to characterize me as a sexist.)
I'm not trying to characterize you as anything so far, other than a heterosexual male Christian who probably has light skin.

If I'm wrong, just let me know.

You first.

How do you expect him to explain what you want him to when you are not even going to show him the evidence?

That's funny, because I recall a study which was used to counter the Bearing Strait migration theory in which it was demonstrated that there IS a link between Pacific Islanders and South American aboriginals.

you couldn't recall it here could you?

The only sources that try to link semitic languages to native American are all written by Mormons. All of them. Don't you think that if there were an undeniable link, there'd be unbiased research? Linguists don't have anything else to do, it'd be a major, and exciting breakthrough.

But it's simply not true. There is no similar roots to native American and semitic languages. Not in any of the ones we've studied, and we've studied well over three hundred, from Alaska to the tip of South America. There are some very, very distant links between East Asian and native American, but that's to be expected since it's in line with current land-bridge migration theory, rather than THE JEWS DID IT of Mormonism.

Seriously. Get over yourself. There is no evidence but inside your own head.

So that's a yes?


I'm not trying to characterize you as anything so far, other than a heterosexual male Christian who probably has light skin.

If I'm wrong, just let me know.

Mhmm so you're not being coy at all? Not suggetsing that I have no right to question Dem's aunt's story of sexism in Utah based on some assumptions about my demographics?

Nah, you'd never do that.

How do you expect him to explain what you want him to when you are not even going to show him the evidence?


He made the first assertion, not I. Why then, am I the one responsible to provide proof while we're supposed to accept everythign he says at face value?


you couldn't recall it here could you?

Sure I could. Then you'd put one out that seems to counter it and so on.

The only sources that try to link semitic languages to native American are all written by Mormons. All of them. Don't you think that if there were an undeniable link, there'd be unbiased research? Linguists don't have anything else to do, it'd be a major, and exciting breakthrough.

But it's simply not true. There is no similar roots to native American and semitic languages. Not in any of the ones we've studied, and we've studied well over three hundred, from Alaska to the tip of South America. There are some very, very distant links between East Asian and native American, but that's to be expected since it's in line with current land-bridge migration theory, rather than THE JEWS DID IT of Mormonism.

Seriously. Get over yourself. There is no evidence but inside your own head.

So you're a linguist now?

So you're a linguist now?

I have an amateur interest in linguistics, but when I use "we" I mean "we who subscribe to empirical evidence".

He made the first assertion, not I. Why then, am I the one responsible to provide proof while we're supposed to accept everythign he says at face value?

You're online

Sure I could. Then you'd put one out that seems to counter it and so on.

Yes, it is so tiresome to argue with evidence

Are you talking of yourself making rules that others can't follow, like the Pharisees of old. Or are you talking of someone you should love?

I love Neo, I think he's a pretty cool guy. I wouldn't debate with him if I just really didn't like him, nor would I question his religion unless I thought he was up to answering questions. I am not trying to attack him, or tell him what to believe, or annoy him, or be unkind. I am just trying to ask questions. I ask my kids questions, I question their beliefs and actions, and I love them. They question my religious beliefs, we debate how a God who is loving can let people live in the conditions they do, and my kids love me.

I have an amateur interest in linguistics, but when I use "we" I mean "we who subscribe to empirical evidence".

You're online



Yes, it is so tiresome to argue with evidence

Ok this is for everybody.

I'm not gonna play the "My source is better than yours game." The reason is pretty clear: Nobody's mind is gonna get changed one way or the other. if I provide my sources then you'll go looking for sources to support your side. Then, I'll find more fo rmine etc etc etc. Now, I don't know about you but I'm at work and I haven't got time to webcrawl all day just so that we can go in circles and come back to where we started.

I'm also not gonna play by YOUR rules. Your rules state that anybody on your side of the argument cam make any statement they want and I'm obligated to believe it wholeheartedly and at face value. Any failure on my part to do so is an indication that I can't handle empirical evidence or that somehow I'm being willfully ignorant. Meanwhile, any assertion I make must be backed up with ironclad 100% irrefutable evidence provided by atheists, scientists and Al Franken himself before it would even be considered.

I'd rather just have a friendly conversation and agree to disagree when necessary.

I'm not here to convert you. I didn't start this thread. I find this thread of interest to me personally and I like answering HONEST questions so I participate. I make no demands of you to read it, believe it or convince anybody else. I do expect people to be respectful to each other but I know there are too many juveniles to expect that, but I try anyway.

If my refusal to play by a set of rules that are meant to unbalance the debate in favor of your side then you'll just have to call me whatever names you feel are apropriate and move on, 'cause I won't do it. I'm not an idiot and I have pretty good reasons for believing the things I do. If you want to know more, we can have a friendly chat about that. if you just want somebody to play punching bag for you to vent your anger issues, keep moving because I won't be it for you.

So that's it. if yuo want to have a mature discussion on issues related to LDS history, doctrine or spirituality then stick around and let's be friends. if you want to try and rip up my beliefs to validate whatever you subscribe to then you're wasting your time. I've debated much more formidable theological opponents than anything I've seen in this thread, so don't flatter yourself.

/soapbox

I love Neo, I think he's a pretty cool guy. I wouldn't debate with him if I just really didn't like him, nor would I question his religion unless I thought he was up to answering questions. I am not trying to attack him, or tell him what to believe, or annoy him, or be unkind. I am just trying to ask questions. I ask my kids questions, I question their beliefs and actions, and I love them. They question my religious beliefs, we debate how a God who is loving can let people live in the conditions they do, and my kids love me.

Warm fuzzies returned in kind :fluffle:

Ok this is for everybody.

I'm not gonna play the "My source is better than yours game." The reason is pretty clear: Nobody's mind is gonna get changed one way or the other. if I provide my sources then you'll go looking for sources to support your side. Then, I'll find more fo rmine etc etc etc. Now, I don't know about you but I'm at work and I haven't got time to webcrawl all day just so that we can go in circles and come back to where we started.

I'm also not gonna play by YOUR rules. Your rules state that anybody on your side of the argument cam make any statement they want and I'm obligated to believe it wholeheartedly and at face value. Any failure on my part to do so is an indication that I can't handle empirical evidence or that somehow I'm being willfully ignorant. Meanwhile, any assertion I make must be backed up with ironclad 100% irrefutable evidence provided by atheists, scientists and Al Franken himself before it would even be considered.

I'd rather just have a friendly conversation and agree to disagree when necessary.

I'm not here to convert you. I didn't start this thread. I find this thread of interest to me personally and I like answering HONEST questions so I participate. I make no demands of you to read it, believe it or convince anybody else. I do expect people to be respectful to each other but I know there are too many juveniles to expect that, but I try anyway.

If my refusal to play by a set of rules that are meant to unbalance the debate in favor of your side then you'll just have to call me whatever names you feel are apropriate and move on, 'cause I won't do it. I'm not an idiot and I have pretty good reasons for believing the things I do. If you want to know more, we can have a friendly chat about that. if you just want somebody to play punching bag for you to vent your anger issues, keep moving because I won't be it for you.

So that's it. if yuo want to have a mature discussion on issues related to LDS history, doctrine or spirituality then stick around and let's be friends. if you want to try and rip up my beliefs to validate whatever you subscribe to then you're wasting your time. I've debated much more formidable theological opponents than anything I've seen in this thread, so don't flatter yourself.

/soapbox


Sorry if I come across as short or blunt or rude. I don't mean to be.

However, from my point of view, Free Soviets isn't saying anything particuarly strange. You are (if you forgive the expression), so I'm trying to coax sources to better understand your position.

I hope this helps :)

Sorry if I come across as short or blunt or rude. I don't mean to be.

However, from my point of view, Free Soviets isn't saying anything particuarly strange. You are (if you forgive the expression), so I'm trying to coax sources to better understand your position.

I hope this helps :)

Okie doke.

I know how strange some of it sounds. I am a convert, after all. I used to be on the outside looking in, and many was the time I said "buh???"

And I think part of the problem in a setting like this is that instead of offering the beliefs in some kind of logical sequence, a piece at a time, in context, everything sort of gets tossed out there at once without any organization or pattern. I don't blame people for being skeptical... honestly, I don't.

My failing is that I tend to assume that people who post assertions of various kinds on a forum like this have at least some kind of logical basis for it, and generally I don't demand sources for the reasons I listed earlier. I have a bad habit of expecting other people to extend the same benefit of th edoubt, at least for the sake of discussion. I mean, after all, if every assertion made on either side was 100% proven, then there'd be no debate.

Typically when I refer to sources, I'm referencing articles I've read, books I've bought or news items I've encountered on a variety of radio news programming. It isn't always possible to provide them just because it's not always possible to find them. (I suspect everybody here has encountered that problem on occasion.) I try to keep my sourcing to ones that I CAN refer back to, if for no other reason than to review them and refresh my memory. At the moment, my books are in storage because my wife and I are living in cramped quarters, but plan to move in the next few weeks. (Great timing, eh?)

My earlier objections (and my feisty comments) resulted from a situation where people were demanding that I prove my sources, but not providing any of their own, even if theirs was the first assertion on a particular item.

Realistically, most of the sources you'll find on the subject of linguistics and archaeology in Mezoamerica as it pertains to origins of culture from the Holy Land will tend to be associated with BYU. Yes, one can question the objectivity of those studies. It's why I, too, try and find other, independent sources. The thing is, BYU is actually very good at carrying out objective analyses. They tend err on the side of caution in order to maintain that. I think that's admirable. It puts them at a disadvantage, but it does keep them honest. As far as I'm concerned, theirs is as reliable a source as any.

There are also studies conducted by groups whose objective is to disprove LDS claims. I've found them to be much quicker to jump to conclusions if they satisfy the objective, and so I find them to be less reliable.

As for other studies in between... There aren't a whole lot out there that have direct application to these issues. They tend to be more general and are still at times tainted by somebody's agenda even if that agenda has nothing to do with Mormons.

And I have information that conflicts with that. Shall we play a game of "my source is better than yours?"

yes. bring it on. on my side i have the support of any particular academic source you care to glance at, but we can even just go with wiki.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indigenous_languages_of_the_Americas
they've got an extensive list of sources at the bottom on that page, yet, surprisingly, not a single mention of hebrew or the semitic language family in general. what have you got?

You first.

i'm not the one making a controversial claim here. every journal article, mesuem exhibit, and science popularization work on pleistocene north america uniformly recognizes mastodons and horses as casualties of the pleistocene extinction. for example: http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2006/05/0501_060501_ice_age.html
you are the one claiming the fucking inca had them. if you want me to address the claim, you are going to have to show me what exactly you are talking about.

That's funny, because I recall a study which was used to counter the Bearing Strait migration theory in which it was demonstrated that there IS a link between Pacific Islanders and South American aboriginals.

show me.

the major problem you'll run into is that the polynesian expansion happened in the other direction, and didn't get to the far islands like hawaii and easter island until centuries too late for even the stupid mormon timeline

yes. bring it on. on my side i have the support of any particular academic source you care to glance at, but we can even just go with wiki.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indigenous_languages_of_the_Americas
they've got an extensive list of sources at the bottom on that page, yet, surprisingly, not a single mention of hebrew or the semitic language family in general. what have you got?



i'm not the one making a controversial claim here. every journal article, mesuem exhibit, and science popularization work on pleistocene north america uniformly recognizes mastodons and horses as casualties of the pleistocene extinction. for example: http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2006/05/0501_060501_ice_age.html
you are the one claiming the fucking inca had them. if you want me to address the claim, you are going to have to show me what exactly you are talking about.



show me.

the major problem you'll run into is that the polynesian expansion happened in the other direction, and didn't get to the far islands like hawaii and easter island until centuries too late for even the stupid mormon timeline

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=12991354&postcount=289

As for other studies in between... There aren't a whole lot out there that have direct application to these issues.

bullshit. science is directly interested in questions that moromonism makes factual claims about completely independently, and so there has been tons of research on the pre-columbian history of the americas. fucking massive amounts of research on everything from archeology to linguistics to genetics to paleontology to native oral traditions, etc. go look.
http://highwire.stanford.edu/

I'd rather just have a friendly conversation and agree to disagree when necessary.

'agreeing to disagree' about factual matters that can be checked is fucking stupid.

neo b, what made you convert to the church of latter day saints? what was it that made you decide that THIS was the correct belief?

in my mind, its one thing to take the religion we were raised with and convert to a different denomination that has the same scriptures, the same stories about god and jesus but differs in its theological approach and a completely different thing to swith to a religion with an extra set of scriptures and stories about god and jesus, not to mention the whole modern prophet thing. it would be just too much to ask of me to accept that joseph smith was the chosen prophet of god. not because he is a worse or more unlikely person than the old testament prophets (they were often not particularly good people) but because i cant approach it the way i did as a child when i learned my own religion.

so is it a spiritual thing that hit you one day? do you look into it "scientifically" and decide that its the closest to the truth? do you fall in with mormons and are attracted to what they have and convert gradually over time?

'agreeing to disagree' about factual matters that can be checked is fucking stupid.

:rolleyes:

Ok, since you're picking and choosing what you get from your reading (interesting) I'll supply the portion of my post that addresses this for you.


I'm not gonna play the "My source is better than yours game." The reason is pretty clear: Nobody's mind is gonna get changed one way or the other. if I provide my sources then you'll go looking for sources to support your side. Then, I'll find more for mine etc etc etc. Now, I don't know about you but I'm at work and I haven't got time to webcrawl all day just so that we can go in circles and come back to where we started.


Do you understand?

:rolleyes:

Ok, since you're picking and choosing what you get from your reading (interesting) I'll supply the portion of my post that addresses this for you.




Do you understand?

Y'know, if you're really just not going to bother with anything, could we speed up the process?

:rolleyes:

Ok, since you're picking and choosing what you get from your reading (interesting) I'll supply the portion of my post that addresses this for you.

Do you understand?

its not picking and choosing to point out the truly stupid while ignoring the rest of a post that essentially admits defeat and tries to blame that defeat on the fact that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. if you don't want to bear the burden of finding extraordinary evidence, stop believing things that run counter to everything we know.


besides, your characterization of how this will unfold is wrong. you will have absolutely no support for your church's positions from anywhere besides sources within the church. my positions will receive support from both peer-reviewed journal articles and basic reviews and popularizations. there will be no circle as your side is unsupportable.

fuck, we could stick with just wiki if you don't want to spend all day digging around.

neo b, what made you convert to the church of latter day saints? what was it that made you decide that THIS was the correct belief?

in my mind, its one thing to take the religion we were raised with and convert to a different denomination that has the same scriptures, the same stories about god and jesus but differs in its theological approach and a completely different thing to swith to a religion with an extra set of scriptures and stories about god and jesus, not to mention the whole modern prophet thing. it would be just too much to ask of me to accept that joseph smith was the chosen prophet of god. not because he is a worse or more unlikely person than the old testament prophets (they were often not particularly good people) but because i cant approach it the way i did as a child when i learned my own religion.

so is it a spiritual thing that hit you one day? do you look into it "scientifically" and decide that its the closest to the truth? do you fall in with mormons and are attracted to what they have and convert gradually over time?

That's a fair question. I've been debating in my mind over whether to tell the story on here, since it's a very deep and personal item that I have no problem sharing with people, but I just hate to think of how people will try and rip it up on a forum like this one.

But on the other hand, it might be useful to some and so I will share it, and if anybody wants to have the fun of ripping into it, shame on them. I won't respond.

I was raised Catholic from birth. Went to a Catholic school form K to 8th grade and was pretty well established into it. I was an altar boy, got confirmed, all that. Ever see a bunch of Catholic school kids? The girls wear the plaid school colored jumpers and the boys wear the white shirts and the slacks are the school color? Well ours was forest green.

So I went to a public high school and it was the first time I was really exposed to other beliefs. Not that there weren't other beliefs in the school I went to before... I was friends with a couple Protestants in my class, a Muslim and a Jew, but it wasn't until public school that I got a real sense of what was out there. Wiccans, Atheists, Hindus etc. It was pretty fascinating and generally there wasn't a bunch of arguing about it.

It was druing that time that my personality began to solidify into a real jackass. Not because of my beliefs, but because of what I thought was "normal." Sometimes I used my beliefs to justify it, sometimes I just couldn't. I sometimes hung out with people who said the wore combat boots to "stomp fags" or sometimes would talk in terms that sounded eerily like things the nation herad about a few years later at a place called Columbine. We never did anythign violent, but I'm not proud of the words I uttered during that time.

As I transitioned into college in 1992, about the same time I became a dad, I found people to associate with that were a good deal more mellow. Namely, Wiccans. Ironically I met a girl who had gone to Catholic school with me. She had converted and was now a Wiccan. I wasn't interested in conversion myself, but I did learn to appreciate th evalue of other people's beliefs and way of life, and I found myself very ashamed of my behavior back in high school. I came to adopt a much looser religious identity and dabbled in witchraft myself. I was still nominally Catholic, but hardly one in reality anymore.

Quite apart from that however, my own moral identity was crumbling badly over the years, and I found myself doing things that were even worse than anything in high school. Not the same things, mind you... I had hate in my heart for no one, but I was an unfaithful husband and a liar, and was spiraling ever downward into a place where eventually I'd never have recovered. You know you're in a strange place when the strippers at a sleazy bar know you by name and some can even identify you by hidden birthmarks. This was back in 1998.

Somehow I managed to hold on to my belief in God, although I knew I wasn't exactly close to Him. I was pretending to be a good Catholic by debating Mormon missionaries on a semi-regular basis because while I respected them and what they did, their weird religion was beyond my ability to swallow. They were patient, though, and never seemed to take it personally that I didn't buy their beliefs.

One night I prayed. I prayed because I'd put myself into a rotten position and didn't know how to handle it and so I prayed for the first time in a meaningful way in years. It was the first time I'd ever prayed and received an answer.

It was a strange feeling of reassurance, like someone said to me "help is coming." and so I felt strangely satisfied and at peace enough to know that my answer was on the way. Later that same night, after I'd been hanging out with some friends, I got into my car and started home when I received what can only be described as a vision. For a few seconds, I could see the Washington LDS Temple through my windshield as if I were driving up to it, even though I was somewhere in the nastier section of Baltimore. For those few seconds there was a passenger in my car with me, unseen and yet as surely there as the steering wheel in my grip. The cavalry had arrived.

That same night I reconciled with my wife and asked her to re-marry me in the Temple. (That, of course, meant my conversion.) I still didn't fully believe or understand, but the knowledge that this was what I was supposd to do was absolutely certain. I began to study objectively, because even when I was Catholic I dind't believe 100% in it and so I felt I didn't need to believe 100% in the LDS church either. Strangely, I couldn't find any holes. I mean, I found them, but further study always filled them in, as if with each level I understood more and more.

I converted, and continued to learn by debating people in chatrooms online and having my faith challenged. I'd get rattled a lot, but when I'd investigate and learn the truth, I always felt better and stronger. Eventually I stopped debating in that environment because it would always turn contentious and bitter, and that's no way to discuss the Gospel. (It's why I try to keep from devolving into nastiness here.)

One thing I learned quickly is that while Mormons are very firm in their belief, they don't go around beating up on others, no matter what those beliefs or lifestyles are. Live and let live. In fact, it's one of the Articles of Faith.

