NationStates Jolt Archive

Sadly, it takes more than a couple of posts to do. :(

So I'll just give you the address to the Church's web page which has links and all sorts of stuff. :)

http://lds.org which has a link to

http://www.mormon.org/mormonorg/eng/

Also, am I the only one here? :(

Not another Mormonism thread..

Catchy tittle ain't it? though I'd get some anti-Mormons to see and be rather disappointed. lol

Catchy tittle ain't it? though I'd get some anti-Mormons to see and be rather disappointed. lolExpecting a merge any time soon?
Why weren't the tablets platinum? What's with the fixation on such an ugly metal anywho? Why not diamond?

Mormons believe that Elohim lives on the planet, star, or starbase Kolob. That's just the start.

Expecting a merge any time soon?
Why weren't the tablets platinum? What's with the fixation on such an ugly metal anywho? Why not diamond?

A. They were plates. Thin pieces of gold, which has no corrosion whatsoever.

B. 2,600 years ago, I don't believe they knew about platinum...

C. Except with maybe lasers, its impossible to carve letters into diamond.

Mormons believe that Elohim lives on the planet, star, or starbase Kolob. That's just the start.

I have a question, where do you get "Elohim" from? As for Kolob, it is the home of God. Reference to The Pearl of Great Price.

As for a merge, I don't think so. Because this deals with beliefs, not others problems with the Church.

Expecting a merge any time soon?
Why weren't the tablets platinum? What's with the fixation on such an ugly metal anywho? Why not diamond?

Because they were Arabs, not rappers. Duh.

And, as Arabs are so closely related to Persians, we should just be glad the things weren't blue carpet with gold trim.

I have a question, where do you get "Elohim" from? As for Kolob, it is the home of God. Reference to The Pearl of Great Price.

As for a merge, I don't think so. Because this deals with beliefs, not others problems with the Church.

If you don't know who Elohim is, I suggest studying the Bible and its history a bit more.

The wrong letter was omitted in the title.

The wrong letter was omitted in the title.
lol. Ya got me there. :)

Mormons believe that Elohim lives on the planet, star, or starbase Kolob. That's just the start.

How's that crazier than believing God walked on water, came here to Earth to be tortured and killed for our sins, and encourages us to eat his flesh and drink his blood?

How's that crazier than believing God walked on water, came here to Earth to be tortured and killed for our sins, and encourages us to eat his flesh and drink his blood?

Yeah, but that makes God sound like a real badass. Like the kind I'd worship.

Catchy tittle ain't it? though I'd get some anti-Mormons to see and be rather disappointed. lol

Your sites don't go into the truly amusing details of Mormon belief.

Golden Plates: (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golden_plates)
Smith's announcement that he had taken possession of the plates brought him local notoriety, and brought the curious to his door to see the wooden chest in which the plates were kept. He allowed visitors to heft the chest, but never to look inside, because he said the angel had commanded him not to display the plates to others. After moving near his wife's parents in northern Pennsylvania, he began dictating to his scribes what he said was an English translation of the inscribed characters, from a language he called reformed Egyptian. Translation took place sporadically between 1827 and 1829, and consisted of looking into a hat containing a seer stone or stone spectacles, where he said he could see the translated words and characters.
Book of Mormon Anachronisms: (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Book_of_Mormon_anachronisms)
Horses are mentioned fourteen times in the Book of Mormon, and are portrayed as an integral part of the cultures described.[4] There is no evidence that horses existed on the American continent during the 2500-3000 year history of the Book of Mormon (2500 B.C. - 400 A.D.)There are six references to cattle made in the Book of Mormon, including verbiage suggesting they were domesticated[26]. There has been no evidence recovered that Old World cattle (members of the genus Bos) inhabited the New World prior to European contact in the sixteenth century AD.Grains are mentioned twenty-eight times in the Book of Mormon, including barley and wheat.[41] The introduction of domesticated modern barley and wheat to the New World was made by Europeans sometime after 1492, many centuries after the time in which the Book of Mormon is set.The Book of Mormon mentions the use of chariots as a mode of transportation five times.[49] There is no archaeological evidence to support the use of wheeled vehicles in Mesoamerica. Steel and iron are mentioned several times in the Book of Mormon.[55] There is no evidence of steel (hardened iron) production in North, Central, or South America.The Book of Mormon describes several literate peoples whose language and writing had roots in Hebrew and Egyptian. Archaeological evidence shows that the only people who ever developed a written language in America were the Mayans, whose written and spoken language has no resemblance to Hebrew or Egyptian.The words "Christ" and "Messiah" are used several hundred times throughout the Book of Mormon.[88] The first instance of the word "Christ" dates to between 559 and 545 B.C.[89] The first instance of the word "Messiah" dates to about 600 B.C.[90]lol

Yeah, but that makes God sound like a real badass. Like the kind I'd worship.