I've stumbled over the years, not in my faith but in my ability to live up to what's expected of me by God. I've been doing much better lately, but I won't toot my own horn.

So that's my story. I hope it answers your questions, Ashmoria. :) If any of you reading this feel an itch to respond derisively or with an insult, I'm asking you as a personal favor not to.

its not picking and choosing to point out the truly stupid while ignoring the rest of a post that essentially admits defeat and tries to blame that defeat on the fact that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. if you don't want to bear the burden of finding extraordinary evidence, stop believing things that run counter to everything we know.

Who do you think you are to demand an explanation of me for what I believe? Who do you think you are to impose conditions on what I ought to believe or not? I owe you *no* explanation whatsoever. I choose not to engage you in a source contest for exactly the specified reasons. That's all the answer your'e getting so be astisfied with it.


besides, your characterization of how this will unfold is wrong. you will have absolutely no support for your church's positions from anywhere besides sources within the church. my positions will receive support from both peer-reviewed journal articles and basic reviews and popularizations.


In your opinion.

there will be no circle as your side is unsupportable.

That's your position. I get it.


fuck, we could stick with just wiki if you don't want to spend all day digging around.

How generous of you. No. This is going in circles already. I've spoken my peace.

Y'know, if you're really just not going to bother with anything, could we speed up the process?

?

Mhmm so you're not being coy at all? Not suggetsing that I have no right to question Dem's aunt's story of sexism in Utah based on some assumptions about my demographics?

Nah, you'd never do that.
Actually, no. I wasn't going to suggest that. I don't think that being a white male heterosexual Christian automatically invalidates anything you have to say, or makes you less entitled to your opinions.

I do think, however, that you should be aware of one of the #1 perks of being a white male heterosexual Christian: you get to not see a whole lot of discrimination.

It's not your fault that you enjoy this privilege, of course. That's just how it is. Life is unfair, and in this case it's unfair in your favor. I simply think it would be good for you to think about WHY you, as a white male heterosexual Christian, find it "hard to believe" that a female non-Christian would face discrimination.

I'm not trying to fuck with you, here, and I'm not trying to be "coy" or whatever else. I'm seriously just trying to get through to you.

I don't see racism on a daily basis. But I'm white in America. The fact that I'm white means that I have the (unasked for) privilege of not experiencing routine racial discrimination. I used to feel a lot more skeptical when friends of mine would tell me about the routine racism they encountered, because it just didn't sound anything like what I was seeing. But, believe it or not, if you open your eyes and ears a bit, and if you really try to empathize with people who don't share your privilege, you WILL start to see it.

It sucks, but it's there. And it's hard not to get defensive knowing that you're enjoying special status and special privilege.

?

You've basically said "I could totally kick your ass, but I don't wanna play" and you're trying to say you don't want to give him the time of day, and yet...somehow the discussion continues? It takes two for that.

Actually, no. I wasn't going to suggest that. I don't think that being a white male heterosexual Christian automatically invalidates anything you have to say, or makes you less entitled to your opinions.

I do think, however, that you should be aware of one of the #1 perks of being a white male heterosexual Christian: you get to not see a whole lot of discrimination.

It's not your fault that you enjoy this privilege, of course. That's just how it is. Life is unfair, and in this case it's unfair in your favor. I simply think it would be good for you to think about WHY you, as a white male heterosexual Christian, find it "hard to believe" that a female non-Christian would face discrimination.

I'm not trying to fuck with you, here, and I'm not trying to be "coy" or whatever else. I'm seriously just trying to get through to you.

I don't see racism on a daily basis. But I'm white in America. The fact that I'm white means that I have the (unasked for) privilege of not experiencing routine racial discrimination. I used to feel a lot more skeptical when friends of mine would tell me about the routine racism they encountered, because it just didn't sound anything like what I was seeing. But, believe it or not, if you open your eyes and ears a bit, and if you really try to empathize with people who don't share your privilege, you WILL start to see it.

It sucks, but it's there. And it's hard not to get defensive knowing that you're enjoying special status and special privilege.

Okay, I get what you're saying. And I do appreciate your point.

I'm a racial mutt of sorts, and I've seen discrimination. I'm not blind to its existence, truly. I'm not saying I see as much of it as someone who is more "ethnically unique" than I am, but I'm not wearing blinders.

At the same time, Dem's story is asking me to accept, on the word of someone I don't know, a series of events that flies in the face of things that I know to be true from a level of personal knowledge on this.

I also see some inconsistency in the story like, if there's sexism, why wasn't any legal action taken? If it was, as was claimed, a widespread plague that was discussed everywhere, then where was the public outcry? Salt Lake City is less than 50% Mormon. if there were some kind of church-sponsored sexism, it would fail there. Also, I know a lot of Mormons. More than everybody who's participated in this thread combined. Sexism isn't a common trait there.

So when I hear a story like that, It is, as I said, difficult to believe at face value. I would want to hear both sides of the story, or the story in greater detail. perhaps hearing it firsthand instead of secondhand.

See what I mean?

You've basically said "I could totally kick your ass, but I don't wanna play" and you're trying to say you don't want to give him the time of day, and yet...somehow the discussion continues? It takes two for that.

I didn't say I could kick his arse. I said the discussion would go in circles and bring us back to where we started. I also said I have good reasons for believing as I do. I never claimed that if somehow I unleashed them upon this forum you'd all be Mormons by next Tuesday.

But it is a mystery to me why that particular topic continued past the point where I stated my refusal to engage in it.

Who do you think you are to demand an explanation of me for what I believe?

a person who sees that some of your beliefs are bullshit and calls you on it. i expect the same courtesy from everyone should i ever come to believe bullshit. we have an obligation to not believe bullshit.

when you believe things that are factual in nature, then it is required that they fit reality rather than contradict it. if they contradict it, they are wrong. so either your religion's factual claims fit with reality or your religion is wrong. and if something is factually wrong, then it is right and good to say so.

a person who sees that some of your beliefs are bullshit and calls you on it. i expect the same courtesy from everyone should i ever come to believe bullshit. we have an obligation to not believe bullshit.

when you believe things that are factual in nature, then it is required that they fit reality rather than contradict it. if they contradict it, they are wrong. so either your religion's factual claims fit with reality or your religion is wrong. and if something is factually wrong, then it is right and good to say so.

I think you're just a person who is trying to impose your own worldview onto someone who not only doesn't share it, but isn't willing to let you dictate to him what it should be.

So I'm supposed to take your second hand info at face value, despite it being in direct contrast to my own observations, anti-discrimination laws, and a general tendency for embellishment in stories like that?

In my place, would you? I suspect not.

I don't really care. I'll take the word of my aunt over some random internet persona any day.

I don't really care. I'll take the word of my aunt over some random internet persona any day.

Good. That's exactly what you ought to do.

Now reverse it. You want me to take the word of some random Internet person over those of several people I'm close to in my life.

Fair enough?

Good. That's exactly what you ought to do.

Now reverse it. You want me to take the word of some random Internet person over those of several people I'm close to in my life.

Fair enough?

You have to admit that you are comparing apples to oranges there.

I think you're just a person who is trying to impose your own worldview onto someone who not only doesn't share it, but isn't willing to let you dictate to him what it should be.

Translation: "Lalala, I can't hear you and your scientific facts! Leave me alone with my disproved delusions!!! Lalala!"

You have to admit that you are comparing apples to oranges there.

I don't think so. I was told a story by someone I don't even know which, if true, would directly contradict a wealth of my own personal experience and that of people I'm close to. Why should that carry any more weight with me than my disagreement should carry with her?

Translation: "Lalala, I can't hear you and your scientific facts! Leave me alone with my disproved delusions!!! Lalala!"

What are you, like, 12?

What are you, like, 12?

What are you, like, four? "Santa does exist! He does, he does, he does!"

I don't think so. I was told a story by someone I don't even know which, if true, would directly contradict a wealth of my own personal experience and that of people I'm close to. Why should that carry any more weight with me than my disagreement should carry with her?

I guess we'll have to agree to disagree...

What are you, like, four? "Santa does exist! He does, he does, he does!"

Yes, Fassigen. I'm 4 years old.

*makes a point not to feed trolls anymore.

It's not your fault that you enjoy this privilege, of course. That's just how it is. Life is unfair, and in this case it's unfair in your favor. I simply think it would be good for you to think about WHY you, as a white male heterosexual Christian, find it "hard to believe" that a female non-Christian would face discrimination.

To be fair, she's not non-Christian. She's non-Mormon. But, from what I gather, the two may as well be equal if you're in Salt Lake City, Utah.


Good. That's exactly what you ought to do.

Now reverse it. You want me to take the word of some random Internet person over those of several people I'm close to in my life.

Fair enough?

What part of "I don't really care what you think" did you not understand? I don't care if you take it or not.

I guess we'll have to agree to disagree...

So it would seem.

What part of "I don't really care what you think" did you not understand? I don't care if you take it or not.

Then why did you bring it back up?

Just curious.

Translation: "Lalala, I can't hear you and your scientific facts! Leave me alone with my disproved delusions!!! Lalala!"

and even worse: "i totally have evidence that the inca rode elephants and the maya herded cows and the ojibwe currently speak hebrew, but i'm not gonna show it to you"

and even worse: "i totally have evidence that the inca rode elephants and the maya herded cows and the ojibwe currently speak hebrew, but i'm not gonna show it to you"

Haven't you noticed a pattern on this thread, or are you too busy trolling to notice?

When people come at me in this thread with a chip on their shoulder, as you have, I refuse to give them the fight they're looking for. On the other hand, when people ask questions out of a desire to have an honest discussion like adults, I answer them to the best of my ability.

RTFF if you haven't already and see for yourself.

I appreciate your response, NB, and I'm going to try to answer some of your questions from my personal experience.

I also see some inconsistency in the story like, if there's sexism, why wasn't any legal action taken?

Personal experience:

I've encountered sexism and not taken legal action. It's generally about a gain-loss equation in my head. What are the odds I will win any case I bring? What will I have to give up to bring that case? How will trying to pursue legal action impact the many other things I'm trying to deal with right now? Can I financially afford to bring this action? Do I have the time?

In several situations, there have been reasons why I really wouldn't gain enough (even if I won a legal action) to justify the personal costs. I know that my experience here is not unique, because I have spoken with other individuals who had similar experiences.


If it was, as was claimed, a widespread plague that was discussed everywhere, then where was the public outcry?

If you mean, "where is the public outcry against systematic sex discrimination," then I can tell you:

It's everywhere.

People have been fighting this and screaming about this for generations. It's hard work to stamp out sexism, and we're making progress but we aren't done yet.

It is still common, even routine, to discriminate against females. Discrimination against atheists is a bit harder to spot, and is obviously more rare (since there are fewer atheists in America than there are women), but it is often even more blatant.

In my lifetime, the US has had a president who openly stated that atheists should not be considered citizens of our country.


Salt Lake City is less than 50% Mormon. if there were some kind of church-sponsored sexism, it would fail there.

Sexism thrives in many environments. A lot of non-Mormons share the sexist views of the Mormon church, and are only too happy to participate in sex discrimination.


Also, I know a lot of Mormons. More than everybody who's participated in this thread combined. Sexism isn't a common trait there.

The fundamental tenets of Mormon theology involve sexism. (This is also true of pretty much every other major branch of Christianity, so don't think I'm picking on Mormons alone!)

Personally, I don't think the average Mormon is significantly more sexist than the average person out there. But the average person is pretty sexist. It's just a part of the culture we all share, and it's an entrenched aspect of our current world.


So when I hear a story like that, It is, as I said, difficult to believe at face value. I would want to hear both sides of the story, or the story in greater detail. perhaps hearing it firsthand instead of secondhand.

See what I mean?
I understand your skepticism, and I absolutely understand why you wouldn't want to believe such things about people who share your ideology. I simply think that the empirical evidence about our world, and about the common forms of discrimination that are out there, should lead you to be much more careful about which stories you discount and which you entertain.

Yes, Fassigen. I'm 4 years old.

That's the first believable and plausible thing you've said in this thread so far.

Haven't you noticed a pattern on this thread, or are you too busy trolling to notice?

So, to NB, presenting scientific evidence that refutes all his nonsense = trolling. My, my - denial is strong in this one.

To be fair, she's not non-Christian. She's non-Mormon. But, from what I gather, the two may as well be equal if you're in Salt Lake City, Utah.

Sorry, that was a mis-type on my part. I did mean to say non-Mormon, since I hadn't the faintest idea what her affiliation was (aside from not being Mormon).

My bad!

So when I hear a story like that, It is, as I said, difficult to believe at face value. I would want to hear both sides of the story, or the story in greater detail. perhaps hearing it firsthand instead of secondhand.

See what I mean?

For someone who takes a lot of really outrageous stuff at face value, this is a hilarious thing for you to say.

For someone who takes a lot of really outrageous stuff at face value, this is a hilarious thing for you to say.

Don't you see, his fellow Mormons being douches is soooo unbelievable, despite ample proof to corroborate it. While a 19th century loon's scientifically false rantings, on the other hand, why, those are credence incarnate!

So, to NB, presenting scientific evidence that refutes all his nonsense = trolling.

makes one wonder what constitutes 'honest discussion' in his circles, eh?

makes one wonder what constitutes 'honest discussion' in his circles, eh?

Oh, it's pitifully obvious what "honest" means to him.

I am curious about the horse thing.


I remember hearing about mint leafs over in egypt when they shouldn't have been(or was it over in ancient mexico...I cant remember which way it went.)

It was one of those history/discovery channel thing about atlantis or was Columbus really the first to reach america shows.

Anywho, the leafs were found in the mouths of mummies, in places were there should have been no access to mint even with know trade routes.

I will see what I can dig up on it.


Edit: not what i was looking for, but somewhat relevant.

http://paranormal.about.com/library/weekly/aa080700b.htm

That's a fair question. I've been debating in my mind over whether to tell the story on here, since it's a very deep and personal item that I have no problem sharing with people, but I just hate to think of how people will try and rip it up on a forum like this one.

<snip>



thanks. i was afraid it would be too personal to talk about so thanks for taking the risk.

sorry for the delay in answering, i had to go plant grass before it got too hot.

that is the sort of conversion experience that i have alot of respect for. you have a compelling reason to believe that needs no outside "proof". the details of a religion arent as important as it fitting your spiritual needs. in essence, if god is going to tell you to believe, who are you to say no?

Neo--Have you seen the research of Roy Weldon? I think he's RLDS. I know the churches get along like the Lutherans and Catholics but they do have common concerns. Weldon has spent most of his life in the Mayan regions. He either publishes or is quoted quite often in a monthly magazine on the subject. I can't seem to remember the name of the magazine right now. Anyway, he's done a lot of research on the possibility of the ruins in the area relating to the Book of Mormon.

Neo--Have you seen the research of Roy Weldon? I think he's RLDS. I know the churches get along like the Lutherans and Catholics but they do have common concerns. Weldon has spent most of his life in the Mayan regions. He either publishes or is quoted quite often in a monthly magazine on the subject. I can't seem to remember the name of the magazine right now. Anyway, he's done a lot of research on the possibility of the ruins in the area relating to the Book of Mormon.

No I don't think that I have. He's not the author of the one I referred to a few times (And I wish I could remember that author's name) but I will look him up. Thanks!
:)

thanks. i was afraid it would be too personal to talk about so thanks for taking the risk.

sorry for the delay in answering, i had to go plant grass before it got too hot.

that is the sort of conversion experience that i have alot of respect for. you have a compelling reason to believe that needs no outside "proof". the details of a religion arent as important as it fitting your spiritual needs. in essence, if god is going to tell you to believe, who are you to say no?

Yeah that's a pretty good way to put it...

And thinking of it in those terms sometimes helps when I get into a debate and one of the gaps in my knowledge comes up. I remember the reasons I converted, and that sustains me while I go seek out the information I lack.

What a lot of people don't get, and this is especially true of people who believe what they do because of evidence alone (Both religious and non religious types) is that on some level, any such evidence is man-made.

If you can be converted into a religion by man-made evidence, then man-made evidence can convert you out of it. That's why it's separate from faith. And faith MUST come directly from the Spirit of God. It MUST otherwise it isn't real.

And like you said, once you get a message like that, it pretty much overshadows everything else.

I appreciate your response, NB, and I'm going to try to answer some of your questions from my personal experience.


Thank you, by the way, for the tone of your reply. This is the kind of debate/discussion that's worth having. I appreciate it.


Personal experience:

I've encountered sexism and not taken legal action. It's generally about a gain-loss equation in my head. What are the odds I will win any case I bring? What will I have to give up to bring that case? How will trying to pursue legal action impact the many other things I'm trying to deal with right now? Can I financially afford to bring this action? Do I have the time?

In several situations, there have been reasons why I really wouldn't gain enough (even if I won a legal action) to justify the personal costs. I know that my experience here is not unique, because I have spoken with other individuals who had similar experiences.


I guess part of my reaction included a difficulty in accepting such blatant an open sexism as is described in the original story. To me, underestimating someone's abilities on the basis of their sex is an alien way of thinking.

I used to be in a management position in a Navy contract. I had one employee who I felt would make an excellent lead. She had lots of experience, she had a strong background, and she knew how to handle people. I went to the Project Manager and suggested that she be promoted. His answer: "She can't be a lead because she's a woman." With a straight face even.

At first, she wasn't interested in persuing it any further, but as it turned out there were several other breaches in policy and even security being committed by this PM so we did what we had to do and had him fired. The two of us who were in senior positions filled in the PM slot together for a while, but my first official act as acting PM was to promote that female tech to lead. To me, it felt good to take such an inexcusable wrong and make it right, and to this day I can't comprehend the thinking behind such an outlook.


If you mean, "where is the public outcry against systematic sex discrimination," then I can tell you:

It's everywhere.

People have been fighting this and screaming about this for generations. It's hard work to stamp out sexism, and we're making progress but we aren't done yet.

It is still common, even routine, to discriminate against females. Discrimination against atheists is a bit harder to spot, and is obviously more rare (since there are fewer atheists in America than there are women), but it is often even more blatant.


Maybe I've been fortunate not to see it.


In my lifetime, the US has had a president who openly stated that atheists should not be considered citizens of our country.


Which one? (Out of curiosity)


Sexism thrives in many environments. A lot of non-Mormons share the sexist views of the Mormon church, and are only too happy to participate in sex discrimination.

The fundamental tenets of Mormon theology involve sexism. (This is also true of pretty much every other major branch of Christianity, so don't think I'm picking on Mormons alone!)


This is the part where, while I agree with the spirit of your post, I disagree with some of the interpretations you have, although I understand them.

If you perceive the LDS church as sexist because women don't hold the priestood in the church, then, from your point of view I can understand that. I don't see it as sexist because women have their own organization and responsibility within the church that men aren't a part of. (The guys also sometimes jokingly say women don't get the priesthood because, unlike men, they don't need any help ;) )

But at the same time, I've never seen that translate into the non-church environment. Plenty of members of the congregations I've been in have female bosses or are female bosses themselves, and nobody finds this unusual.

But that's just my own experience.


Personally, I don't think the average Mormon is significantly more sexist than the average person out there. But the average person is pretty sexist. It's just a part of the culture we all share, and it's an entrenched aspect of our current world.

I agree with this in the sense that Mormons, like everybody else, are just a cross-section of humanity. Some are asshats, some aren't.


I understand your skepticism, and I absolutely understand why you wouldn't want to believe such things about people who share your ideology. I simply think that the empirical evidence about our world, and about the common forms of discrimination that are out there, should lead you to be much more careful about which stories you discount and which you entertain.

Your point is well taken, and I'd be prepared to concede that the story has a factual basis if you can concede that we've only heard one side of it. I never meant to say that the story must be false, only that I found it difficult to accept at face value.

Don't you see, his fellow Mormons being douches is soooo unbelievable, despite ample proof to corroborate it. While a 19th century loon's scientifically false rantings, on the other hand, why, those are credence incarnate!

makes one wonder what constitutes 'honest discussion' in his circles, eh?

For someone who takes a lot of really outrageous stuff at face value, this is a hilarious thing for you to say.

Sweet. We have 3 trolls now we just need a few dwarves and a hobbit and we'll have enough to re-enact a scene from "The Hobbit!"

I am curious about the horse thing.


I remember hearing about mint leafs over in egypt when they shouldn't have been(or was it over in ancient mexico...I cant remember which way it went.)

It was one of those history/discovery channel thing about atlantis or was Columbus really the first to reach america shows.

Anywho, the leafs were found in the mouths of mummies, in places were there should have been no access to mint even with know trade routes.

I will see what I can dig up on it.


Edit: not what i was looking for, but somewhat relevant.

http://paranormal.about.com/library/weekly/aa080700b.htm

Thanks for the link, and perhaps that's the sort of info that will satisfy Free Soviet's need for stuff to rip into.

I don't recall the details, like I said a bunch of pages back, but there were apparently some fossilizes remains of horses (or very horse-like mammals) discovered in the ruins of some sites... I want to say North America but I don't want to give a false impression... if I can rediscover that article I'll share it here, but I am pretty sure it wasn't one of the ones associated with BYU.

Sweet. We have 3 trolls now we just need a few dwarves and a hobbit and we'll have enough to re-enact a scene from "The Hobbit!"

So when you're called on your hypocritical standards of evidence the best you can do is flame? I can't say as I'm surprised or disappointed as I've been down this dirt road with you before.

So when you're called on your hypocritical standards of evidence the best you can do is flame? I can't say as I'm surprised or disappointed as I've been down this dirt road with you before.

Wait, wait hold on... let me get control of my fit of laughter here...

ok.. I'm better now...

wait...

ok for sure.. deep breath... ok...

So after the posts you've hit me with on this thread... you have the temerity to accuse ME of flaming? Hold on.. another laughing fit...

OK well if you're so unsurprised then go to another thread and stop wasting your time on poor little old me. (I remember you, too... but I won't be unkind and talk about that.)

Edit: Your whole statement is non-sequitur because I never put forth a standard of evidence in the first place! Like I said (repeatedly) I didn't come here to convince anybody, I am in this thread to respond to honest non-flamebaiting questions. I'm not offering evidence because, and read this carefully: I'm not trying to change people's minds, only to provide information.

Understand?

Thanks for the link, and perhaps that's the sort of info that will satisfy Free Soviet's need for stuff to rip into.

I don't recall the details, like I said a bunch of pages back, but there were apparently some fossilizes remains of horses (or very horse-like mammals) discovered in the ruins of some sites... I want to say North America but I don't want to give a false impression... if I can rediscover that article I'll share it here, but I am pretty sure it wasn't one of the ones associated with BYU.

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

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

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

Wait, wait hold on... let me get control of my fit of laughter here...

ok.. I'm better now...

wait...

ok for sure.. deep breath... ok...

So after the posts you've hit me with on this thread... you have the temerity to accuse ME of flaming? Hold on.. another laughing fit...

OK well if you're so unsurprised then go to another thread and stop wasting your time on poor little old me. (I remember you, too... but I won't be unkind and talk about that.)

Edit: Your whole statement is non-sequitur because I never put forth a standard of evidence in the first place! Like I said (repeatedly) I didn't come here to convince anybody, I am in this thread to respond to honest non-flamebaiting questions. I'm not offering evidence because, and read this carefully: I'm not trying to change people's minds, only to provide information.

Understand?


So when I hear a story like that, It is, as I said, difficult to believe at face value. I would want to hear both sides of the story, or the story in greater detail. perhaps hearing it firsthand instead of secondhand.

See what I mean?

Smells like revisionist history.

I remember hearing about mint leafs over in egypt when they shouldn't have been(or was it over in ancient mexico...I cant remember which way it went.)

It was one of those history/discovery channel thing about atlantis or was Columbus really the first to reach america shows.

Anywho, the leafs were found in the mouths of mummies, in places were there should have been no access to mint even with know trade routes.

i think what you are thinking of is the discovery of nicotine and cocaine in egyptian mummies (and nicotine alone in some remains from sudan and germany).

Smells like revisionist history.

How is wanting to hear the story firsthand being revisionist?

Or inconsistent with my reasons for not engaging in a sourcewar?

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

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

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

The second one I'd heard of, but not the first and third.

Thank you.

How is wanting to hear the story firsthand being revisionist?

Or inconsistent with my reasons for not engaging in a sourcewar?

1) You said you never asked for proof of anything only came to answer questions, clearly you have demanded proof.
2) You won't engage in a "source war" because you refuse to provide sources, but you feel free to ask for them in return.

You're slicker than a greased weasel I'll give you that, but your slithering about is incredibly transparent and I must say pathetic.

1) You said you never asked for proof of anything only came to answer questions, clearly you have demanded proof.
2) You won't engage in a "source war" because you refuse to provide sources, but you feel free to ask for them in return.


I think you misunderstand my meaning. I am not demanding proof of Dempublicents1's story. I indicated my opinion of it. She doesn't owe me any answers or proof. I though this had been made clear.

Now, if I WERE going to believe it, then yes, I'd need more than a simple anecdote that's a step removed from the original event. if she WERE trying to convince me or change my mind, I imagine if it were that important she'd arrange it.

But it's not that important to her or to me and so it's over and done with.

Apply that to this thread. As I've said (And my face is turning blue from saying it) I'm not trying to change your mind so I see no need to pursue it on that level. It wouldn't be possible anyway. If you REALLY want to discuss it like adults, then it would warrant more in-depth analysis but when it's just somebody with an axe to grind whose looking to play the role of forum bully then no, I'm not inclined to prove anything.


You're slicker than a greased weasel I'll give you that, but your slithering about is incredibly transparent and I must say pathetic.

Have you taken a few seconds to consider the possibility that I mean exactly what I say? Not everybody is out to get over on his neighbor. I can understand why this forum might have jaded you to the possibility, but it is true.

Then why did you bring it back up?

Just curious.

Because I'm a bitch who won't let something drop when someone else keeps bringing it up?

Because I'm a bitch who won't let something drop when someone else keeps bringing it up?

...

Not sure how to take that...

How is wanting to hear the story firsthand being revisionist?

Or inconsistent with my reasons for not engaging in a sourcewar?

If you knew my aunt, you might not want to hear it firsthand. She's a much more strident woman than I, and some would tell you that's saying something. People tend to be rather intimidated by her. =)

Not sure how to take that...

Don't worry about it. Other things are putting me in a really bitchy mood right now.

If you knew my aunt, you might not want to hear it firsthand. She's a much more strident woman than I, and some would tell you that's saying something. People tend to be rather intimidated by her. =)

Hehe sounds like it would be an interesting conversation.

I think it would be worth it, though.


Don't worry about it. Other things are putting me in a really bitchy mood right now.

I'm sorry to hear it. In the unlikely event that I can be of assistance, I am at your disposal.

so, do we have any other mormons around who might feel themselves up to the task of showing that the book of mormon has any factual basis at all?

so, do we have any other mormons around who might feel themselves up to the task of showing that the book of mormon has any factual basis at all?

You mind if I send you a TG?

so, do we have any other mormons around who might feel themselves up to the task of showing that the book of mormon has any factual basis at all?

Do any other religious books have any factual basis?


The answer is no.

Do any other religious books have any factual basis?


The answer is no.

Even non Judeo-Christians at least acknowledge the historical value of the Bible.

Or were you just being punchy?

Even non Judeo-Christians at least acknowledge the historical value of the Bible.

Or were you just being punchy?

The historical value of the Bible isn't quite as strong as you seem to be impling.

Though some part to chime with what is known now. A lot of it has been completely debunked, and there are a few part where the Bible is the only historical source available.

But given the fact parts are completely unreliable, it is at least sensible to take the "historical" parts with a pillar of salt.

Do any other religious books have any factual basis?


The answer is no.

nah, a lot of them at least record things about real civilizations, and occasionally even real people. the book of mormon is complete and utter nonsense. joseph smith's "book of abraham" is pretty hilariously fraudtastic too.

As only one person on this forum is Mormon, this thread is about five pages too long. Didn't the OP just ask what Mormonism was about?

Even non Judeo-Christians at least acknowledge the historical value of the Bible. Not when it comes to accuracy about ancient beliefs. The historical value of the Bible is zero in that area, which renders itself somewhat pointless.

the book of mormon is complete and utter nonsense.yes, it is.

joseph smith's "book of abraham" is pretty hilariously fraudtastic too.oh yes, that one is so painful it does not even have any entertainment value to it.

Well, seeing as I have not paid attention to this thread, added any intelligent commentary, much less read the last 20 or so odd pages I feel it is my duty to inform you all on a new type of mormon. A mormon no one has seen before. An extreme mormon (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HL4zjGk_PBE)!

oh yes, that one is so painful it does not even have any entertainment value to it.

i want to know what kind of retard pretends to be able to translate another language, writes down this translation, makes notes on the source material, and then doesn't ensure that the original is 'lost' forever? and how much more of a retard does one have to be to actually write up a work on the alphabet and grammar of that langauge you can't actually read? i mean,honestly...

http://www.mormonismi.info/jamesdavid/mormpict/boamss1.jpg

It is apparently also the name of its own sect - http://www.trinitarians.org/
It's also the broad name for the denominations that believe in the Trinity.

Meanwhile, Catholic doctrine holds that Christ was both fully God and fully Man. Anyone who adopts the Catholic version of the trinity (and yes, that does include nearly every Protestant sect and Eastern Orthodox) believes that Jesus is God.

Show that to me in the Catechism then. Because that's not the Catechism I read.

As do Catholics, just in a different way.
They most definately do not! They burned people at the stake for thinking that way. Michael Servitus? Start of the Unitarian movement (ie like Jehova's Witnesses) was burned for that.


Separate and distinct, but also the same. This is one of those weird doctrinal things that was argued about in the church for decades - centuries even. Both the viewpoint that they are fully separate (ie. three totally different beings) and the viewpoint that they are totally the same (ie. representations of a single being) have been declared heretical. Hence the reason that people get so confused over the doctrine.

The eventual Greek word arrived on was (this may be spelled wrong) homousious which can be roughly translated as "of the same substance." However, the Eastern and Western churches, due to a language difference, still viewed the Trinity differently. It was part of the reason for the schism that led to the two becoming separate. Even within one denomination, you'd probably get vastly different descriptions of the Trinity and how it works. All most people can tell you that would be consistent is that the Trinity consists of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost but that these three somehow make up a single God.



Nothing in the first three requires that Jesus be divine. It is hinted at, but only John really makes it explicit. This is part of the reason for all of the different beliefs in the early churches. All of the disciples were setting up churches (and not just those whose Gospels were eventually incorporated into the official canon). Different churches had different versions of the Gospel and different texts they used. While the Catholic church will claim that the texts eventually made into official canon were those that had been used by all Christian churches everywhere, it simply isn't true. There were no such texts.
So none of the miracles or his resurection prove divinity? Be serious. And the churches have different translations, not different versions. And when you read them side by side, they basically say the same thing. I have eight translations on my iPod.

And I haven't the foggiest idea what you are talking about. There's the synoptic Gospels Matthew, Mark, Luke, and the non-synoptic John. I was saying, you might want to go with the synoptic, not the spiritual one.

It's also the broad name for the denominations that believe in the Trinity.

Kk

how that to me in the Catechism then. Because that's not the Catechism I read.

Is it not? Or is it just not said quite that way? I don't have the Catechism on hand, or any of my theology history books either, but wikipedia is easy to access:

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

In Christianity, the doctrine of the Trinity states that God is one being who exists, simultaneously and eternally, as a mutual indwelling of three persons: the Father, the Son (incarnate as Jesus of Nazareth), and the Holy Spirit. Since the 4th century, in both Eastern and Western Christianity, this doctrine has been stated as "three persons in one God," all three of whom, as distinct and co-eternal persons, are of one indivisible Divine essence, a simple being. Supporting the doctrine of the Trinity is known as Trinitarianism.

God is both one being - the Trinity - and three different beings - the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.

This has been the doctrine of the Catholic Church since the very first Nicean council

They most definately do not! They burned people at the stake for thinking that way. Michael Servitus? Start of the Unitarian movement (ie like Jehova's Witnesses) was burned for that.

The Unitarian movement was declared heretical because it removed the three separate persons, not because Jesus was declared to be God. Catholicsm (and most denominations) hold that the Trinity is both three different "persons" and one single deity. The Unitarians hold that there is a single "person" in God and, in fact, do not require the divinity of Christ, thus rejecting the Trinity.

So none of the miracles or his resurection prove divinity? Be serious.

Was Moses divine? He performed miracles. Lazarus was raised from the dead. Elijah (I think) was bodily taken into heaven without even dying. The ancient Jews were used to the idea of prophets performing miracles. And, in fact, they would have expected a Messiah to do so, even though most never expected the Messiah to be anything more a man chosen by God to do such things.

And the churches have different translations, not different versions. And when you read them side by side, they basically say the same thing. I have eight translations on my iPod.

I'm not talking about translations. I'm talking about the early church, where there was no standardization. They all had different versions of the Gospel, depending on which disciple had been the founder (or had known the founder) of their particular church. Christianity was pretty old before the church held a council to try and decide what would be official canon. And they threw out a lot of texts that a lot of early churches used. They kept only a very small portion of what was out there and declared it official.

And I haven't the foggiest idea what you are talking about. There's the synoptic Gospels Matthew, Mark, Luke, and the non-synoptic John. I was saying, you might want to go with the synoptic, not the spiritual one.

Of the 4 Gospels included in official canon, only John explicitly points to Jesus' divinity. In fact, it seems to be a popular position of Biblical scholars that the reason it was included was that the Church had decided on that particular matter and thus needed the Gospel of John to back it up.

And do you really think the current versions of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John are the only Gospels that ever existed? You think all the other disciples just shut up about Jesus and never bothered telling their stories? You think none of Matthew, Mark, Luke, or John's other followers ever wrote down versions of their Gospel? And how many of the disciples themselves do you think stopped to sit down and actually write it out, instead of traveling and spreading the word?

You really should read up on the history of the early church. It is truly fascinating.

Go ahead and read the book of Mormon, it's a cracking read. All about metal plates, and native American's being the lost tribe, and Jesus walking the shores of America! Fantastic.

I would ask any Mormons out there though, why is it that when ever I meet a Mormon missionary, they are extreamly good looking, both make and female?

It seems like some sorta ploy to me.

You've not met some of my buddies on missions then...

There has been some discussion on the Mormon doctrine excluding women.

As I remember it there was nothing in the writings of Joseph Smith that excluded women from any job. The male priesthood developed as a tradition based on the norms of the time. Unless it has been changed there is nothing other than tradition stopping women priests.

Neo, can you tell me if this is still true or was it changed after the writings of Smith?

It's like saying, "Well you can join my club for free... but you won't be getting any of the benefits that the paying members receive."



But the church doesn't have to act this way. You could admit gays and give them the same rights as everyone else, but you choose not to.

And Catholics could choose to make women priests, but choose not to.

And Catholics could choose to make women priests, but choose not to.

My understanding...

Men are called to hold the Mormon Priesthood

Women are called to bear children and be mothers.

EDIT: My tone sounds more sexist than was intended.

Well, seeing as I have not paid attention to this thread, added any intelligent commentary, much less read the last 20 or so odd pages I feel it is my duty to inform you all on a new type of mormon. A mormon no one has seen before. An extreme mormon (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HL4zjGk_PBE)!

That was pretty funny :p

O.K. from a person who has done some research on Mormonism and a person who has Mormon friend:

It's not as nuts as people make it out. It's peaceful, and has quite a lot of logic in it. Of course it has elements of stuff that I believe to be total rubbish too, but it does have lots of logic.

There has been some discussion on the Mormon doctrine excluding women.

As I remember it there was nothing in the writings of Joseph Smith that excluded women from any job. The male priesthood developed as a tradition based on the norms of the time. Unless it has been changed there is nothing other than tradition stopping women priests.

Neo, can you tell me if this is still true or was it changed after the writings of Smith?

At this time only men can hold the Priesthood. I'm not sure what the specifics are in terms of who wrote about what, or at what point that was formally established, but that's the way it's done now.

My understanding...

Men are called to hold the Mormon Priesthood

Women are called to bear children and be mothers.

EDIT: My tone sounds more sexist than was intended.

Not exactly. The women in LDS have their own organization that sort of parallels the Priesthood.

O.K. from a person who has done some research on Mormonism and a person who has Mormon friend:

It's not as nuts as people make it out. It's peaceful, and has quite a lot of logic in it. Of course it has elements of stuff that I believe to be total rubbish too, but it does have lots of logic.

what logic? I would like to know.

Not exactly. The women in LDS have their own organization that sort of parallels the Priesthood.
And that's sexism.

Seriously, if you use an individual's sex to decide what role or roles they are allowed to fill, then you are engaging in sexism. Hence, my assertion that the fundamentals of Mormonism include sexism.

Again, Mormons are not remotely unique in this. Indeed, sexism is the norm in our current world! I just think it's stupid and pointless to claim that Mormonism doesn't inherently include sexism. It does.

And Catholics could choose to make women priests, but choose not to.

That's why they are sexist misogynists.

And that's sexism.

Seriously, if you use an individual's sex to decide what role or roles they are allowed to fill, then you are engaging in sexism. Hence, my assertion that the fundamentals of Mormonism include sexism.

Again, Mormons are not remotely unique in this. Indeed, sexism is the norm in our current world! I just think it's stupid and pointless to claim that Mormonism doesn't inherently include sexism. It does.

I think when people get defensive it's because to them, "sexism" implies some level of inherent mysoginy or a deliberate effort to keep women at a disadvantage. It has a negative connotation.

Just for the sake of clarity, using your definition, would it constitute a technical case of sexism that eventually my ex will take our daughter to buy a training bra, but I'll never take my sons?

(Speaking of kids, my wife and I are expecting :) )

you should drive through utah some day. there is an abundance of perfect families. wholesome looking moms and dads with 4-6 perfect children all well behaved.

Scary shit.




Also, this'll be my first and last post in this thread: I've got my hands full debating Christianity - a religion which, in my mind, is highly (highly, highly) improbable, and yet still is far more realistic and believable than Mormonism, therefore I believe this thread will be a hueg (yes, hueg) waste of time I could be spent trying to argue against something that actually puts up a fight.

That's why they are sexist misogynists.

I am about to send you a TG........just so you know.