Really? Because to me, a lot of that sounds more like someone who would be worshipping me and calling me "daddy".

all religion is control

An apology thread for Gay Oppression and Post-Mortem Proselytizing.

Well isn't that peculiar?

Your sites don't go into the truly amusing details of Mormon belief.

Golden Plates: (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golden_plates)

Book of Mormon Anachronisms: (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Book_of_Mormon_anachronisms)
lol

I think I love you.

well not all

How's that crazier than believing God walked on water, came here to Earth to be tortured and killed for our sins, and encourages us to eat his flesh and drink his blood?

At least Christianity had the sense to develop over a long period of time out of various traditions, authors, and influences. Joseph Smith was just one guy making crap up, as was L. Ron Hubbard.

Your sites don't go into the truly amusing details of Mormon belief.

Well, as with all web sites, you have to dig around.

So I'll just give you the address to the Church's web page which has links and all sorts of stuff. :)

Does it give honest explanations of the Mormons recent actions ? So no pathetic lies and such ?

I have a question, where do you get "Elohim" from?

......um. See, this is the sort of thing makes it hard to take you seriously as a follower of any Abrahamic religion. I get that Mormons have their own path, but aren't you guys supposed to, like, glance at the Bible occasionally?

At least Christianity had the sense to develop over a long period of time out of various traditions, authors, and influences. Joseph Smith was just one guy making crap up, as was L. Ron Hubbard.

If he had made it all up, how come there are no contradictions? (go ahead, look for just 1) If he had made it all up, how come its not considered the oldest piece of Science Fiction? (its before Verne and Wells.) And who is L. Ron Hubbard?

......um. See, this is the sort of thing makes it hard to take you seriously as a follower of any Abrahamic religion. I get that Mormons have their own path, but aren't you guys supposed to, like, glance at the Bible occasionally?

We read the Bible just as much as the others.

Does it give honest explanations of the Mormons recent actions ? So no pathetic lies and such ?

In my opinion yes. As for pathetic lies, that's your opinion.
I'll make it easy for you: http://newsroom.lds.org/ldsnewsroom/eng/

As for pathetic lies, that's your opinion.

The pathetic yes. The lies no.
Thanks for the direct link :)

Edit 1: Yep. As I figured. Their statement on prop 8 is pathetic - they completely avoid adressing the actual reason people are so angry about it.

On to the baptisms of Jews..

http://newsroom.lds.org/ldsnewsroom/eng/news-releases-stories/catholic-bishop-decries-religious-bigotry-against-mormons

links down. looks like a denial of service attack.

Was it it someone here???? if so BAD VERY BAD.

If he had made it all up, how come there are no contradictions? (go ahead, look for just 1) If he had made it all up, how come its not considered the oldest piece of Science Fiction? (its before Verne and Wells.) And who is L. Ron Hubbard?

Are you not reading the thread?

There's masses of contradictions as shown by an earlier post.

Links work just fine with Mozilla Firefox.

http://newsroom.lds.org/ldsnewsroom/eng/news-releases-stories/catholic-bishop-decries-religious-bigotry-against-mormons

Actions speak louder than words. Those statements have the same hollow ring as O.J. Simpson promising to "search for The Real Killers."

If he had made it all up, how come there are no contradictions? (go ahead, look for just 1) If he had made it all up, how come its not considered the oldest piece of Science Fiction? (its before Verne and Wells.) And who is L. Ron Hubbard?

For one thing, science fiction has to contain science. The Book of Mormon (for those of us who don't consider it to be true) falls into the same category as the Odyssey and Gilgamesh--fantasy/myth. For another, Frankenstein was published in 1818, twelve years before the Book of Mormon.

As for contradictions, what about all the ones I posted earlier?