Is it not? Or is it just not said quite that way? I don't have the Catechism on hand, or any of my theology history books either, but wikipedia is easy to access:

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

In Christianity, the doctrine of the Trinity states that God is one being who exists, simultaneously and eternally, as a mutual indwelling of three persons: the Father, the Son (incarnate as Jesus of Nazareth), and the Holy Spirit. Since the 4th century, in both Eastern and Western Christianity, this doctrine has been stated as "three persons in one God," all three of whom, as distinct and co-eternal persons, are of one indivisible Divine essence, a simple being. Supporting the doctrine of the Trinity is known as Trinitarianism.

God is both one being - the Trinity - and three different beings - the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.

This has been the doctrine of the Catholic Church since the very first Nicean council
Um, exactly? That's what I've been saying. The Trinity is like an egg. Yolk, white stuff, and shell. Or like a company with a CEO and two senior VPs.


The Unitarian movement was declared heretical because it removed the three separate persons, not because Jesus was declared to be God. Catholicsm (and most denominations) hold that the Trinity is both three different "persons" and one single deity. The Unitarians hold that there is a single "person" in God and, in fact, do not require the divinity of Christ, thus rejecting the Trinity.
Well, the modern Unitarians aren't a real religion. It's a philosophy. Unitarian Universalists don't all beleive in the divinity of Jeusus. But not all of them believe in a supremem being either. But that's an aside. The old Unitarians had the same stance the JW's have. God is God is God. All literally the same being. Jesus was a literally God filled man. He was God made flesh in the old Unitarian movement and in the eyes of the JWs.


Was Moses divine? He performed miracles. Lazarus was raised from the dead. Elijah (I think) was bodily taken into heaven without even dying. The ancient Jews were used to the idea of prophets performing miracles. And, in fact, they would have expected a Messiah to do so, even though most never expected the Messiah to be anything more a man chosen by God to do such things.

God worked though Moses and all the others. That's the difference.

I'm not talking about translations. I'm talking about the early church, where there was no standardization. They all had different versions of the Gospel, depending on which disciple had been the founder (or had known the founder) of their particular church. Christianity was pretty old before the church held a council to try and decide what would be official canon. And they threw out a lot of texts that a lot of early churches used. They kept only a very small portion of what was out there and declared it official.
The apocrapha. And that was the whole point of the First Nicean Council. To standardize Christian teaching.


Of the 4 Gospels included in official canon, only John explicitly points to Jesus' divinity. In fact, it seems to be a popular position of Biblical scholars that the reason it was included was that the Church had decided on that particular matter and thus needed the Gospel of John to back it up.
Well, it was written for Christians during a time of great struggle. That's why it has the emphasis on the spiritual stuff.

And do you really think the current versions of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John are the only Gospels that ever existed? You think all the other disciples just shut up about Jesus and never bothered telling their stories? You think none of Matthew, Mark, Luke, or John's other followers ever wrote down versions of their Gospel? And how many of the disciples themselves do you think stopped to sit down and actually write it out, instead of traveling and spreading the word?
There's somewhere in the neighborhood of 50 gospels. Only two were (more than likely) written in the right time period and complete. Many of them were written hundreds of years later. Thomas and Peter. Thomas is a collection of sayings of Jesus and most of it is repeated in the 4 Canon gospels. Peter's version of historical events differs greatly from the first four. For example, Herod signed Jesus's death warrent in Peter. Jesus's cross is also anthropomorphic and talks in Peter.

You really should read up on the history of the early church. It is truly fascinating.
I have and do.

I am about to send you a TG........just so you know.

Ominous.

I think when people get defensive it's because to them, "sexism" implies some level of inherent mysoginy or a deliberate effort to keep women at a disadvantage. It has a negative connotation.

That's because it's a negative thing that has it's source in inherent misogyny and keeps women at a disadvantage.

Just for the sake of clarity, using your definition, would it constitute a technical case of sexism that eventually my ex will take our daughter to buy a training bra, but I'll never take my sons?


Do you expect your sons to grow breasts? If your sons will not have breasts they are ineligible for training bras. What is it about women that makes them ineligible to be Mormon/Catholic/whatever priests?

It's like saying, "Well you can join my club for free... but you won't be getting any of the benefits that the paying members receive."



But the church doesn't have to act this way. You could admit gays and give them the same rights as everyone else, but you choose not to.

No they don't. All Churches regardless of sec are private insitutions they don't have to let anyone they don't want to in.

That's because it's a negative thing that has it's source in inherent misogyny and keeps women at a disadvantage.



Do you expect your sons to grow breasts? If your sons will not have breasts they are ineligible for training bras. What is it about women that makes them ineligible to be Mormon/Catholic/whatever priests?

I think its something to do with women being evil because what Eve did with the apple.

That's because it's a negative thing that has it's source in inherent misogyny and keeps women at a disadvantage.



Do you expect your sons to grow breasts? If your sons will not have breasts they are ineligible for training bras. What is it about women that makes them ineligible to be Mormon/Catholic/whatever priests?

No they don't. All Churches regardless of sec are private insitutions they don't have to let anyone they don't want to in.

Wrong, churches are open to all who wish to persue the faith. Althour religeios zealots like you would deney minorities within the church equal rights because they are gay or have vaginas.

Um, exactly? That's what I've been saying. The Trinity is like an egg. Yolk, white stuff, and shell. Or like a company with a CEO and two senior VPs.

Except...not. Actually, suggesting that the Son is subordinate to the Father is a heresy, according to Catholic doctrine.

You have been arguing that, according to the concept of the Trinity, Christ is not God. This is patently incorrect. The Son is just as much God as the Father, or the Holy Spirit. They are all separate entities, all equally God, and all make up one God. *That* is what the doctrine of the Trinity states.

God worked though Moses and all the others. That's the difference.

And it is impossible to believe that God worked through Christ?

The apocrapha. And that was the whole point of the First Nicean Council. To standardize Christian teaching.

Indeed. But what guarantee do we have that their standardization was actually the best possible one? This question is especially important when we recognize that political undertone of much of the discussion. Why should, "Well, this council of Bishops said it..." make something automatically true? Why should we put our faith in human beings that way?

I have and do.

Cool beans.


Do you expect your sons to grow breasts? If your sons will not have breasts they are ineligible for training bras. What is it about women that makes them ineligible to be Mormon/Catholic/whatever priests?

I always love questions like that.

A. Is it sexism if I don't buy a jock strap for my daughter?
B. Does your daughter have a penis? If not, then no.
A. Ah, then obviously it isn't sexism if I tell my daughter that she has to learn to cook, but not my son.
B. No, that is sexism.
A. Then it must be sexism if I don't buy my son a training bra.
B. Um....no, not unless your son has breasts. Does a penis mean that he can't cook?

Wrong, churches are open to all who wish to persue the faith. Althour religeios zealots like you would deney minorities within the church equal rights because they are gay or have vaginas.

Why am I quoted here? My post was asking WHY women aren't allowed to be priests.

yeah then why is it my freind got turned away from a regular Christian Church because he was Atheist? While I have never seen a person turned away from mine. But your all right, we have magical underpants. My Boxers Give me Super Strength!

I think its something to do with women being evil because what Eve did with the apple.

nope, it has to do with sexism.

yeah then why is it my freind got turned away from a regular Christian Church because he was Atheist? While I have never seen a person turned away from mine. But your all right, we have magical underpants. My Boxers Give me Super Strength!

atheists can be members of the Mormon church?

Yes they can. They won't be atheist anymore because they will turn their life onto God (which the whole idea of Atheisim is the disbelife) But an Atheist can certianly attend and if he/she wants be baptized.

nope, it has to do with sexism.

I never said it wasnt sexist, just that it has a basis in scripture.

nope, it has to do with sexism.

Why am I quoted here? My post was asking WHY women aren't allowed to be priests.


Because I fail at quoting.

I never said it wasnt sexist, just that it has a basis in scripture.

anything can have a basis in scripture if you ignore the rest of scripture.

Women are weak according to some churches because Eve ate the apple, apparently Jael nailing a man's head to the ground is a weak action...she won a war for the men who couldn't seem to catch up with the guy, but hey, she has a vagina so she is weak.

Deborah is weak too. Mary? also weak. Esther saved a nation........she is what now? weak.

yeah.

anything can have a basis in scripture if you ignore the rest of scripture.

Women are weak according to some churches because Eve ate the apple, apparently Jael nailing a man's head to the ground is a weak action...she won a war for the men who couldn't seem to catch up with the guy, but hey, she has a vagina so she is weak.

Deborah is weak too. Mary? also weak. Esther saved a nation........she is what now? weak.

yeah.

judith kicked ass too. its a shame y'all dropped her book from your bible.

Yes they can. They won't be atheist anymore because they will turn their life onto God (which the whole idea of Atheisim is the disbelife) But an Atheist can certianly attend and if he/she wants be baptized.

atheists can attend my "regular" church too, they just can't become members without a statement of faith.

Not to change any ongoing religious arguments from hell itself. But...

I hate the Mormon faith, (don't get me wrong, I have Mormon friends) but it seems that every time I am around them, they are geared to tell me every other religion than Mormonism is wrong, and then they get snoody thinking they're better than everyone else, just because they're Mormons.

judith kicked ass too. its a shame y'all dropped her book from your bible.

yeah, gotta love a woman who decapitates people that piss her off. *nod*

yeah, gotta love a woman who decapitates people that piss her off. *nod*

she is my favorite old testament woman. sooo much cooler than ruth's "whither thou goest" passivity.

in the whole bible she is only edged out by the virgin mary who managed to raise a son to adulthood with such a good head on his shoulders. it cant be easy to do right by a son who is god.

Not to change any ongoing religious arguments from hell itself. But...

I hate the Mormon faith, (don't get me wrong, I have Mormon friends) but it seems that every time I am around them, they are geared to tell me every other religion than Mormonism is wrong, and then they get snoody thinking they're better than everyone else, just because they're Mormons.

you have too many friends of one faith. if you hung out with a similar number of serious catholics you would get the same kind of talk. its a psychological thing not a denominational one.

Because they don't. Also have I ever said anything about Wiccans? No, that's your little rant. I'm mostly interested in the damage the big three do, and have done. The dark ages alone may have killed our entire species. We'd be centuries ahead of where we are in technology if not for them.

As for this. Most wars are fought in the name of one god, belief or religion, what-have-you. If man never fought another man. He would develop at all. It's a competition thing, you always must one-up your opponent in order to win, that's how things develop. Not to mention that religion gave humans a common feeling in the beginning, something to bond, hence the development of civilization. Believe it or not, people like you have only existed for a short time, and only because you think that we are so modern that we can always care for ourselves and that we know everything there is to know. You believe science is the answer to everything. Well. Imagine for a minute that no one ever "thought of religion". That we go back ages upon ages to the beginning of intelligent life on Earth. Now, man wanders as a hunter-gatherer, aimlessly migrating and being, just another animal. Which is all that man is right? Given that humanity never had the opportunity to think of anything better for himself than his simple life of moving across the Earth, wouldn't we just be an advanced animal? You see, without the inspiration of religion, we wouldn't be any better than other animals, we would still wander around gathering fruit and killing wild animals for meat. We wouldn't have developed any of the tools to create modern science. You see, all you're doing is following number 4 of the biggest religions on Earth. What more are you doing than listening to old men (preachers and scientists alike), and reading old books (whether that be a chemistry book or a bible), and then telling everyone else their wrong because of what you've been taught for ages. Sounds like religion to me. You can't prove to me beyond a shadow of a doubt that your science is true in the same way I can't do so for god. Just, your imaginary friend isn't a character. It's nothing more than wind, or perhaps gravity, right?

you have too many friends of one faith. if you hung out with a similar number of serious catholics you would get the same kind of talk. its a psychological thing not a denominational one.

I know. That's why I don't hold individuals as responsible. It's just a shame that their religion can't teach them otherwise. Religious intolerance starts wars you know ;)

I know. That's why I don't hold individuals as responsible. It's just a shame that their religion can't teach them otherwise. Religious intolerance starts wars you know ;)

i dont think thats going to happen any time soon. certainly not before the kind of vociferous hatred of the mormon church shown in this thread continues to be common.

Not to change any ongoing religious arguments from hell itself. But...

I hate the Mormon faith, (don't get me wrong, I have Mormon friends) but it seems that every time I am around them, they are geared to tell me every other religion than Mormonism is wrong, and then they get snoody thinking they're better than everyone else, just because they're Mormons.

For Mormons being a missionary is a requirement and so they are obliged to try to get you to convert. I'm sure they're very polite, but yeah, they kind of have to try. Members of other faiths that don't require missionary work (Catholics, for example) wouldn't give you the same problems.

Go ahead and read the book of Mormon, it's a cracking read. All about metal plates, and native American's being the lost tribe, and Jesus walking the shores of America! Fantastic.

I would ask any Mormons out there though, why is it that when ever I meet a Mormon missionary, they are extreamly good looking, both make and female?

It seems like some sorta ploy to me.

There are unattractive Mormons. Trust me.

There are unattractive Mormons. Trust me.

Give us details!

That's because it's a negative thing that has it's source in inherent misogyny and keeps women at a disadvantage.


Yes, we understand that's your position. Restating it isn't a premise.


Do you expect your sons to grow breasts? If your sons will not have breasts they are ineligible for training bras. What is it about women that makes them ineligible to be Mormon/Catholic/whatever priests?

You're dodging the point. Now since you butted in, answer the question. Is it inherently sexist that I will not take my sons bra shopping but I would take my daughter?

I love it when people openly spew hate and vitriol, showing off the very worst traits of humanity that they're accusing the other side of having...

...and then try and claim the moral highground.

Arrogance comes in many flavors.

You're dodging the point. Now since you butted in, answer the question. Is it inherently sexist that I will not take my sons bra shopping but I would take my daughter?

Acknowledging physical differences isn't sexist, for fuck's sake! Unless you want you son to be teased within an inch of his life when it gets out that he owns a training bra... There's always the 'I want to be a girl,' but even then, he wouldn't need a bra until he became a she, so that's not exactly relevant.

Look men and women are different. We all know that, hell, there are enough books on the subject to defoliate a forest. Equality isn't denying these differences, it's allowing everyone the same opportunities, regardless of physical equipment.

You're dodging the point. Now since you butted in, answer the question. Is it inherently sexist that I will not take my sons bra shopping but I would take my daughter?

Of course not - and you know that you're asking a stupid question there.

But it is inherently sexist if you would take your son to a baseball game and not your daughter, simply because one is male and the other is female. It is sexist if you think your daughter should learn to cook, but your son shouldn't, simply because you think cooking is a girl's thing. Why are these things sexist when the other is not? It is very simple. There is no biological difference that makes boys inherently more interested in baseball than girls. There is no biological difference that makes women capable of/interested in cooking but keeps men from being able to do it or be interested in it.

So, unless you can point me to the biological difference between men and women that makes women unable to be priests, then yes, it is a sexist policy. It is no less bigoted than if you told me, "Black people can't be priests in the Mormon church, but they do have their own thing sort of like being priests." Or are you arguing that a statement like that wouldn't be racist?

One thing I wanted to point out as Christian seminarian is that according to the founders of the faith, Mormonism is not a part of "Christianity." When the first congregation of Christian ministers met in 325 A.D. at the Council of Nicaea, they hammered out what exactly it means to be a Christian by publishing the Nicene Creed. Mormonism violates a couple parts of this, namely:

"We believe in one God, the Father Almighty"
that Jesus was "begotten and not made"
that he "came down from heaven, was incarnate of the Holy Spirit and the Virgin Mary, and became man"
and that "we believe in one baptism for the forgiveness of sins."


Since Mormons believe that our God, who in the Book of Mormon is named "Elohim" was a child of another god, and that every Mormon who follows perfectly the tenets of Mormon theology can become a god, they are a polytheistic religion, which Christianity is not.

Mormons believe that Jesus was born of Elohim and one of his wives, a separate person created and not eternally begotten, as Christians believe, as a body of the Holy Trinity.

To facilitate Jesus' entry into the world, Elohim has sex with Mary and impregnates her with the essence of Jesus. "The virgin Mary" is never referred to in Mormon texts.

Baptism in the Church of Latter Day Saints can be performed multiple times on an individual for the forgiveness of one's family and ancestors.

Random responses:

Mormons tend to be "better looking" because they tend to eat healthier and don't drink, smoke, use drugs, caffeine, etc. They just take better care of themselves.

Tradition is harder to change than anything else. Nearly every denomination that has only male ministers has no written rule or word from God to that effect. It is really just tradition. There have been churches that have made the change and lost a large percentage of their membership as not only men but women object.

I've never been accosted to convert by Catholics, Orthodox, Methodists, Lutherans, or most Protestants. However I have been hit up by Mormons, Evangelical Free, Baptists. Jehovah's Witnesses, RLDS, and a few others. I enjoy the give and take as we discuss the subject. It's like NS only face to face.

Paul had many women in positions of authority, while saying women should not be in leadership. It's hard to tell if he was speaking from culture or inspiration. There are places where Paul blatantly states he is talking of his own beliefs. Then it was canonized making it "inspiration". One of the flaws in the system.

Except...not. Actually, suggesting that the Son is subordinate to the Father is a heresy, according to Catholic doctrine.
It doesn't imply subordination, but they are different. Christ status is equal when you think about it. No one can get ot heaven except through him. Consider Catholic Mass. Specifically these parts:
[gloria]Lord God, heavenly King, almighty God and Father, we worship you, we give you thanks, we praise you for your glory. Lord Jesus Christ, only Son of the Father, Lord God, Lamb of God, you take away the sin of the world: have mercy on us; you are seated at the right hand of the Father: receive our prayer. For you alone are the Holy One, you alone are the Lord, You alone are the Most High, Jesus Christ, with the Holy Spirit, in the glory of God the Father.

[Nicene Creed]We believe in one God, the Father, the Almighty, maker of heaven and earth, of all that is seen and unseen. We believe in one Lord, Jesus Christ, the only Son of God, eternally begotten of the Father, God from God, Light from Light, true God from true God, begotten, not made, one in Being with the Father. Through him all things were made.

For us men and for our salvation he came down from heaven: by the power of the Holy Spirit he was born of the Virgin Mary, and became man. For our sake he was crucified under Pontius Pilate; he suffered, died, and was buried. On the third day he rose again in fulfillment of the Scriptures; he ascended into heaven and is seated at the right hand of the Father. He will come again in glory to judge the living and the dead, and his kingdom will have no end.

We believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the giver of life, who proceeds from the Father and the Son. With the Father and the Son he is worshipped and glorified. He has spoken through the Prophets. We believe in one holy catholic and apostolic Church. We acknowledge one baptism for the forgiveness of sins. We look for the resurrection of the dead, and the life of the world to come. Amen.

Spoken at every mass.

You have been arguing that, according to the concept of the Trinity, Christ is not God. This is patently incorrect. The Son is just as much God as the Father, or the Holy Spirit. They are all separate entities, all equally God, and all make up one God. *That* is what the doctrine of the Trinity states.
Jesus is not God, no. He is divine. He is not God. He is Lord. He is not God. He was begotten of God. He can't be seated at the right hand of God and also be God.


And it is impossible to believe that God worked through Christ?

Seeing as how even deamons knew who he was (first three gospels), he tells people the only way to heaven is through him, not to mention the prophecies. No.