Criticism of the LDS Movement: (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_lds)
The Book of Mormon contains an account of peoples who, in succeeding groups between 2500 BC [6] and 600 BC, traveled from the Middle East and settled in the Americas. Evangelical lecturer and journalist Richard Abanes and author David Persuitte argue that aspects of the Book of Mormon narrative (such as the existence of horses, steel, and chariots in pre-Columbian America) are not supported by mainstream archaeology.[
A traditional Mormon hypothesis of the origin of Native Americans is that they are descended soley from Hebrews in Jerusalem. Scientist Yaakov Kleiman, Mormon anthropologist Thomas W. Murphy, and ex-Mormon molecular biologist Simon G. Southerton argue that this hypothesis is inconsistent with recent genetic findings,[13][14][15] which show the genetic origins of Native Americans to be in Asia, possibly near the Altay Mountains
Critics Jerald and Sandra Tanner and Marvin W. Cowan contend that the Book of Mormon's use of certain linguistic anachronisms (such as the Americanized name "Sam"[18] and the French word "adieu"[19]) provide evidence that the book was fabricated by Joseph Smith, rather than divinely inspired.[20] [21] In addition, Richard Abanes argues that because the first edition of the Book of Mormon contained hundreds of grammatical errors (removed in later editions), the book was therefore fabricated by J. Smith and not divinely inspired.[22]
Abanes, the Tanners, et al. claim that Joseph Smith plagiarized the Book of Mormon, and that it is therefore not divinely inspired.[23][24][25] Alleged sources include View of the Hebrews by Ethan Smith (published 1823, seven years before the Book of Mormon); The Wonders of Nature by Josiah Priest (published in 1825, five years before the Book of Mormon); The Bible; and the Apocrypha

Are you not reading the thread?

There's masses of contradictions as shown by an earlier post.

Have they read it, or are they going of something/one else?

http://newsroom.lds.org/ldsnewsroom/eng/news-releases-stories/catholic-bishop-decries-religious-bigotry-against-mormons

Yesyes. Now please link to an article where the Church of the latter day Saints actually addresses the issues people have with their involvement with prop 8.You know - the "from other states" thingy, the lies and halftruths used during the adcampaign and so on.

Not whining about "the right for free speech" or how people cannot deal with the outcome of a democratic process. I personally would have been just as upset if the mormons had used the same tactics to re-enforce the legality of gay marriage - the way it was done is what bugs me and many others.

The Church is not led by morons, so they know that THAT is the issue. So why won't they stop avoiding it, if they consider their actions bonafide ?

Have they read it, or are they going of something/one else?

Yes, I admit much of the research I cited was done by people other than myself. However, it is obvious to most of us that most of the claims made by the Book of Mormon contradict reality as it is understood by rational people.

A. They were plates. Thin pieces of gold, which has no corrosion whatsoever.

B. 2,600 years ago, I don't believe they knew about platinum...

C. Except with maybe lasers, its impossible to carve letters into diamond.

And how did a man in the 19th century with no special education manage to reconstruct and translate the dead language on the plates? With magic. If you're going to use magic, you might as well make it as totally awesome as possible.

Have they read it, or are they going of something/one else?

Ah yes, this is also why I believe the earth is flat until I see it's not with my own eyes, I certainly won't rely on others to tell me anything, which is also why until god tells me he exists in person, I won't believe that either.

Clearly I have no ability to discern.

"The Book of Mormon contains an account of peoples who, in succeeding groups between 2500 BC [6] and 600 BC, traveled from the Middle East and settled in the Americas. Evangelical lecturer and journalist Richard Abanes and author David Persuitte argue that aspects of the Book of Mormon narrative (such as the existence of horses, steel, and chariots in pre-Columbian America) are not supported by mainstream archaeology"

You realize there are hundreds of sites that are not yet discovered. And the Spanish were there hundreds of years before archeologists.

"he Book of Mormon contains an account of peoples who, in succeeding groups between 2500 BC [6] and 600 BC, traveled from the Middle East and settled in the Americas. Evangelical lecturer and journalist Richard Abanes and author David Persuitte argue that aspects of the Book of Mormon narrative (such as the existence of horses, steel, and chariots in pre-Columbian America) are not supported by mainstream archaeology"

They were descendants of the House of Joseph, who were carried away into Assyria. The Assyrians assimilated with the Hebrews, and the House of Joseph.

"Critics Jerald and Sandra Tanner and Marvin W. Cowan contend that the Book of Mormon's use of certain linguistic anachronisms (such as the Americanized name "Sam"[18] and the French word "adieu"[19]) provide evidence that the book was fabricated by Joseph Smith, rather than divinely inspired.[20] [21] In addition, Richard Abanes argues that because the first edition of the Book of Mormon contained hundreds of grammatical errors (removed in later editions), the book was therefore fabricated by J. Smith and not divinely inspired.[22]"

lol, Oooo, grammer. Scary. ;) Wow, wonder where the name Sam could have come from. English isn't the oldest language around nor is French. Seems to be a simple name at that too. Ssss-aaaa-mm.