Indeed. But what guarantee do we have that their standardization was actually the best possible one? This question is especially important when we recognize that political undertone of much of the discussion. Why should, "Well, this council of Bishops said it..." make something automatically true? Why should we put our faith in human beings that way?
Since the other gospels were written waaay after or were incomplete, Thomas is integrated into the four gospels, and Peter has wrong historical info and a talking cross; no. I think they made the right choice. And besides, anyone can read the other gospels or any of the other gnostic texts any time they want. People don't.

Go ahead and read the book of Mormon, it's a cracking read. All about metal plates, and native American's being the lost tribe, and Jesus walking the shores of America! Fantastic.

I would ask any Mormons out there though, why is it that when ever I meet a Mormon missionary, they are extreamly good looking, both make and female?

It seems like some sorta ploy to me.

No way. I had a social studies teacher in high school and he was 400 pounds and as blind as a bat without his glasses. He was a good teacher though, and I liked talking to him.

You're dodging the point.

Not in the slightest, you're just missing mine.

Now since you butted in, answer the question. Is it inherently sexist that I will not take my sons bra shopping but I would take my daughter?

As I have already stated there is no need for your son to obtain a training bra due to the biological differences between boys and girls, but by all means if he wants one because it makes him feel pretty then he should be taken shopping for one as well. Now as I have provided a reason for not buying your boy a training bra that is NOT sexist (edit for even more clarity: Your son does not NEED a training bra, and presumably does not WANT a training bra.) perhaps you can provide me a non-sexist reason women can not be priests (another edit: Some women WANT to be priests, do you have compelling reasons they shouldn't be? "That's the way we've always done it" is a piss poor reason to do anything). Is there perhaps something about possession of a penis that makes a man fit to be priest? Or is it the vagina, mammary glands, or both that make a woman unfit for the job?

It doesn't imply subordination, but they are different.

Different, and yet the same. Simply saying they are different has been declared heretical. Simply saying that they are the same has been declared heretical.

To be safe with the Catholic church and most other denominations, both statements are necessary.

Jesus is not God, no. He is divine. He is not God. He is Lord. He is not God. He was begotten of God. He can't be seated at the right hand of God and also be God.

And yet, according to the doctrine of the Trinity, he is. Any suggestion that Jesus is not God is automatic heresy, and would have had you burned at the stake at various times throughout history.

You are finding the same sorts of paradoxes that people throughout history have found with the doctrine of the Trinity. Thing is, they are there. The doctrine requires that the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit are all separate, but also all the same. They all make up one God, but they are still separate beings. Is it a paradox? Yes, but it is the doctrine that the church decided on.

Once again, I'll quote the definition in Wikipedia, which you have already agreed to:

In Christianity, the doctrine of the Trinity states that God is one being who exists, simultaneously and eternally, as a mutual indwelling of three persons: the Father, the Son (incarnate as Jesus of Nazareth), and the Holy Spirit. Since the 4th century, in both Eastern and Western Christianity, this doctrine has been stated as "three persons in one God," all three of whom, as distinct and co-eternal persons, are of one indivisible Divine essence, a simple being.

From the Catholic Encyclopedia:
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/15047a.htm

The Trinity is the term employed to signify the central doctrine of the Christian religion -- the truth that in the unity of the Godhead there are Three Persons, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, these Three Persons being truly distinct one from another.

Thus, in the words of the Athanasian Creed: "the Father is God, the Son is God, and the Holy Spirit is God, and yet there are not three Gods but one God." In this Trinity of Persons the Son is begotten of the Father by an eternal generation, and the Holy Spirit proceeds by an eternal procession from the Father and the Son. Yet, notwithstanding this difference as to origin, the Persons are co-eternal and co-equal: all alike are uncreated and omnipotent. This, the Church teaches, is the revelation regarding God's nature which Jesus Christ, the Son of God, came upon earth to deliver to the world: and which she proposes to man as the foundation of her whole dogmatic system.

From the Catechism:
http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/_P17.HTM
Christians are baptized in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit: not in their names,55 for there is only one God, the almighty Father, his only Son and the Holy Spirit: the Most Holy Trinity.

Here it is made clear that the Trinity - made up of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirity - is one God.

237 The Trinity is a mystery of faith in the strict sense, one of the "mysteries that are hidden in God, which can never be known unless they are revealed by God".58 To be sure, God has left traces of his Trinitarian being in his work of creation and in his Revelation throughout the Old Testament. But his inmost Being as Holy Trinity is a mystery that is inaccessible to reason alone or even to Israel's faith before the Incarnation of God's Son and the sending of the Holy Spirit.

Once again, it is made clear that God is made up of the Trinity, not just of the Father.

In fact, there's even a whole section heading named: "THE REVELATION OF GOD AS TRINITY"


Seeing as how even deamons knew who he was (first three gospels), he tells people the only way to heaven is through him, not to mention the prophecies. No.

Demons knew who other prophets were as well. And the statement that the only way to get to heaven is through him can be seen in many different ways. You are stuck on one because it is the one you've always heard, sort of like people get stuck on Anselm's version of atonement because it is all they ever here. When they hear about Abelard, they can't imagine that there is Scriptural backing for it, because they think there is only one way to read Scripture.

There are many ways to see Christ's words. There are many ways to see what is put forth in Scripture. Some in the early church thought that Jesus became divine upon His death. Some thought He was to be seen as an intercessor - a link between us and the divine. And so on...

And, as for the prophesies, it is important to note the fact that Jesus was not the Messiah the Jewish community as a whole expected. One can certainly see where Jesus can meet those prophesies, but it requires looking at them in a very specific way. And none of them suggested that the Messiah had to be divine.

Since the other gospels were written waaay after or were incomplete, Thomas is integrated into the four gospels, and Peter has wrong historical info and a talking cross; no. I think they made the right choice. And besides, anyone can read the other gospels or any of the other gnostic texts any time they want. People don't.

Why do you pretend that we even have copies of all of the other texts or that Thomas and Peter would the only texts used in early churches were either those or the ones that were adopted? What makes you think that there weren't other versions of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John - in addition to the ones finally chosen as canon. What makes you think these weren't edited as they were chosen? Keep in mind that the Church would often burn all copies of anything it found to be heretical, and texts used by early churches that were not included in the final canon were thus likely to be destroyed.

So, once again I must ask, why all the faith in men?

You guy's kept mentioning Jehovah's Witnesses...what exactly is it that makes them different, again?

You guy's kept mentioning Jehovah's Witnesses...what exactly is it that makes them different, again?

oh you need to start a whole new thread to discuss JWs, christian scientists, seventh day adventists or any other us-bred denomination.

One thing I wanted to point out as Christian seminarian is that according to the founders of the faith, Mormonism is not a part of "Christianity." When the first congregation of Christian ministers met in 325 A.D. at the Council of Nicaea, they hammered out what exactly it means to be a Christian by publishing the Nicene Creed. Mormonism violates a couple parts of this, namely:

"We believe in one God, the Father Almighty"
that Jesus was "begotten and not made"
that he "came down from heaven, was incarnate of the Holy Spirit and the Virgin Mary, and became man"
and that "we believe in one baptism for the forgiveness of sins."

:rolleyes:

This is how we know some people don't bother to RTFF.



Since Mormons believe that our God, who in the Book of Mormon is named "Elohim" was a child of another god, and that every Mormon who follows perfectly the tenets of Mormon theology can become a god, they are a polytheistic religion, which Christianity is not.


Actually, He's never referred to in that way in the BoM, but I'm being nitpicky here. I point it out because this demonstrates that you haven't actually READ it and thus aren't qualified to speak in detail about it.


Mormons believe that Jesus was born of Elohim and one of his wives, a separate person created and not eternally begotten, as Christians believe, as a body of the Holy Trinity.


Not gonna bother with this.


To facilitate Jesus' entry into the world, Elohim has sex with Mary and impregnates her with the essence of Jesus. "The virgin Mary" is never referred to in Mormon texts.


This is false. A reading of the thread will show where I've already discussed this claim, but suffice it to say this is NOT true of LDS doctrine and yes, Mary IS referred to as a virgin mother in LDS Scripture.


Baptism in the Church of Latter Day Saints can be performed multiple times on an individual for the forgiveness of one's family and ancestors.


Not quite true as stated, but I think I know what you're trying to refer to.

Obvioiusly, your source of information is some kind of book/pamphlet/tract/website designed to trash Mormons without bothering with an honest approach.

Acknowledging physical differences isn't sexist, for fuck's sake! Unless you want you son to be teased within an inch of his life when it gets out that he owns a training bra... There's always the 'I want to be a girl,' but even then, he wouldn't need a bra until he became a she, so that's not exactly relevant.

Look men and women are different. We all know that, hell, there are enough books on the subject to defoliate a forest. Equality isn't denying these differences, it's allowing everyone the same opportunities, regardless of physical equipment.

Not in the slightest, you're just missing mine.



As I have already stated there is no need for your son to obtain a training bra due to the biological differences between boys and girls, but by all means if he wants one because it makes him feel pretty then he should be taken shopping for one as well. Now as I have provided a reason for not buying your boy a training bra that is NOT sexist (edit for even more clarity: Your son does not NEED a training bra, and presumably does not WANT a training bra.) perhaps you can provide me a non-sexist reason women can not be priests (another edit: Some women WANT to be priests, do you have compelling reasons they shouldn't be? "That's the way we've always done it" is a piss poor reason to do anything). Is there perhaps something about possession of a penis that makes a man fit to be priest? Or is it the vagina, mammary glands, or both that make a woman unfit for the job?

OK you've gone past my point. Yes, it would be stupid to expect to take a boy out to buy a training bra. Yes, it's due to physical differences. Yes, we all know, understand and agree that there are differences.

What I'm trying to illustrate is that those differences are something to be celebrated. They're something that enables men and women to work together to make the whole greater than the sum of the parts. By having defined roles and duties for each sex, it strengthens all. Men aren't considered superior to women. Let me say this again, because about 6 people will come on here insisting we think the opposite. Men are not considered superior to women. Men have their jobs and duties, women have theirs. Sometimes they overlap. Sometimes thay don't. There's noting mysoginistic or sexist about it, unless you WANT to interpret it that way for your own ends.

But don't push that mentality on us.

OK you've gone past my point. Yes, it would be stupid to expect to take a boy out to buy a training bra. Yes, it's due to physical differences. Yes, we all know, understand and agree that there are differences.

What I'm trying to illustrate is that those differences are something to be celebrated. They're something that enables men and women to work together to make the whole greater than the sum of the parts.

Please list, specifically, which innate differences between men and women require that women be denied the priesthood. Specifically, what functions are women unable to perform because of their femaleness?


By having defined roles and duties for each sex, it strengthens all.

"Seperate but equal," right?


Men aren't considered superior to women. Let me say this again, because about 6 people will come on here insisting we think the opposite. Men are not considered superior to women. Men have their jobs and duties, women have theirs.

Why?

Please state, specifically, why certain jobs must be performed by females, and others by males. Give specific examples of why a female person or a male person would be unable to fulfill the jobs assigned to the opposite sex.


Sometimes they overlap. Sometimes thay don't. There's noting mysoginistic or sexist about it, unless you WANT to interpret it that way for your own ends.

But don't push that mentality on us.
All this floofy talk about "differences" sounds like the same old sexism to me. But if you'd like to prove me wrong, that would be super.

All I want are specific reasons why a female human being is unable to fulfill the duties of a male member of the Mormon church. I don't want more of the vague mumbo jumbo about "differences," I want specifics. As a female, SPECIFICALLY, what is it that I cannot do? What, SPECIFICALLY, makes me automatically less qualified to be a member of the priesthood?

I can't think of any special connection... anyone else?
Nah, doubt there is, heh.
Except maybe they learn dedication or some shit? Dunno really.

Please list, specifically, which innate differences between men and women require that women be denied the priesthood. Specifically, what functions are women unable to perform because of their femaleness?


"Seperate but equal," right?


Why?

Please state, specifically, why certain jobs must be performed by females, and others by males. Give specific examples of why a female person or a male person would be unable to fulfill the jobs assigned to the opposite sex.


All this floofy talk about "differences" sounds like the same old sexism to me. But if you'd like to prove me wrong, that would be super.

All I want are specific reasons why a female human being is unable to fulfill the duties of a male member of the Mormon church. I don't want more of the vague mumbo jumbo about "differences," I want specifics. As a female, SPECIFICALLY, what is it that I cannot do? What, SPECIFICALLY, makes me automatically less qualified to be a member of the priesthood?

I spent a lot of time thinking about the best way to answer this. The challenge is, of course, that we're looking at it from two entirely different points of view. I know in my heart that this is not a system aimed at disadvantaging women or at propping up men, but I can see how it would look like one from your point of view. That's why I don't take offense that you'd think it sexist. I'd probably think so too if I were in your shoes.

I can't ask you guys to just "take my word for it" because that would have to depend on how well you knew me etc, and since none of us have ever met, that's not an option.

So how to answer? Well, maybe the best way is beyond the scope of this forum. Maybe the best way would be to ask a Mormon woman. They don't seem to feel disenfranchised, so their perspective is probably a lot more useful than mine. Their insight is certainly better. Consider that, as a male, my answer would be considered suspect at best no matter how I answer (understandable, but ironically, sexist.) I think the word of a female member would be better. Any takers out there?

My wife has a nation on here but she rarely goes on the forum. She hasn't been a member of the Church for very long but maybe she'd be willing. (Between bouts of morning sickness :( )

That's the most honest answer I can give. I think it's fair. If that leaves anybody unsatisfied then I apologize for not being able to do better.

You guy's kept mentioning Jehovah's Witnesses...what exactly is it that makes them different, again?

JW's are a separate organization from LDS, but similar in that they too have a big Missionary thing going, and are oft considered non-Christian by the "Christian mainstream."

I've often tried to talk directly to JWs to learn about the differences but (maybe I'm just unlucky) most of the time they're unwilling to discuss it unless they're missionaries at your door, and they're not there to do anything but try to convert you.

I know they believe that the Father and the Son (Jesus Christ) are two separate beings and that the Holy Spirit is considered by them to be an aspect of the Father, not a separate being. They do not celebrate holidays and refuse blood transfusions.

They have their own translation of the Bible, but I don't know how it differs from the KJV. Apparently they also believe that Jesus was crucified not on a cross, but on a pole.

Also, due to a passage in the book of Revelations, they believe only 144,000 people will go to Heaven to be with God.

Not that I'm 100% sure about any of the above, but those are the differences, as I understand them. None of those items are in common with Mormons.

I spent a lot of time thinking about the best way to answer this. The challenge is, of course, that we're looking at it from two entirely different points of view. I know in my heart that this is not a system aimed at disadvantaging women or at propping up men, but I can see how it would look like one from your point of view. That's why I don't take offense that you'd think it sexist. I'd probably think so too if I were in your shoes.

Doesn't matter what our "points of view" may be, in this case. I'm asking for specific examples. Either those examples exist, or they don't. My "point of view" doesn't matter in this case.


I can't ask you guys to just "take my word for it" because that would have to depend on how well you knew me etc, and since none of us have ever met, that's not an option.

So how to answer? Well, maybe the best way is beyond the scope of this forum. Maybe the best way would be to ask a Mormon woman. They don't seem to feel disenfranchised, so their perspective is probably a lot more useful than mine. Their insight is certainly better. Consider that, as a male, my answer would be considered suspect at best no matter how I answer (understandable, but ironically, sexist.) I think the word of a female member would be better. Any takers out there?

Why is a Mormon woman necessary to answer this question?

You, a male, have asserted that there are differences between males and females, and these differences are why the differing roles of males and females in your religion exist.

I'm asking you to name those differences.

What differences, specifically, make it so that only males can fulfill the duties of the male priesthood in your religion? Why is a female unable to fulfill those duties?

What differences, specifically, make it so that a male cannot fulfill the duties of a female in your religion?


My wife has a nation on here but she rarely goes on the forum. She hasn't been a member of the Church for very long but maybe she'd be willing. (Between bouts of morning sickness :( )

That's the most honest answer I can give. I think it's fair. If that leaves anybody unsatisfied then I apologize for not being able to do better.
Of course it's not a "fair" or satisfactory answer, and you know it.

You are capable of answering this question and you are choosing not to.

Doesn't matter what our "points of view" may be, in this case. I'm asking for specific examples. Either those examples exist, or they don't. My "point of view" doesn't matter in this case.


Why is a Mormon woman necessary to answer this question?

You, a male, have asserted that there are differences between males and females, and these differences are why the differing roles of males and females in your religion exist.

I'm asking you to name those differences.

What differences, specifically, make it so that only males can fulfill the duties of the male priesthood in your religion? Why is a female unable to fulfill those duties?


Of course it's not a "fair" or satisfactory answer, and you know it.

You are capable of answering this question and you are choosing not to.

It has everything to do with point of view. This isn't an issue you can shoehorn into a black & white analysis.

I'm capable of answering the question, but I don't think I can answer it in a way that will satify you.

Why?

Simply because you've already made up your mind. Any answer I give will be insufficient because ultimately it will be coming from a male and you appear to have decided that, as such, I cannot possibly hold a point of view that would enable me to see clearly. (Remember our earlier conversation about Dempublicants1's aunt?) You've already laid that out. Essentially you're demanding that I discuss, objectively, an issue that you've already disqualified me, in your mind, from being able to discuss objectively.

And since I'm not interested in going in circles, I'm offering an alternative. The perspective of someone who, according to you, WOULD have the ability to see it clearly.

But frankly, I don't think even that would help because you've already made up your mind. No offense.

It has everything to do with point of view. This isn't an issue you can shoehorn into a black & white analysis.

Sure it is; you made it one.

You're the one asserting the "black and white" perspective. You assert that men and women are "different" in some undefined ways, and thus it makes sense to bar women from participating in some spheres of life (and to bar men from others, one presumes).

I am simply asking you to stop being vague about those "differences."


I'm capable of answering the question, but I don't think I can answer it in a way that will satify you.

Why?

Simply because you've already made up your mind.

I'm asking you to name the differences that you claim exist. Can you name them, or not?


Any answer I give will be insufficient because ultimately it will be coming from a male and you appear to have decided that, as such, I cannot possibly hold a point of view that would enable me to see clearly.

No, I have not decided that. Indeed, I have specifically clarified that I don't believe your maleness automatically invalidates anything you have to say.

So, now that we've solved that problem, you can list the differences.


(Remember our earlier conversation about Dempublicants1's aunt?) You've already laid that out. Essentially you're demanding that I discuss, objectively, an issue that you've already disqualified me, in your mind, from being able to discuss objectively.

I'm not asking you to "discuss" something objectively right now. I'm asking you to clarify your assertion.

You have asserted the existence of "differences." I ask you to please list the differences that you are talking about.


And since I'm not interested in going in circles, I'm offering an alternative. The perspective of someone who, according to you, WOULD have the ability to see it clearly.

Your wife would not be any more or less qualified to answer my question than you are.

What are the specific "differences" between males and females that make a female in capable of fulfilling "male" roles in your church, and vice versa?

What duties of the priesthood is a female innately unable to fulfill because of her femaleness?

What traits, specifically, necessitate the "seperate but equal" structure in your religion?

Please list, specifically, which innate differences between men and women require that women be denied the priesthood. Specifically, what functions are women unable to perform because of their femaleness?

1. They can't bugger alter boys.
2. Erm...
3. That's it.

Maybe it's something to do with the magic underwear.

<snip>
What traits, specifically, necessitate the "seperate but equal" structure in your religion?

That, right there, is the reason I'm not taking the bait. "separate but equal" is a phrase with strong negative connotations because it was used to justify segregation. Because I know you're smart enough to be aware of that, I can only conclude that you are deliberately attaching negative connotations to whatever answer I might provide. Thus, you've already made up your mind. If you were actually trying to come at it with an open mind in the interest of understanding, I'd be willing to give it a shot with the caveat that I am not the best source. But if it's just baiting, no. I'm not going to waste my time.

You've also locked on to the notion that somehow women are being disenfranchised by using the word "different" as if it meant "inferior." I suggested talking to a Mormon woman as a way of addressing it directly. Makes perfect sense to me. Why would you have a reluctance to go directly to a primary source?

Answer: Because you've made up your mind already. Otherwise, you'd be willing to hear it, in the interest of honest discourse.

That, right there, is the reason I'm not taking the bait. "separate but equal" is a phrase with strong negative connotations because it was used to justify segregation. Because I know you're smart enough to be aware of that, I can only conclude that you are deliberately attaching negative connotations to whatever answer I might provide. Thus, you've already made up your mind. If you were actually trying to come at it with an open mind in the interest of understanding, I'd be willing to give it a shot with the caveat that I am not the best source. But if it's just baiting, no. I'm not going to waste my time.

You've also locked on to the notion that somehow women are being disenfranchised by using the word "different" as if it meant "inferior." I suggested talking to a Mormon woman as a way of addressing it directly. Makes perfect sense to me. Why would you have a reluctance to go directly to a primary source?

Answer: Because you've made up your mind already. Otherwise, you'd be willing to hear it, in the interest of honest discourse.


So your dodging the issue because the guy didnt use the right words? You seem to think that if anyone says anything bad about your religeon or points out its flaws they are baiting you. They are not the simply trying to understand your religeon better. And covering your ears and saying 'your not nice i dont wanna play waaaa' is not helping. Now stop whining like a bitch and answer Bottle's question.

That, right there, is the reason I'm not taking the bait. "separate but equal" is a phrase with strong negative connotations because it was used to justify segregation. Because I know you're smart enough to be aware of that, I can only conclude that you are deliberately attaching negative connotations to whatever answer I might provide. Thus, you've already made up your mind. If you were actually trying to come at it with an open mind in the interest of understanding, I'd be willing to give it a shot with the caveat that I am not the best source. But if it's just baiting, no. I'm not going to waste my time.

If you really do believe there are innate differences like the ones you allude to, then it shouldn't matter what "bait" is or isn't there.

For the record, I'm not trying to bait you, though. I'm trying to get a straight answer from you. If you will provide examples of the differences you are talking about, then we can proceed to have a (potentially interesting) discussion.

I don't know much about the workings of the Mormon religion. For all I know, there are special rituals in which a person must turn the pages of a holy book using their genitals, and therefore it is completely legit to say that only somebody with a penis can fulfill a particular role because a person who doesn't have a penis can't possibly perform the necessary ritual functions.

I'm asking you honestly for a straight answer. All I'm asking is that you clarify what you have already claimed. What are the differences you are refering to?


You've also locked on to the notion that somehow women are being disenfranchised by using the word "different" as if it meant "inferior."

Actually, I've continually asked why males are also unable to fulfill "female" roles in your religion.

I'm asking for specific examples of why males and females must be kept in separate roles in your religion.


I suggested talking to a Mormon woman as a way of addressing it directly. Makes perfect sense to me. Why would you have a reluctance to go directly to a primary source?

I'm going to a primary source right now: you.

You're here, now, responding. Your wife isn't. So I'm asking you, because you're just as good a source as she is and you are currently available while she is not.


Answer: Because you've made up your mind already. Otherwise, you'd be willing to hear it, in the interest of honest discourse.
?

I'm willing to hear the answer to my question from whomever will provide it. I've been asking you to answer me for a page now. I'm more than willing to listen to you actually address my question.

It seems like the entire problem right now is that NB doesn't want to answer me, personally, so is there somebody else who would be willing to put forth my question?

Perhaps if some non-Bottle individual asks, NB will feel comfortable answering.

Why is it that women are treated differently in Mormonisim from men, NB?

Neo Bretonnia, to be honest I am rather curious why there are differences as well. Unlike Bottle I am not trying to attach any sort of negative connotations to the answer, as I am simply curious.

Neo Bretonnia, to be honest I am rather curious why there are differences as well. Unlike Bottle I am not trying to attach any sort of negative connotations to the answer, as I am simply curious.
Oy.

For the last time:

I DON'T KNOW WHAT THE ANSWERS ARE, and thus I am not trying to attach any connotations to them.

I'm annoyed and somewhat contemptuous right now because NB is doing the same vague "gender differences" dance I've seen a million times before. THAT is what I'm responding negatively to. If I could get a simple straight answer to my question then we could have an interesting discussion. I'm honestly curious because I don't know that much about the workings of the Mormon religion. So I'm asking questions. And, instead of getting answers, I'm being informed about what I think and feel. Thanks, but I already know what I think and feel, and that's not what I'm asking about.

For all I know, I might really like his answer (if he gave one). I'm not about to attach connotations to a complete unknown.

Oy.

For the last time:

I DON'T KNOW WHAT THE ANSWERS ARE, and thus I am not trying to attach any connotations to them.

I'm annoyed and somewhat contemptuous right now because NB is doing the same vague "gender differences" dance I've seen a million times before. THAT is what I'm responding negatively to. If I could get a simple straight answer to my question then we could have an interesting discussion. I'm honestly curious because I don't know that much about the workings of the Mormon religion. So I'm asking questions. And, instead of getting answers, I'm being informed about what I think and feel. Thanks, but I already know what I think and feel, and that's not what I'm asking about.

For all I know, I might really like his answer (if he gave one). I'm not about to attach connotations to a complete unknown.

And I said what I said because I too was not attaching any sort of negative connotations. I wanted to make that clear to him lest he think I was simply asking because you asked us to.

For the record, Bottle, I stand with you when it comes to equal rights between genders, just so you don't start biting my head off.

And I said what I said because I too was not attaching any sort of negative connotations. I wanted to make that clear to him lest he think I was simply asking because you asked us to.

Fair enough.


For the record, Bottle, I stand with you when it comes to equal rights between genders, just so you don't start biting my head off.
I'm not here to bite anybody's head off.

I am irritated when my desire to get straight answers gets spun as some kind of attack. I want to cut through all the vague jabber about how men and women are "different" and get at the meat of things. How are they different? Which specific qualities do males lack and females possess, and vice versa, and why are these specific qualities required for given roles?

I am irritated when my desire to get straight answers gets spun as some kind of attack. I want to cut through all the vague jabber about how men and women are "different" and get at the meat of things. How are they different? Which specific qualities do males lack and females possess, and vice versa, and why are these specific qualities required for given roles?

As you said, fair enough. Sometimes I just get the impression you tend to be a little hostile towards anyone that doesn't agree with you and I was trying to cut that perceived hostility off at the pass, as it were.

As you said, fair enough. Sometimes I just get the impression you tend to be a little hostile towards anyone that doesn't agree with you and I was trying to cut that perceived hostility off at the pass, as it were.
I've been getting that a lot lately. I guess I should make more of an effort to put people at ease because I'm really not feeling as hostile as I'm being perceived.

Just to warn folks, I am starting my experiments for the day now, so I may not be able to respond promptly to this thread for a bit.

This is a LOOOOOONG thread, so I don't know if anyone's mentioned this or not, but an interesting footnote in Mormonism is that black people are considered tainted, being black because of previous sins. Mormonism has lightened up over the years, racewise, but blacks are still considered "inferior" in a spiritual sense.

Also, if I can remember correctly, there was a huge slaughter of Native Americans by some Mormons way back in the 1800's. Still nothing compared to the "normal" Christianity-fueled Spanish Inquisition.

Also, my best professor in college was a Mormon, so I'm not talking shit about Mormons---just their religion.

Joseph Smith---> :fluffle: <---Me

It seems like the entire problem right now is that NB doesn't want to answer me, personally, so is there somebody else who would be willing to put forth my question?

Perhaps if some non-Bottle individual asks, NB will feel comfortable answering.

Why is it that women are treated differently in Mormonisim from men, NB?

Neo Bretonnia, to be honest I am rather curious why there are differences as well. Unlike Bottle I am not trying to attach any sort of negative connotations to the answer, as I am simply curious.

Bottle, it's not personal, I assure you. I'm sure you noticed on this thread that I refuse to discuss with ANYBODY who appears to be trying to bait me into a discussion in which they've already made up their mind and just want to trash my answers. If that wasn't your intent, then I hope you'll be willing to look over your posts to see why it appears to be so.

So for everybody who's just curious: I will answer. After lunch :D

And if God said that Blacks weren't given the same "status" as white folk?

Should we go back to what we were doing between 1608 to the late 1960s and continue to treat them as sub-human or second class citizens?

This was posted way back near the start of the thread.

I would like to see this answered.

It falls into the area area of the gender "differences". After all, males and females in the LDS church are "separate but equal" according to NB. So, does this mean that white people and people of colour are "separate but equal" as well in the LDS church or is skin not as relevant as gender?


Yes they can. They won't be atheist anymore because they will turn their life onto God (which the whole idea of Atheisim is the disbelife) But an Atheist can certianly attend and if he/she wants be baptized.

But why would an Atheist want to go there in the first place when they don't believe in one iota of that religious bunk?

Bottle, it's not personal, I assure you. I'm sure you noticed on this thread that I refuse to discuss with ANYBODY who appears to be trying to bait me into a discussion in which they've already made up their mind and just want to trash my answers. If that wasn't your intent, then I hope you'll be willing to look over your posts to see why it appears to be so.

So for everybody who's just curious: I will answer. After lunch :D


No, now.

Sorry to sound, oh, what's a good word for it... prickish, but I fail to see how anyone can actually believe that Jesus Christ came to the Americas, without any actual literary evidence, nor any archaeological evidence, nor even a mention of any event occurring by any of the indigenous tribes of America(I'm sure this would have popped up, somewhere, in oral stories, as it would have been a rather peculiar event to occur), nor has anyone actually seen the gold tablets themselves.

There is faith... and then there is the leap.

Sorry to sound like a prick, but Mormonism kind of sprung up during the hole period of everyone and their mother trying to associate Europeans and other "old worlders" with the Americas, because it was thought that the Natives just were far to primitive to do what they did, and not only that, but many people included Christ or the "lost tribes of Israel" to many of the great works done by the Native Americans.

So yeah... that's my two pesos on the issue.

It has everything to do with point of view. This isn't an issue you can shoehorn into a black & white analysis.

I'm capable of answering the question, but I don't think I can answer it in a way that will satify you.

Why?

Simply because you've already made up your mind. Any answer I give will be insufficient because ultimately it will be coming from a male and you appear to have decided that, as such, I cannot possibly hold a point of view that would enable me to see clearly. (Remember our earlier conversation about Dempublicants1's aunt?) You've already laid that out. Essentially you're demanding that I discuss, objectively, an issue that you've already disqualified me, in your mind, from being able to discuss objectively.

And since I'm not interested in going in circles, I'm offering an alternative. The perspective of someone who, according to you, WOULD have the ability to see it clearly.

But frankly, I don't think even that would help because you've already made up your mind. No offense.

Ok then,you think we won't listen to you if you tell us why women can't fulfill a man's role.

So, reverse it. Tell us why a man cannot fulfill whatever role women get put into in the church. What exactly is it about a man that makes him unfit to fulfill the roles in the church given to women?

I am irritated when my desire to get straight answers gets spun as some kind of attack. I want to cut through all the vague jabber about how men and women are "different" and get at the meat of things. How are they different? Which specific qualities do males lack and females possess, and vice versa, and why are these specific qualities required for given roles?

I'm not a Mormon and don't see a reason not to have women in the priesthood. And from my study of religions, almost none (and I think the Mormons are included) have no written prohibition against women. It's a tradition that developed. Many churches that have changed such tradition have lost a large per cent of membership because both the men and women have objected to the change. Tradition is the hardest thing possible to change.

Now from a nonreligious point of view. My degree is in communications. There are many differences in the way that men communicate and women communicate. This could be a contributing factor. (Now as I say this these are averages and don't apply to individuals. We will all be able to pick out the exceptions.) Men tend to be more oriented to the "pack" than women. They work toward a goal in more of a commune way. They tend to follow the leader with less questioning. They tend to have far more friends but aren't as close to an individual as a woman. They tend to be more direct in their communication and less compromising. The goal is everything with men. As long as the goal is achieved, the relationship between the members is secondary.

Now going back the the origins of the human animal this is how each way was an advantage. The men were the hunters. So the larger group of friends the better to kill the elephant. Yet this was a dangerous job so they couldn't afford to be emotionally close to an individual since someone was going to get killed by the elephant and you still needed to hunt the next day. They couldn't be individual, they had to work as a team, so they had to follow the leader without question so all would be coordinated. They couldn't be vague in communication. They didn't have time to interpret. The important thing wasn't if they liked each other the important thing was to kill the elephant.

Women on the other hand were the gatherers. It didn't take all the women to pick berries, some could be digging roots. So women became very close to just a few not the whole group. Today most women have 1 or 2 "best friends" (BFF is a woman's term not a man's). Because they worked in very small groups and they had to get along they learned to compromise and "feel out" the opinions of the others. In other words they talked more vague until they knew the other's opinion. Since there wasn't a lot of danger in berry picking they would have the same friends for a long time (BFF again) and could afford to invest heavy emotions into them. The work of berry picking didn't need the coordination of hunting so they didn't need the teamwork of the men. The important thing for women was friends first, berries second.

So how does this play out today? A couple men get together to watch the "game". One runs into a new friend, he invites him over. No problem, the bigger the pack the better. So over a few weeks the pack continues to grow as new friends are invited over. The men have a great time. They are not particularly close to any of the pack but they enjoy the big pack.

A couple women go "berry picking" for new cloths. One invites a new friend. The old friend becomes offended because this is the time for the two of them to commune. This outsider is an invader to the berry patch. There is a lot of tension until one of the three decides that she will no longer "berry pick" for cloths with the others.

Joseph Smith was called a prophet
Dumb dumb dumb dumb dumb
He started the Mormon religion
Dumb dumb dumb dumb dumb.
Dumb dumb dumb dumb dumb
Joseph Smith was called a prophet-

Dumb dumb dumb dumb dumb
Many people believed Joseph
Dumb dumb dumb dumb dumb
And that night he-ee saw an angel
Dumb dumb dumb dumb dumb

Dumb dumb dumb dumb dumb

Joseph Smith was called a prophet
Dumb dumb dumb dumb dumb

Dumb dumb dumb dumb dumb

He found the stones and golden plates
Dumb dumb dumb dumb dumb
Even though nobody else ever saw them
Dumb dumb dumb dumb dumb

Dumb dumb dumb dumb dumb

Dumb dumb dumb dumb dumb

And that's how the Book of Mormon was written
Dumb dumb dumb dumb dumb
Dumb dadumb dumb dumb dumb dumb
Dumb dadumb dumb dumb dumb dumb
Dahumb dahumb dumb dumb dumb dumb
Dumb dumb dumb dumb duuumb, duuumb.

Martin went home to his wife
Dumb dumb dumb dumb dumb
And showed her pages from the Book of Mormon
Dumb dumb dumb dumb dumb

Lucy Harris smart smart smart
Smart smart smart smart smart

Martin Harris dumb dadumb-

Lucy Harris smart smart smart
Martin Harris dumb.
So Martin went on back to Smith
Said the pages had gone away
Smith got mad and told Martin
He needed to go pray
Dumb dumb dumb dumb dumb

Dumb dumb dumb dumb dumb

Dumb dumb dumb dumb dumb dumb dumb.

This was posted way back near the start of the thread.

I would like to see this answered.

It falls into the area area of the gender "differences". After all, males and females in the LDS church are "separate but equal" according to NB. So, does this mean that white people and people of colour are "separate but equal" as well in the LDS church or is skin not as relevant as gender?


There's no difference among races in the LDS Church. Everybody gets treated the same.

There's no difference among races in the LDS Church. Everybody gets treated the same.

Maybe in yours ... defiantly not in the history of the LDS people have been using parts of it as well as the bible to justify racism for a while

There's no difference among races in the LDS Church. Everybody gets treated the same.

So if race is of no matter why should gender matter? Race doesn't have any links to what one is able to do and not do.

Why does it appear as though males and females have distinct roles within the Mormon faith? Are they not able to perform the same tasks, omitting of course ones tied to physical restraints such as birthing, which is something only females can do given that is a biological function.

No, now.

*burp* too late :p

Ok then,you think we won't listen to you if you tell us why women can't fulfill a man's role.

So, reverse it. Tell us why a man cannot fulfill whatever role women get put into in the church. What exactly is it about a man that makes him unfit to fulfill the roles in the church given to women?

I already said I'd answer before you posted this. Too late. ;)

Good Lifes said a couple important things that relate to my opinion on this. I'm not going to repeat any of that if I can avoid it, so best to read that post first.

Note: What follows is only my OPINION.

In the Church there are two organizations: The Priesthood and the Relief Society. (Don't ask me where the names came from. I don't know.) The guys are in the Priesthood, Women in the RS.

The roles of the two organizations follow traditional roles for men and women. Yes, I know how much a lot of you folks hate the word "traditional" but sometimes it's perfectly apropriate.

Maybe the best wayto describe what they do would be to provide a sort of hypothetical example.

A hurricane hits your town. Came on suddenly, no time to evacuate. Immediately the local organizations of the Church will mobilize. The men of the Priesthood will be out there doing things like cheking on the needs of the households, assisting with any heavy labor that needs doing (like removing fallen trees, assisting in areas of personal expertise like electrical, automotive, construction, etc.) They will provide blessings for the sick and injured, they will maintain lines of communication. They will provide whatever is needed by the households in their congregation.

The Relief Society will be out there doing things like checking on the needs of individuals and households, assisting with caring for the needs of those who are injured, those who need food, water, clothing, shelter. They're more likely the ones who would set up shelters for those whose homes are destroyed or damaged. They will use personal expertise as needed, just like the men will. They will maintain lines of communication and support. They will provide whatever is needed by the households in their congregation.

There's some overlap but the focus is domestic vs. material. The guys' organization goes where men tend to excel like physical work and leadership. This is also where the spiritual stuff is. The womens' organization tends to focus on the areas that women typically excel in like providing support, care and emotional needs.

So the Priesthood is designed to enhance and utilize areas in which men tend to be better equipped, and the Relief Society is designed to enhance and utilize areas in which women are better equipped.

I can't say why most other branches of Christianity have only men in leadership roles. Perhaps the reasoning is similar.

If, after that, you still feel women in LDS are treated unfairly then I invite you to contact one and ask her about it. I've got nothing else.

Sorry to sound, oh, what's a good word for it... prickish, but I fail to see how anyone can actually believe that Jesus Christ came to the Americas, without any actual literary evidence, nor any archaeological evidence, nor even a mention of any event occurring by any of the indigenous tribes of America(I'm sure this would have popped up, somewhere, in oral stories, as it would have been a rather peculiar event to occur), nor has anyone actually seen the gold tablets themselves.

There is faith... and then there is the leap.