"Abanes, the Tanners, et al. claim that Joseph Smith plagiarized the Book of Mormon, and that it is therefore not divinely inspired.[23][24][25] Alleged sources include View of the Hebrews by Ethan Smith (published 1823, seven years before the Book of Mormon); The Wonders of Nature by Josiah Priest (published in 1825, five years before the Book of Mormon); The Bible; and the Apocrypha"

Joseph Smith was a poor farmboy who had only the family's Bible to read. He was not learned in literature. As for The Wonders of Nature, it seems to be about the beauty of New England.http://olivercowdery.com/texts/prst1826.htm There were Natives there too.

Because they were Arabs, not rappers. Duh.

And, as Arabs are so closely related to Persians, we should just be glad the things weren't blue carpet with gold trim.

I rather like the combination of the colors blue and gold...

I rather like the combination of the colors blue and gold...

I'd have to agree with you on that one. :)

So what's with you Americans hating Mormons so much? Seriously, this is like English anti-Catholic feelings or something. I know they voted for Prop 8 and all, and they're sort of annoying when they come up to your door, but still. That's very disappointing, not anger-inducing.

From the thread title, I was sort of hoping this was going to be about moomintrolls...

Yootopia, where are you from?
The Archregimancy, sorry about the typo

Yootopia, where are you from?
The UK.

So what's with you Americans hating Mormons so much? Seriously, this is like English anti-Catholic feelings or something. I know they voted for Prop 8 and all, and they're sort of annoying when they come up to your door, but still. That's very disappointing, not anger-inducing.

The leadership actively promoted the subversion of Gay Rights by funding the Proposition 8 campaign, and they practice forcible post-mortem conversion of deceased human beings. You don't feel the least bit indignant about that?

What did you think about Gordon Brown's "New World Order Speech"?

The leadership actively promoted the subversion of Gay Rights by funding the Proposition 8 campaign, and they practice forcible post-mortem conversion of deceased human beings. You don't feel the least bit indignant about that?

The Church did not fund the campaign.

The leadership actively promoted the subversion of Gay Rights by funding the Proposition 8 campaign, and they practice forcible post-mortem conversion of deceased human beings. You don't feel the least bit indignant about that?
Indignant, aye, but not angry per se. More, as I said, disappointed.
What did you think about "Gordon Brown's New World Order Speech"?
Yet to hear it, it sounds like something off AboveTopSecret or something.

Look for it on Youtube.

You realize there are hundreds of sites that are not yet discovered. And the Spanish were there hundreds of years before archeologists.
And so far there has been no evidence of these things in pre-Colombian North America or South America. Sorry. We probably would have seen some clues by now.


They were descendants of the House of Joseph, who were carried away into Assyria. The Assyrians assimilated with the Hebrews, and the House of Joseph.
The Altay Mountains are on the borders of Mongolia, China and Russia. Nowhere near Assyria, which was where modern day Iraq is.


lol, Oooo, grammer. Scary. ;) Wow, wonder where the name Sam could have come from. English isn't the oldest language around nor is French. Seems to be a simple name at that too. Ssss-aaaa-mm.
A perfect being would not make grammatical errors.


Joseph Smith was a poor farmboy who had only the family's Bible to read. He was not learned in literature. As for The Wonders of Nature, it seems to be about the beauty of New England.http://olivercowdery.com/texts/prst1826.htm There were Natives there too.
Thus explaining all the grammatical errors. Also, who names an Angel "Moroni"?

Look for it on Youtube.
Nah, I'll be alright.

Please use the quote function.

You realize there are hundreds of sites that are not yet discovered.So, the argument in favor of your theory is that even though there is no evidence supporting it, evidence could eventually be found? Sorry, I'll take the theory that already has overwhelming supporting evidence. Archaeology provides a portrait of early Mesoamerican society that is completely at odds with Joseph Smith's account. And the Spanish were there hundreds of years before archeologists. I don't know what you mean by that.
They were descendants of the House of Joseph, who were carried away into Assyria. The Assyrians assimilated with the Hebrews, and the House of Joseph.There is no evidence for that theory.
lol, Oooo, grammer. Scary. ;) Wow, wonder where the name Sam could have come from. English isn't the oldest language around nor is French. Seems to be a simple name at that too. Ssss-aaaa-mm.Maybe you should look at all of the linguistic anachronisms contained in the book. Using modern language, and making grammatical errors, go against the idea that it is an ancient, divinely inspired text.