Sorry to sound like a prick, but Mormonism kind of sprung up during the hole period of everyone and their mother trying to associate Europeans and other "old worlders" with the Americas, because it was thought that the Natives just were far to primitive to do what they did, and not only that, but many people included Christ or the "lost tribes of Israel" to many of the great works done by the Native Americans.

So yeah... that's my two pesos on the issue.

Let me ask you an honest question. If tomorrow a team of archaeologists produced exactly the sort of evidence you have in mind, would you convert to LDS?

Maybe the best wayto describe what they do would be to provide a sort of hypothetical example.

A hurricane hits your town. Came on suddenly, no time to evacuate. Immediately the local organizations of the Church will mobilize. The men of the Priesthood will be out there doing things like cheking on the needs of the households, assisting with any heavy labor that needs doing (like removing fallen trees, assisting in areas of personal expertise like electrical, automotive, construction, etc.) They will provide blessings for the sick and injured, they will maintain lines of communication. They will provide whatever is needed by the households in their congregation.

The Relief Society will be out there doing things like checking on the needs of individuals and households, assisting with caring for the needs of those who are injured, those who need food, water, clothing, shelter. They're more likely the ones who would set up shelters for those whose homes are destroyed or damaged. They will use personal expertise as needed, just like the men will. They will maintain lines of communication and support. They will provide whatever is needed by the households in their congregation.

There's some overlap but the focus is domestic vs. material. The guys' organization goes where men tend to excel like physical work and leadership. This is also where the spiritual stuff is. The womens' organization tends to focus on the areas that women typically excel in like providing support, care and emotional needs.

So the Priesthood is designed to enhance and utilize areas in which men tend to be better equipped, and the Relief Society is designed to enhance and utilize areas in which women are better equipped.

I can't say why most other branches of Christianity have only men in leadership roles. Perhaps the reasoning is similar.

If, after that, you still feel women in LDS are treated unfairly then I invite you to contact one and ask her about it. I've got nothing else.

You're right; traditional is a good word to use here and it fits given your description of the roles.

I do have a few of questions about this, as I realise that the quote statement is your opinion, and I'd like to know more.

1 - Why are women better positioned to give emotional support? I'm a woman and I personally despise that kind of shit and I'd rather help clean up than tend to the needs of whiny, needy people.

2 - What makes men less likely to be able to give emotional support?

3 - Are the men in the position to give leadership any more qualified than women? There have after all been many strong women leaders throughout history.

4 - Why would women be designated to work in areas that are less physically trying than men when they are equally as able to help clean up as men are able to help tend to the injured for example?

5 - Do you think the prescribed roles you mention take advantage of people's skills or do you think that these people don't have their skills being put to good use?

[QUOTE=Seangoli;13001957]Sorry to sound, oh, what's a good word for it... prickish, but I fail to see how anyone can actually believe that Jesus Christ came to the Americas, without any actual literary evidence, nor any archaeological evidence, nor even a mention of any event occurring by any of the indigenous tribes of America(I'm sure this would have popped up, somewhere, in oral stories, as it would have been a rather peculiar event to occur), nor has anyone actually seen the gold tablets themselves.

There is faith... and then there is the leap.

Actually, the indiginous tribes down in south america do have stories of a white bearded god appearing to them a long time ago. He said he would come back in a second coming. thats why Cortez was so gladly recieved by Moctezuma. They confused him for the white god of thier legends. They even have a name for him, Quetzalquatal. and yes there are witnesses who saw the golden plates. theres even a little section at the beginning of the book of mormon that testifies to it. Oliver Cowdery, David Whitmer, and Martin Harris saw and handled the plates.

There's some overlap but the focus is domestic vs. material. The guys' organization goes where men tend to excel like physical work and leadership. This is also where the spiritual stuff is. The womens' organization tends to focus on the areas that women typically excel in like providing support, care and emotional needs.

So the Priesthood is designed to enhance and utilize areas in which men tend to be better equipped, and the Relief Society is designed to enhance and utilize areas in which women are better equipped.

I can't say why most other branches of Christianity have only men in leadership roles. Perhaps the reasoning is similar.

If, after that, you still feel women in LDS are treated unfairly then I invite you to contact one and ask her about it. I've got nothing else.

It isn't just women are treated unfairly. Any rigid gender roles treat all people unfairly - men and women - by forcing them into a mold they may or may not fit simply because the perception is that "most" men or women fit it.

You have a lot of "tends" and "typically" in your explanation. The fact that you use these words means that you recognize the fact that not all men fit into your man-mold and not all women fall into your woman-mold. Yet you and your church would shoehorn them into a role that may or may not fit them because this is what men or women "tend" to do. That is the very definition of sexism. Individuals generally don't fit into nice, neat little molds unless you force them there. Why should they be restricted to certain roles when they, as individuals, might be better suited for others?

Are you personally unable to provide emotional support or tend a sickbed? Is your wife personally unable to provide leadership or perform physical work? Do all the men and women you know fit into these nice little boxes?

You're right; traditional is a good word to use here and it fits given your description of the roles.

I do have a few of questions about this, as I realise that the quote statement is your opinion, and I'd like to know more.

Cool. Just remember I'm not an anthropologist or behavioral psychologist :)


1 - Why are women better positioned to give emotional support? I'm a woman and I personally despise that kind of shit and I'd rather help clean up than tend to the needs of whiny, needy people.

Well you'd probably be out there with the guys in the yard with a chainsaw cutting away the fallen tree :) .

I don't know why women in general are more nurturing than men. I'm sure there are volumes on that in human psychology texts.


2 - What makes men less likely to be able to give emotional support?


I'd imagine the answer to that would be related to the answer to #1, but I think Good Lifes gave some good info on that in his/her post. Guys tend to be goal-oriented moreso than people oriented. That would be my guess.


3 - Are the men in the position to give leadership any more qualified than women? There have after all been many strong women leaders throughout history.

True and certainly no Mormon I know would have a problem with, for example, a female President. For whatever reason, thus far, God has not elected to call Women to the Priesthood. Maybe he's trying to protect our fragile male egos ;)


4 - Why would women be designated to work in areas that are less physically trying than men when they are equally as able to help clean up as men are able to help tend to the injured for example?


Tending to the injured would certainly be done by both, and if I gave a different imporession with my example it was unintentional. As far as cleaning up, remember that men are genetically predisposed to be larger and physically stronger. Those are the traits being taken advantage of under this system. Meanwhile, the other needs are just as important of not moreso, and it's only logical that the women, who are better at it anyway, tend to them.


5 - Do you think the prescribed roles you mention take advantage of people's skills or do you think that these people don't have their skills being put to good use?

That's a really good question. My answer is 90% the former and 10% the latter. There will always be exceptions, and I wouldn't be surprised of the Lord sometimes uses those exceptions to test the faith of individuals. There may very well be a woman in that hypothetical congregation who is an excellent natural leader who might feel that her skills are being wasted looking after displaced children or helping to account for each family in the disaster area. But I'd also point out that such a person would probably be in charge of the people performing those tasks in the first place. I think there's a place for everyone's skills to be put to good use, and times when they're not are because of outside factors.

It isn't just women are treated unfairly. Any rigid gender roles treat all people unfairly - men and women - by forcing them into a mold they may or may not fit simply because the perception is that "most" men or women fit it.

The very existence of that overlap demonstrates that they're not as rigid as you're making them out to be.


You have a lot of "tends" and "typically" in your explanation. The fact that you use these words means that you recognize the fact that not all men fit into your man-mold and not all women fall into your woman-mold. Yet you and your church would shoehorn them into a role that may or may not fit them because this is what men or women "tend" to do. That is the very definition of sexism. Individuals generally don't fit into nice, neat little molds unless you force them there. Why should they be restricted to certain roles when they, as individuals, might be better suited for others?


Like I said, you want more info, you know who to ask. I use words like "tend" and "typically" because I know there are exceptions, and I addressed that in another post.


Are you personally unable to provide emotional support or tend a sickbed? Is your wife personally unable to provide leadership or perform physical work? Do all the men and women you know fit into these nice little boxes?

Most of them do, yes.

Let me ask you this, and be honest: I don't know if IRL you're a manager or supervisor but let's say for the sake of argument that you are. If you had to hire somebody for a job, and you have a group of applicants, are you going to hire the ones who are the best at that particular skillset, or will you instead pick the ones that CAN do it but aren't as good at it as some others?

Can my wife lift her half of a sofa? Yeah. Can she do it as easily as I can? No. I'm a LOT stronger than she is. Can I tend to a sick child? Yes. Can I do it as well as my ex? No. She's way better at it than I ever will be.

So if a circumstance were to arise where I had a sick child and a sofa that needed moving at the very same time, why would I tend to the child and have my ex go help move the sofa?

The very existence of that overlap demonstrates that they're not as rigid as you're making them out to be.

The very existence of specific roles which only a man or a woman can take on makes it clear that they are very rigid.

Like I said, you want more info, you know who to ask. I use words like "tend" and "typically" because I know there are exceptions, and I addressed that in another post.

Yes, maybe the exceptions are there to test your faith. It doesn't explain why you think that God wouldn't expect people to use their fullest potential, regardless of gender.

Your "gender roles" are along the same lines as "Boys tend to like baseball, so I'm going to take my son to the baseball game, even if he isn't interested. Girls don't usually like it, so I'm not going to take my daughter, even if she really wants to go."

Most of them do, yes.

Then you must live in a very boring world. I know very few people who fit into rigid gender roles. I don't know if this is because I know a broader set of people than you or if it is simply that the people I know have been allowed to develop their own skill sets and personalities, instead of being shoehorned into what people thought they should be, but I know very few "typical" men and very few "typical" women. In fact, off the top of my head, I couldn't name any.

Let me ask you this, and be honest: I don't know if IRL you're a manager or supervisor but let's say for the sake of argument that you are. If you had to hire somebody for a job, and you have a group of applicants, are you going to hire the ones who are the best at that particular skillset, or will you instead pick the ones that CAN do it but aren't as good at it as some others?

I would pick the ones that are best qualified, no matter what their ethnicity, gender, etc. is. It wouldn't matter to me that women "tend to" have less physical strength than men, if a female applicant met the requirements and was the most qualified, she would be hired. It wouldn't matter to me that men "tend to" be less nurturing, if I was looking for a nurse and a male applicant had a wonderful bedside manner and was more qualified than the female applicants, he would be hired.

What you are saying is, "Men tend to be less nurturing, so I'm not even going to consider them for the job." "Women tend to be less physically strong, so I'm not going to even consider them for the job." But there are men out there who are much more nurturing than many - maybe even most - women. There are women out there who are much stronger than many - maybe even most - men.

Can my wife lift her half of a sofa? Yeah. Can she do it as easily as I can? No. I'm a LOT stronger than she is. Can I tend to a sick child? Yes. Can I do it as well as my ex? No. She's way better at it than I ever will be.

Good then. But do you honestly think that all men are like you and all women are like your ex?

Let me ask you an honest question. If tomorrow a team of archaeologists produced exactly the sort of evidence you have in mind, would you convert to LDS?Tomorrow or on any other day no archaeologist will find anything to support the LDS claims. There are no ifs in this matter. Mormonism is fabricated utter horseshit. I would even consider it a mental disease, alongside Scientology, Rastafarianism, and Judaism. It's all just unbelievable (!) fiction. All these religions took something that was already around, added their own fancy and thus created new faiths, and all invented and wrote down alternative history for use in their religions. But it's all just irrational crap.

Tomorrow or on any other day no archaeologist will find anything to support the LDS claims. There are no ifs in this matter. Mormonism is fabricated utter horseshit. I would even consider it a mental disease, alongside Scientology, Rastafarianism, and Judaism. It's all just unbelievable (!) fiction. All these religions took something that was already around, added their own fancy and thus created new faiths, and all invented and wrote down alternative history for use in their religions. But it's all just irrational crap.

Wow...you sound like the Yah-ist version of Falwell. Have you considered therapy?

Tomorrow or on any other day no archaeologist will find anything to support the LDS claims. There are no ifs in this matter. Mormonism is fabricated utter horseshit. I would even consider it a mental disease, alongside Scientology, Rastafarianism, and Judaism. It's all just unbelievable (!) fiction. All these religions took something that was already around, added their own fancy and thus created new faiths, and all invented and wrote down alternative history for use in their religions. But it's all just irrational crap.

Ok you dodged the question. If you didn't want to answer it, then why jump in?

Wow...you sound like the Yah-ist version of Falwell. Have you considered therapy?Because facts make people need therapy?

Because facts make people need therapy?

Because rabidly jumping into a thread and making a paragraph that essentially comes down to "I'm a zealot, hear me roar," has any relation to facts. If you'd actually bothered to provide some facts, and maybe an argument, instead of basically trollbaiting, I wouldn't be sitting here, chuckling at your obvious inadequacy.

Ok you dodged the question. If you didn't want to answer it, then why jump in?

Someone stole his soapbox *nod*

Ok you dodged the question. If you didn't want to answer it, then why jump in?The question was pointless. And it was implying that the possibility of such an event existed. But there is no such possibility.

The very existence of specific roles which only a man or a woman can take on makes it clear that they are very rigid.


I disagree. I've already shown why.


Yes, maybe the exceptions are there to test your faith. It doesn't explain why you think that God wouldn't expect people to use their fullest potential, regardless of gender.

Your "gender roles" are along the same lines as "Boys tend to like baseball, so I'm going to take my son to the baseball game, even if he isn't interested. Girls don't usually like it, so I'm not going to take my daughter, even if she really wants to go."


If that's what you took from my post, then I gently suggest that you haven't thoroughly read it, or you haven't read it in a real effort to understand my perspective.


Then you must live in a very boring world. I know very few people who fit into rigid gender roles. I don't know if this is because I know a broader set of people than you or if it is simply that the people I know have been allowed to develop their own skill sets and personalities, instead of being shoehorned into what people thought they should be, but I know very few "typical" men and very few "typical" women. In fact, off the top of my head, I couldn't name any.


I love the way you suggest that everybody I know is somehow repressed just because they fail to fit your paradigm. It would be like me suggesting that your associates must be flawed because they do. I'd also point out, before you or anybody suggests that the Church shoehorns these people in, a very small percentage of the people I deal with on a regular basis are Mormons. I love in an area that has a VERY small Mormon population per capita.


I would pick the ones that are best qualified, no matter what their ethnicity, gender, etc. is. It wouldn't matter to me that women "tend to" have less physical strength than men, if a female applicant met the requirements and was the most qualified, she would be hired. It wouldn't matter to me that men "tend to" be less nurturing, if I was looking for a nurse and a male applicant had a wonderful bedside manner and was more qualified than the female applicants, he would be hired.


You've dodged the question and supplied an answer that tells me you're missing the analogy. If you really want to create bridges of understanding, just answer the question in the spirit in which it was asked, as you keep demanding that I do. We might just be able to communicate that way.

When I ask a question like that, it isn't a trap. If you answer the question simply and honestly, I'm not gonna jump out and say "AHHA! i'm right and you admitted it!!!!!" I'm trying to establish some common ground so that we can discuss the subject in those terms.

How can you have a debate when there's no common point of reference?


What you are saying is, "Men tend to be less nurturing, so I'm not even going to consider them for the job." "Women tend to be less physically strong, so I'm not going to even consider them for the job." But there are men out there who are much more nurturing than many - maybe even most - women. There are women out there who are much stronger than many - maybe even most - men.


No, that's not what I'm saying at all.

I'm gonna be blunt here. You're doing exactly what I knew you'd do, and this is exactly why I was reluctant to field an answer. You'd already made up your mind, and you're warping my every reply so that you can counter it. Half of your responses to my post don't come across as if you've understood my point at all, and since I know how smart you are, I can only assume you're being willfully closed to it.

You've decided I'm wrong. You've decided my church is wrong, and come hell or high water there is NOTHING I can say or post on here that will even get you to acknowledge any common ground to at least build an understanding upon. I'm not looking to change your mind or anybody else's, but either you're willing to discuss this stuff openly or you're not.

I'll tell you this though, I'm not gonna run in circles with you or anybody else. Don't expect me to waste my time typing if you're not going to read the posts. It's not like I haven't got anything better to do. If you ask me an honest question, I'll give you an honest answer. If you want to debate, let's debate, but just as you expect me to read carefully your arguments, I'm entitled to the same courtesy.

Otherwise we're just going in circles.


Good then. But do you honestly think that all men are like you and all women are like your ex?

You do understand, an analogy is only an example, not an all-encompassing definition?

Someone stole his soapbox *nod*

And someone also removed the "DEEP END" sign from the pool... *nods* looks like he took a nice long dive...

Tomorrow or on any other day no archaeologist will find anything to support the LDS claims.

Be careful of saying forever. There was a thread on this site lately that the spear points being found on the east coast relate better to those of west Europe than to those of Asia. This really wasn't a new subject. I heard of this debate many years ago.

And there was a man (I think it was Thor Heyerdahl) back in the late 60's (If I remember correctly) that sailed a boat made of reeds from Africa to the New World.

We do know at the time of the Pharaohs the Phoenicians were contracted to sail down the Red Sea and around Africa to return through the Mediterranean. We know they made it because one of their reportings was when they went south the sun kept getting higher and higher until it was in the north sky. The Pharaoh didn't believe this was possible so refused to pay them. Such a voyage would make the Atlantic seem short.

So even if 99.9% of the Native Americans were from Asia, there is a possibility there was at least some European or African influence.

Someone stole his soapbox *nod*

lawl

And someone also removed the "DEEP END" sign from the pool... *nods* looks like he took a nice long dive...

Unfortunately, he's probably long gone by now.

And here we see the typical behavior of the UB, known to pop randomly into religion threads, bluster and stumble through a post, much like a drunken nerd stumbling through his parents' basement, before fleeing again to scurry off into his little hole, when he realizes that he is in over his head.

Fear not, for this isn't the last we've seen of this elusive creature. For surely when the thumb-sucking and crying has ended he will return, in mock triumph, to be laughed down again.

And again.

Because rabidly jumping into a thread and making a paragraph that essentially comes down to "I'm a zealot, hear me roar," has any relation to facts. If you'd actually bothered to provide some facts, and maybe an argument, instead of basically trollbaiting, I wouldn't be sitting here, chuckling at your obvious inadequacy.Oh please, have you skipped school and any other education? Mormons are zealots, not ordinary people.
Where is the historical or archaeological evidence that Joseph Smith jr and his flock of braindeads base their claims upon? Right, it's the book that he wrote himself, by translating plates that nobody else has seen an that are unavailable for verification, which he got from the angel he claims to have met. If you don't see the horseshit in there, you are far gone indeed. These folks even have the nerve to claim that certain ancient gods were just the biblical god in disguise.

Unfortunately, he's probably long gone by now.

And here we see the typical behavior of the UB, known to pop randomly into religion threads, bluster and stumble through a post, much like a drunken nerd stumbling through his parents' basement, before fleeing again to scurry off into his little hole, when he realizes that he is in over his head.

Fear not, for this isn't the last we've seen of this elusive creature. For surely when the thumb-sucking and crying has ended he will return, in mock triumph, to be laughed down again.

And again.


PWNED

Oh please, have you skipped school and any other education?

Ad hominem.

Mormons are zealots, not ordinary people.

Spoken like a true zealot.