Joseph Smith was a poor farmboy who had only the family's Bible to read. He was not learned in literature. As for The Wonders of Nature, it seems to be about the beauty of New England.http://olivercowdery.com/texts/prst1826.htm There were Natives there too.Smith lived during the Second Great Awakening. He came from a religious background. To say that he took many of his ideas from Christianity is no great stretch.

Also, who names an Angel "Moroni"?

Well, I'm sure Moroni did. :rolleyes:

If he had made it all up, how come there are no contradictions? You can't make up a story without contradictions?

Are you not reading the thread?

There's masses of contradictions as shown by an earlier post.Yeah, but those are contradictions with reality, not internal contradictions. And reality is easily denied.

You realize there are hundreds of sites that are not yet discovered. And the Spanish were there hundreds of years before archeologists.So, what, you propose the Spanish cleaned up America so no one would find out the truth? The conquistadors are hardly known for being great archeologists.
Discovery of archeological sites is a fairly random process, so it's statistically highly unlikely that archeologists just happened to miss every site supporting your claims and found only the thousands that disagree with it.

I can currently no longer respond to your inquires. Not because I physically can't, but..well unless you count "I'm gonna be sleeping." Night all.

Well, I'm sure Moroni did. :rolleyes:

I would have picked a different name. One that didn't look like "moron."

I would have picked a different name. One that didn't look like "moron."

"Moron" was originally a technical term and was adopted in 1910. It comes from Greek, which Smith didn't speak. When Smith wrote the Book of Mormon, "moron" referred exclusively to a variety of salamander.

A. They were plates. Thin pieces of gold, which has no corrosion whatsoever.False. Gold may not rust, but "least reactive metal" does not mean "non-reactive metal". Gold can be corroded.

The Church did not fund the campaign.

Via Andrew Sullivan: (http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2008/10/the-mormon-fact.html)
Yesterday, I linked to stories alleging up to 40 percent of the financing for the California proposition to strip gay couples of their right to marry was coming from LDS Church members. Now, the numbers claimed by the opponents of Proposition 8 are even higher - more like a staggering 77 percent:

Daily Kos: Mormons Resigning Despite Strong Heritage, Citing 'Hatred' by LDS Church (http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/11/12/104649/90/284/659767)

Compilation of Mormon Donors to Prop 8 (http://mormonsfor8.com/)

Mormons Bankroll Anti–Gay Marriage Amendments in California, Arizona (http://www.advocate.com/news_detail_ektid64163.asp)

Catholics, Mormons allied to pass Prop. 8 (http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/11/09/MNU1140AQQ.DTL)

Catchy tittle ain't it? though I'd get some anti-Mormons to see and be rather disappointed. lol

What's a tittle?
Also, can anyone explain to me why so many religious people carve that feeling that somewhere out there, there are people who hate them because of their religious beliefs?
To the point of virtually hoping for abuse on internet forums?

What's a tittle?
Also, can anyone explain to me why so many religious people carve that fealing that somewhere out there, there are people who hate them because of their religious beliefs?
To the point of virtually hoping for abuse on internet forums?They crave the martyr cred.

What's a tittle?
Also, can anyone explain to me why so many religious people carve that fealing that somewhere out there, there are people who hate them because of their religious beliefs?
To the point of virtually hoping for abuse on internet forums?

Persecution complex.

They crave the martyr cred.

I have to admit I was hoping that the answer would be a little more subtle than this, and the old group-think mentality...
Ah well, another day, another disppointment.

Persecution complex.

Well, definitely. But where does that come from?
Even I refuse to believe that so many religious people suffer from mental illness...

I have to admit I was hoping that the answer would be a little more subtle than this, and the old group-think mentality...
Ah well, another day, another disppointment.

Hope for subtlety from fundamentalist religion and you will be eternally disappointed.

Hope for subtlety from fundamentalist religion and you will be eternally disappointed.This isn't true. ID is a subtle attempt at teaching creationism, for instance.

This isn't true. ID is a subtle attempt at teaching creationism, for instance.

About as subtle as a rhinoceros in a pink fairy dress, yes...

About as subtle as a rhinoceros in a pink fairy dress, yes...It fools some people.