Where is the historical or archaeological evidence that Joseph Smith jr and his flock of braindeads base their claims upon? Right, it's the book that he wrote himself, by translating plates that nobody else has seen an that are unavailable for verification, which he got from the angel he claims to have met. If you don't see the horseshit in there, you are far gone indeed. These folks even have the nerve top claim that ancient gods were just the biblical god in disguise.

Argument from ignorance.

Bold for Loaded Language fallacy.

Be careful of saying forever. There was a thread on this site lately that the spear points being found on the east coast relate better to those of west Europe than to those of Asia. This really wasn't a new subject. I heard of this debate many years ago.

And there was a man (I think it was Thor Heyerdahl) back in the late 60's (If I remember correctly) that sailed a boat made of reeds from Africa to the New World.

We do know at the time of the Pharaohs the Phoenicians were contracted to sail down the Red Sea and around Africa to return through the Mediterranean. We know they made it because one of their reportings was when they went south the sun kept getting higher and higher until it was in the north sky. The Pharaoh didn't believe this was possible so refused to pay them. Such a voyage would make the Atlantic seem short.

So even if 99.9% of the Native Americans were from Asia, there is a possibility there was at least some European or African influence.

What does this have to do with Jews (who did not even exist as such in the time at issue) or Jesus allegedly coming to America?

What does this have to do with Jews (who did not even exist as such in the time at issue) or Jesus allegedly coming to America?

That just says that it was possible for the Jaredites and Lehi to have made it to the America's on a boat and like I said earlier, the Natives to Central America have legends of a white bearded God they call Quetzalquatol (not sure if i spelled right) coming to visit their ancestors and promising to come again

That just says that it was possible for the Jaredites and Lehi to have made it to the America's on a boat and like I said earlier, the Natives to Central America have legends of a white bearded God they call Quetzalquatol (not sure if i spelled right) coming to visit their ancestors and promising to come again

1. It's spelt Quetzalcoatl.
2. Jesus wasn't white.
3. The story of the Aztecs greeting Cortez as a god is now widely agreed to be Spanish propaganda and misinterpretation of Aztec customs. Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quetzalcoatl#Moctezuma_Controversy) have a decent article on the subject.

These folks even have the nerve to claim that certain ancient gods were just the biblical god in disguise.

In my Father's house are many mansions.......

2. Jesus wasn't white.


Compared to who?

The US government defines white as "any of the original peoples of Europe, North Africa, the Middle East and the Indian sub continent" (Hispanic is defined as a culture not a race since most Hispanics under the definition have to say they are white. The only culture out of all of the cultures in the world that get minority status.)

I love the way you suggest that everybody I know is somehow repressed just because they fail to fit your paradigm.

That's just it - I'm not the one with a paradigm to fit. If someone is a "typical" man or woman, great! That's who they are. If they aren't, great! That's who they are.

You are the one setting up paradigms for men and women and assuming that they will fit into them. You are the one telling me that men should take on a certain role because they "tend to" be good at that role and women should take on a certain role because they "tend to" be good at it.

And what I am saying is that "tend to" doesn't matter. It is the individual and the individual's strengths that matter in what role they should take on.

If you really want to create bridges of understanding, just answer the question in the spirit in which it was asked, as you keep demanding that I do. We might just be able to communicate that way.

What was the spirit in which it was asked then?

When I ask a question like that, it isn't a trap. If you answer the question simply and honestly, I'm not gonna jump out and say "AHHA! i'm right and you admitted it!!!!!" I'm trying to establish some common ground so that we can discuss the subject in those terms.

I did answer the question simply and honestly. Well, honestly anyways, I have a tendency to ramble.

You want simple:

I would hire the most qualified applicant for the job.

I'm gonna be blunt here. You're doing exactly what I knew you'd do, and this is exactly why I was reluctant to field an answer. You'd already made up your mind, and you're warping my every reply so that you can counter it. Half of your responses to my post don't come across as if you've understood my point at all, and since I know how smart you are, I can only assume you're being willfully closed to it.

Warping what? I am responding directly to what you write. Note, I'm not trying to be obtuse here. I honestly don't see how I've "warped" anything you've said. I haven't been rude or berated you for anything. I have simply responded to what you have said.

You've decided I'm wrong. You've decided my church is wrong, and come hell or high water there is NOTHING I can say or post on here that will even get you to acknowledge any common ground to at least build an understanding upon. I'm not looking to change your mind or anybody else's, but either you're willing to discuss this stuff openly or you're not.

I have decided that sexism is wrong - I'll admit that and that I am highly unlikely to change my mind on it. I was hoping you would give me something that wasn't sexist. Instead, you gave me the same arguments that people use to restrict women from any "man's job" and to restrict men from any "woman's job". You gave me tendencies, and ignored the fact that human beings are individuals, not tendencies.

You have decided that these gender roles are right and I highly doubt there is anything I could ever say that would get you to consider the idea that they are artificial. But I'll be perfectly honest. I don't see even a little bit of difference between the statement "Only men can be priests and only women can be [not sure what they're called]" and the statement "Only men can be doctors and only women can be nurses." Or "Only men can be engineers and only women can be teachers." Or "Only men can be breadwinners and only women can be homemakers." Or any number of gender roles that various sectors of society tell us that we are somehow supposed to fit, whether we do or not.

Can you explain to me how these statements are different?

Compared to who?

The US government defines white as "any of the original peoples of Europe, North Africa, the Middle East and the Indian sub continent" (Hispanic is defined as a culture not a race since most Hispanics under the definition have to say they are white. The only culture out of all of the cultures in the world that get minority status.)

Compared to Spaniards; Jesus would probably have been about the same colour as modern day Arab. Not that it matters seeing as the 'White God' story is a myth anyway.

That just says that it was possible for the Jaredites and Lehi to have made it to the America's on a boat and like I said earlier, the Natives to Central America have legends of a white bearded God they call Quetzalquatol (not sure if i spelled right) coming to visit their ancestors and promising to come again

It's possible, but all archaeological indicators say no so far. No human remains distinguished by characteristics typical of Middle Eastern lineage, no tools or materials that come from outside of the continent, no oral history or tradition resembling the story told in the Book of Mormon, no linguistic indicators of words or phrases incorporated from any Middle Eastern language, not even changes that would indicate cultural assimilation of any group from outside the continent. A lost tribe of Isreal would have left something like that behind, but so far it hasn't shown up.

It's possible, but all archaeological indicators say no so far. No human remains distinguished by characteristics typical of Middle Eastern lineage, no tools or materials that come from outside of the continent, no oral history or tradition resembling the story told in the Book of Mormon, no linguistic indicators of words or phrases incorporated from any Middle Eastern language, not even changes that would indicate cultural assimilation of any group from outside the continent. A lost tribe of Isreal would have left something like that behind, but so far it hasn't shown up.

Not to mention that modern genetics have shown that Native Americans aren't descended from Semites.

Actually, the vast majority of Christian sects handle this the same way, except that homosexuals are welcome to attend Mormon church meetings. You can't become a member, but nobody's gonna chase you out.

I don't think that's the case with many others, but I don't have much personal experience to go on.

ive never been to any christian chruch that chased out a homosexual. Christianity frowns on homosexuality, but they believe everyone needs to hear the word of god, so its highly unlikely they'll chase you away if you're gay, they just dont agree with your lifestyle. homosexuals are welcome to attend most protestant churches, and even become members. but yes, they do frown on it, because homosexuality is a sin according to the bible, not because they are "gay bashers"(although some are).

Unfortunately, he's probably long gone by now.

And here we see the typical behavior of the UB, known to pop randomly into religion threads, bluster and stumble through a post, much like a drunken nerd stumbling through his parents' basement, before fleeing again to scurry off into his little hole, when he realizes that he is in over his head.

Fear not, for this isn't the last we've seen of this elusive creature. For surely when the thumb-sucking and crying has ended he will return, in mock triumph, to be laughed down again.

And again.


Hey look everyone, its Neo Bretonias bitch!

Unfortunately, he's probably long gone by now.

And here we see the typical behavior of the UB, known to pop randomly into religion threads, bluster and stumble through a post, much like a drunken nerd stumbling through his parents' basement, before fleeing again to scurry off into his little hole, when he realizes that he is in over his head.

Fear not, for this isn't the last we've seen of this elusive creature. For surely when the thumb-sucking and crying has ended he will return, in mock triumph, to be laughed down again.

And again.

Ad hominem.



Spoken like a true zealot.



Argument from ignorance.

Bold for Loaded Language fallacy.


I had no idea you loved Mormons so much, why dont you start a thread about how great they are and how much you want marry Joseph Smith?

Hey look everyone, its Neo Bretonias bitch!

I had no idea you loved Mormons so much, why dont you start a thread about how great they are and how much you want marry Joseph Smith?

So your contention is that anybody who is disgusted with UB's antics must therefore agree with whomever he's attacking?

Can you GET any more juvenile?

I had no idea you loved Mormons so much, why dont you start a thread about how great they are and how much you want marry Joseph Smith?

Umm...who are you? Is that UB's hand up your backside?

It's possible, but all archaeological indicators say no so far. No human remains distinguished by characteristics typical of Middle Eastern lineage, no tools or materials that come from outside of the continent, no oral history or tradition resembling the story told in the Book of Mormon, no linguistic indicators of words or phrases incorporated from any Middle Eastern language, not even changes that would indicate cultural assimilation of any group from outside the continent. A lost tribe of Isreal would have left something like that behind, but so far it hasn't shown up.

Not so, actually. Look up the literary form "chiasmus."

Hey look everyone, its Neo Bretonias bitch!

I had no idea you loved Mormons so much, why dont you start a thread about how great they are and how much you want marry Joseph Smith?

What a stunning rebuttal, did you sit up all night thinking of that?

What a stunning rebuttal, did you sit up all night thinking of that?


Oh no, it seems we have another Mormon cheerleader compeating for the title of NB's Bitch. Who will win?

Not so, actually. Look up the literary form "chiasmus."

Can you be more specific? Have native american languages been found to contain chiasms? If so, what significance do you attach to this?

Oh no, it seems we have another Mormon cheerleader compeating for the title of NB's Bitch. Who will win?

Yes, that's right, I'm a Mormon cheerleader. Presumably that's why I've pointed out the falsehood of the Quetzalcoatl myth and that genetics disprove the Book of Mormon. :rolleyes:

That's just it - I'm not the one with a paradigm to fit. If someone is a "typical" man or woman, great! That's who they are. If they aren't, great! That's who they are.

You are the one setting up paradigms for men and women and assuming that they will fit into them. You are the one telling me that men should take on a certain role because they "tend to" be good at that role and women should take on a certain role because they "tend to" be good at it.

And what I am saying is that "tend to" doesn't matter. It is the individual and the individual's strengths that matter in what role they should take on.


Do you trust the average person to make that call from an authoritative standpoint? Can you assume the average person will always make the right choice when deciding who gets what job?


What was the spirit in which it was asked then?


A very simple one. To establish commonality. Not to set you up, not to prove anything you said either right or wrong. Very simple.


I did answer the question simply and honestly. Well, honestly anyways, I have a tendency to ramble.


I don't think so. You answered by hedging and being very careful to reinforce your own point in the process. You answered as if you were afraid to concede something.


You want simple:

I would hire the most qualified applicant for the job.


Ok. As would any reasonable person. Now, you'd make that call based on what they did best, and not just what they were capable of, right?


Warping what? I am responding directly to what you write. Note, I'm not trying to be obtuse here. I honestly don't see how I've "warped" anything you've said. I haven't been rude or berated you for anything. I have simply responded to what you have said.


I don't think you're doing it deliberately, but (and I say this in the spirit of communication, not attack) I think sometimes you're afraid of conceding something in your answer, so you try to be very, very careful to phrase your answer in such a way as to not only reinforce your point, but to strictly avoid "giving something away" to your opponent.

The problem is that it gets in the way of information flow, makes it at least appear that you've either missed or ignored the point. I say that because your replies appear to include assumptions about the point you're countering that don't fit with what you're replying to.


I have decided that sexism is wrong - I'll admit that and that I am highly unlikely to change my mind on it. I was hoping you would give me something that wasn't sexist. Instead, you gave me the same arguments that people use to restrict women from any "man's job" and to restrict men from any "woman's job". You gave me tendencies, and ignored the fact that human beings are individuals, not tendencies.


Sexism is wrong, but then, it's occurred to me that perhaps you and I have a slightly different understanding of exactly what sexism is. Let's compare notes.

When I hear "sexism" I think "a system in which one sex, is held as less important or valuable than the other."

Would you agree with that definition, or do you think something different?


You have decided that these gender roles are right and I highly doubt there is anything I could ever say that would get you to consider the idea that they are artificial. But I'll be perfectly honest. I don't see even a little bit of difference between the statement "Only men can be priests and only women can be [not sure what they're called]" and the statement "Only men can be doctors and only women can be nurses." Or "Only men can be engineers and only women can be teachers." Or "Only men can be breadwinners and only women can be homemakers." Or any number of gender roles that various sectors of society tell us that we are somehow supposed to fit, whether we do or not.

Can you explain to me how these statements are different?

I probably can, after we establish some common ground. I'll await your reply to the above items.

Yes, that's right, I'm a Mormon cheerleader. Presumably that's why I've pointed out the falsehood of the Quetzalcoatl myth and that genetics disprove the Book of Mormon. :rolleyes:

120 posts. He's a cute little troll, isn't he? Let's hope he survives long enough to turn into a troll that's mildly interesting.

Can you be more specific? Have native american languages been found to contain chiasms? If so, what significance do you attach to this?

Just so we're all on the same page:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chiastic_structure

(I erroneously said chiasmus when I should have referenced Chiastic Structure)

Found in the Torah, Bible and Book of Mormon.

I also read an article once on it being found in some Mezoamerican stone glyphs, but I'll have to get back to you on that.

120 posts. He's a cute little troll, isn't he? Let's hope he survives long enough to turn into a troll that's mildly interesting.

I doubt it to be honest. After witnessing the awe-inspiring trolling of a poster called AFDave over at Internet Infidels (http://www.iidb.org/vbb/forumdisplay.php?f=66), all other trolling pales in comparison.

Not so, actually. Look up the literary form "chiasmus."

You'll need to be more specific than that. Did that literary form appear in Native American language in such a way that would indicate assimilation rather than independent linguistic development?

Look below :)

Hey look everyone, its Neo Bretonias bitch!

I had no idea you loved Mormons so much, why dont you start a thread about how great they are and how much you want marry Joseph Smith?

Why? Just because they told UB off?

I'm probably a more militant Atheist than UB but I don't have the need to act like a jackass. He gives the rest of us a bad name.

There is no reason why the debate can't be civil while one finds an eloquent way of insulting the other person's point of view. It's easy enough to disprove the historical accuracy of the Book of Mormon using facts without resorting to infantile antics.

Umm...who are you? Is that UB's hand up your backside?

That sounds... uncomfortable.

Oh no, it seems we have another Mormon cheerleader compeating for the title of NB's Bitch. Who will win?

If you're going to act like a dickwad, at least do it in style.

Just so we're all on the same page:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chiastic_structure

(I erroneously said chiasmus when I should have referenced Chiastic Structure)

Found in the Torah, Bible and Book of Mormon.

I also read an article once on it being found in some Mezoamerican stone glyphs, but I'll have to get back to you on that.

Well, Smith had read the Bible so it's not particuarly surprising to find a chiastic structure in the Book of Mormon. Mesoamerican chiasms would be interesting, but nowhere near enough to overturn the mountains of evidence which show that Amerinds aren't descended from Semites.

Oh no, it seems we have another Mormon cheerleader compeating for the title of NB's Bitch. Who will win?

...still taking applications, BTW.

Applicants must:

-be at least 18 years of age
-Have their own transportation
-provide own kneepads
-be able to speak English or Spanish, but able to say "Yes, master" in both
-provide references
-be willing to work for free

Do you trust the average person to make that call from an authoritative standpoint? Can you assume the average person will always make the right choice when deciding who gets what job?

The average person probably isn't going to be the boss, but yes, I do think the average person can determine that - if they are truly looking to find the best candidate. Will they always make the right choice? Of course not - nobody is perfect. But they will make much better choices if they make it based off of the strengths of the individual than making it based off of whatever stereotypical viewpoints they have about that individual's sex/ethnicity/etc.

Ok. As would any reasonable person. Now, you'd make that call based on what they did best, and not just what they were capable of, right?

Yup, assuming there was a chance for me to see their actual work.

I don't think you're doing it deliberately, but (and I say this in the spirit of communication, not attack) I think sometimes you're afraid of conceding something in your answer, so you try to be very, very careful to phrase your answer in such a way as to not only reinforce your point, but to strictly avoid "giving something away" to your opponent.

I do try to be very precise in my words, but not for the reasons you suppose. It is because it is very, very easy for imprecise language or an imprecise answer to lead to misconceptions and misunderstandings. I see it happen all the time.

That, and I'm wordy. I always have been. I'm the reason that some teachers put an upper limit on the length of a paper/essay as well as a lower limit.

Sexism is wrong, but then, it's occurred to me that perhaps you and I have a slightly different understanding of exactly what sexism is. Let's compare notes.

When I hear "sexism" I think "a system in which one sex, is held as less important or valuable than the other."

Would you agree with that definition, or do you think something different?

I think it is something different. I think that it often falls into that category, and that instances in which one sex is held as less valuable or important are the most obvious and thus get the most people upset about them.

However, sexism, to me, is treating a person as a member of their sex, instead of treating them as an individual. It is assuming that they will meet your notion of what men or women usually are. It is pressuring someone to meet those expectations simply because they happen to be a member of a given sex. Human beings should be treated as individuals, not as a statistic in a given grouping. Even if the defined roles of men and women were seen as being exactly equal in standing, it would still be sexism to push them into those roles simply because of someone said they should fit them.

Women tend to have less physical strength than men. Statistically, this is true. But so what? A woman who has the physical strength generally attributed to men should not be told that she cannot have jobs that require physical strength. After all, she can do it just as well as they can.

I'm not convinced that men are naturally less nurturing but, at least in our society, it seems to be true that they do tend that way. But so what? If a given man is more nurturing than his wife, why shouldn't he choose to be the stay-at-home dad?

And these are just examples. Our society is full of ideas about what men and women should be. People talk about statistical averages as if they are absolutes and anyone who doesn't meet them has a problem. People tell children that boys are interested in certain things and girls are interested in certain things and think that there is something wrong with their child if he likes unicorns or she likes monster trucks. And that is sexism.

Why are you insulting me then?

He's insulting you because you're just spewing a lot of toxic emissions into our clean air.

What a stunning rebuttal, did you sit up all night thinking of that?

Yes, that's right, I'm a Mormon cheerleader. Presumably that's why I've pointed out the falsehood of the Quetzalcoatl myth and that genetics disprove the Book of Mormon. :rolleyes:

Why are you insulting me then?

Why are you insulting me then?

It's just too easy. The spirit is willing but the flesh is weak...

Well, Smith had read the Bible so it's not particuarly surprising to find a chiastic structure in the Book of Mormon. Mesoamerican chiasms would be interesting, but nowhere near enough to overturn the mountains of evidence which show that Amerinds aren't descended from Semites.

My thoughts exactly. The examples I was looking for, though, would have been Native American works like legends or history, not a dubious religious text. Even then, a linguistic similarity requires more than one figure of speech to show assimilation.