It fools some people.

As H.L. Mencken said, no one ever went broke underestimating the intelligence of the American people.

Well, definitely. But where does that come from?
Even I refuse to believe that so many religious people suffer from mental illness...

Well it comes from having deeply held beliefs, not only by yourself but also your family, friends and community ridiculed.

No one likes that.

Well, definitely. But where does that come from?
Even I refuse to believe that so many religious people suffer from mental illness...

A lot don't. They're also the ones who tend not to make a big deal out religious issues.

"Moron" was originally a technical term and was adopted in 1910. It comes from Greek, which Smith didn't speak. When Smith wrote the Book of Mormon, "moron" referred exclusively to a variety of salamander.

And now it accidentally provides lulz.

Well it comes from having deeply held beliefs, not only by yourself but also your family, friends and community ridiculed.

No one likes that.

But you often see attempts to find persecution where there is none. Case in point, the "War on Christmas" crap.

But you often see attempts to find persecution where there is none. Case in point, the "War on Christmas" crap.

It's about feeling comfortable, seeing your country have less and less of people like you causes discomfort.

Having said that, Christmas is slightly different, it's an easy touchpoint for religion because many people might not associate christmas with religion but still not wish to see it go, it's part of their childhood.

It invites reaction from more than those in religion and therefore makes religious people happier to see people become upset when it's challenged.

It's about feeling comfortable, seeing your country have less and less of people like you causes discomfort.

Having said that, Christmas is slightly different, it's an easy touchpoint for religion because many people might not associate christmas with religion but still not wish to see it go, it's part of their childhood.

It invites reaction from more than those in religion and therefore makes religious people happier to see people become upset when it's challenged.

People fear the unknown. Or, to put it more moderate, the unfamiliar makes people uneasy.

They'd much rather stick with what's familiar to them.

As for the "war on Christmas," I find it particularly stupid. Much of Christmas tradition isn't all that Christian anyway.

Well it comes from having deeply held beliefs, not only by yourself but also your family, friends and community ridiculed.

No one likes that.

Often the "ridiculisation" is in fact "pointing out that there are other beliefs as well". Or at least starts out that way.

It's about feeling comfortable, seeing your country have less and less of people like you causes discomfort.

Having said that, Christmas is slightly different, it's an easy touchpoint for religion because many people might not associate christmas with religion but still not wish to see it go, it's part of their childhood.

It invites reaction from more than those in religion and therefore makes religious people happier to see people become upset when it's challenged.

But how is that a big deal? Many people don't believe in Sunday as a religous day either, yet I haven't heard of a "War on the Weekend" yet...

But how is that a big deal? Many people don't believe in Sunday as a religous day either, yet I haven't heard of a "War on the Weekend" yet...

I'm sure there was, in fact I remember the Sunday trading issue back in the UK before quite recently.

I'm sure there was, in fact I remember the Sunday trading issue back in the UK before quite recently.

Oh, that's still going on in Germany. However, the issue is centered exclusively around shop opening hours, as not even religious people dispute pubs being open, taxis and busses being friven around, doctors and nurses working, cinemas showing films, TV and radio being presented, etc etc.

It's not exactly a religious topic, I would say, unless there's a religion exclusively for shop keepers...

But how is that a big deal? Many people don't believe in Sunday as a religous day either, yet I haven't heard of a "War on the Weekend" yet...

Chick-fil-A isn't open on Sundays.

Oh, that's still going on in Germany. However, the issue is centered exclusively around shop opening hours, as not even religious people dispute pubs being open, taxis and busses being friven around, doctors and nurses working, cinemas showing films, TV and radio being presented, etc etc.

It's not exactly a religious topic, I would say, unless there's a religion exclusively for shop keepers...

Well you fight your battles where you can, there's little interest for the church to fight a losing battle in terms of taxis and pubs. Trading hours were certainly opposed mainly by the Church.

Point is, it's all a struggle to stop the potential decline of religion.

I also think some people think those who are not religious must not, in some way, understand religion - if we did we'd believe. The irony is that we all think the other side is misguided, though one side has rather better evidence I'd say.

And so far there has been no evidence of these things in pre-Colombian North America or South America. Sorry. We probably would have seen some clues by now.

Don't be silly. All the evidence is out there, noone has just found it yet.

Just like we have not found the diary of Smith in which he proclaims that his whole story was a sham and that he sold his soul to Satan. That we did not does not mean it does not exist - hell, it even makes it more likely !

According to some peoples reasoning at least.

Don't be silly. All the evidence is out there, noone has just found it yet.

Just like we have not found the diary of Smith in which he proclaims that his whole story was a sham and that he sold his soul to Satan. That we did not does not mean it does not exist - hell, it even makes it more likely !

According to some peoples reasoning at least.

Lol.

I also find it odd that when he was given the golden tablets, he lost them, or gave them back, I forget which.

Doesn't it seem a little odd that he'd do such without showing anyone?

It's not exactly a religious topic, I would say, unless there's a religion exclusively for shop keepers...
The Romans had the Dia Lucrii. Good times.

So, is Blood Atonement really a practice by the Mormon church where the blood of Jesus Christ can't even forgive, and thus you have to kill the person?

Also, what are some sins that are not covered by Jesus's blood?

As one of the very few - possibly the only - professional archaeologists who (occasionally) posts here, I feel a particular responsibility to address those posts from the OP that claim that archaeological analysis that refutes the Book of Mormon is somehow unreliable or incomplete.

I should also note that, as a member of the board of directors of a US-based professional society with a membership of more than 2000 archaeologists and a member of the Russian Orthodox Church, I can neither be accused of lack of relevant knowledge nor anti-religious bias (though sectarian bias might be another matter).

Let me state clearly that there is no archaeological, genetic, or linguistic evidence whatsoever for the Mormon claims regarding pre-Columbian civilisations descended from migrant Jews.

The idea proposed by some Mormons that the Jaredites were Olmecs and the Lamanites were Mayan is demonstrably false. There is no evidence whatsover for the existence of the Nephites. There is no 'reformed Egyptian' language. As others have pointed out, the Book of Mormon makes several demonstrably false claims as to the presence of fauna and technology in the Pre-Columbian Americas.

Furthermore, Mormon scholars themselves are unable to agree on a settlement pattern between the 'hemispheric geography model' which holds that the early settlers colonised all of the Americas, and the 'limited geography model' that states that the area of relevant pre-Columbian settlement was only a few hundred kilometres wide. Nor can those who hold to the latter view even agree on where the limited geography model would place settlement (Central America and the Finger Lakes region of New York State are the most common suggestions).

The Smithsonian has unambiguously made it clear that there "is no archaeological evidence to support the book's claims". The National Geographical Society has made it clear that "Archaeologists and other scholars have long probed the hemisphere's past and the society does not know of anything found so far that has substantiated the Book of Mormon".


I repeat: the Book of Mormon is clearly and obviously untrue; it works neither literally nor allegorically.

who names an Angel "Moroni"?
None other than the I-Moron himself, Joseph Smith.

Want to know everything you need about Mormons?

http://au.youtube.com/watch?v=KsXzHLiHTOU

http://www.break.com/index/door_to_door_atheists_bother_mormons.html

As one of the very few - possibly the only - professional archaeologists who (occasionally) posts here, I feel a particular responsibility to address those posts from the OP that claim that archaeologicaly analysis that refutes the Book of Mormon is somehow unreliable or incomplete.

I should also note that, as a member of the board of directors of a US-based professional society with a membership of more than 2000 archaeologists and a member of the Russian Orthodox Church, I can neither be accused of lack of relevant knowledge nor anti-religious bias (though sectarian bias might be another matter).

Let me state clearly that there is no archaeological, genetic, or linguistic evidence whatsover for the Mormon claims regarding pre-Columbian civilisations descended from migrant Jews.

The idea proposed by some Mormons that the Jaredites were Olmecs and the Lamanites were Mayan is demonstrably false. There is no evidence whatsover for the existence of the Nephites. There is no 'reformed Egyptian' language. As others have pointed out, the Book of Mormon makes several demonstrably false claims as to the presence of fauna and technology in the Pre-Columbian Americas.

Furthermore, Mormon scholars themselves are unable to agree on a settlement pattern between the 'hemispheric geography model' which holds that the early settlers colonised all of the Americas, and the 'limited geography model' that states that the area of relevant pre-Columbian settlement was only a few hundred kilometres wide. Nor can those who hold to the latter view even agree on where the limited geography model would place settlement (Central America and the Finger Lakes region of New York State are the most common suggestions).

The Smithsonian has unambiguously made it clear that there "is no archaeological evidence to support the book's claims". The National Geographical Society has made it clear that "Archaeologists and other scholars have long probed the hemisphere's past and the society does not know of anything found so far that has substantiated the Book of Mormon".


I repeat: the Book of Mormon is clearly and obviously untrue; it works neither literally nor allegorically.

Big QFT.

I also find it odd that when he was given the golden tablets, he lost them, or gave them back, I forget which.

"Emma! Have you seen that chest where I kept the golden plates? Last I remember, it was down by the furnace, next to my old hat-- where is my hat, anyway?"

"Oh, THAT? I sold it in the rummage sale. I didn't think you wanted it anymore."

"But a holy angel gave me those plates? What am I going to tell all the guys in that cult I started?"

"Why don't you just tell them the angel took them back?"

"I am SO getting a new wife!"

As one of the very few - possibly the only - professional archaeologists who (occasionally) posts here, I feel a particular responsibility to address those posts from the OP that claim that archaeological analysis that refutes the Book of Mormon is somehow unreliable or incomplete.
<amazing coolness>
:hail:

I have never understood why people insist on trying to claim historical accuracy for the myths of their religions anyway. History is not the point of religion. Who gives a shit if this or that event is real or just a story? The question is, do the religion's tenets make sense spiritually and/or morally? And that is a very personal question.

I can't help it, but every time someone starts talking about how historically accurate their religious texts are, I start thinking there's a disconnect somewhere between them and their religion.

:hail:

I have never understood why people insist on trying to claim historical accuracy for the myths of their religions anyway. History is not the point of religion. Who gives a shit if this or that event is real or just a story?

Because, for some, their faith rests on the premise that it, in its entirety, is absolutely 100% true. They're not capable of looking at it as a story of morals, or ethical guidance. To them, it is to be followed because god said so. They can't separate "do the right thing because it's the right thing" and "do what's right because god said so". They lack their own internal moral compass, the ability to distinguish right and wrong, good and bad, virtuous and evil, on their own.

And if they, for even a moment, wonder to themselves if one part of it just might not be true then the whole house of cards that they've built their entire life on comes crashing down.

That's why people are always so desperate to try and prove their faith utterly, unquestionably, 100% true. Because they can't live in a world in which it isn't.

So, is Blood Atonement really a practice by the Mormon church where the blood of Jesus Christ can't even forgive, and thus you have to kill the person?

Also, what are some sins that are not covered by Jesus's blood?

Leaving the church seems to be the big one.

Leaving the church seems to be the big one.

I think interracial marriage is another one.

I think interracial marriage is another one.

Not in the last 100 years methinks. I haven't really kept up with it though. The individual members do things the church denounces and the church has in the past encouraged things the individual members say were made up by some anti-mormon conspiracy. It's hard to separate what is really going on and what is rumored and what used to happen but doesn't anymore and what the church "frowns" on but still goes on and what the fundamentalists do and what the mainstream know nothing about.

Not another Mormonism thread..

Seconded...:(

And this one's about The Truth.

I'm Declaring a War on Wars!

Fuck. Really?

Because, for some, their faith rests on the premise that it, in its entirety, is absolutely 100% true. They're not capable of looking at it as a story of morals, or ethical guidance. To them, it is to be followed because god said so. They can't separate "do the right thing because it's the right thing" and "do what's right because god said so". They lack their own internal moral compass, the ability to distinguish right and wrong, good and bad, virtuous and evil, on their own.

And if they, for even a moment, wonder to themselves if one part of it just might not be true then the whole house of cards that they've built their entire life on comes crashing down.

That's why people are always so desperate to try and prove their faith utterly, unquestionably, 100% true. Because they can't live in a world in which it isn't.
The funny part of it is that they actually do exactly what they think they can't do all the time. Everybody, every day, parses out information to separate what matters from what doesn't matter, what works from what doesn't work, why to take something on, why not to, etc., on any given subject or activity. That is the simple brain function of figuring things out and making judgments and decisions. Even these people who claim that, if every single word of their religion is not literal, factual truth they'd be lost, still do that mental judging and parsing all the time, without any noticeable ill effects.

This is why I tend to suspect that it's not so much that they can't apply critical judgment to their religions, but rather that they choose not to. I also tend to suspect that they make that choice in order to avoid making another choice they do not wish to make, i.e. whether to stick with their chose religion or go looking for a different one. I think very few people actually suffer from some psychological or neurological condition of pathological literalmindedness. Rather, I tend to suspect that such religion-literalists doth protest a little too much, and that they focus so intensely on the history because they would rather not focus all that much on the doctrine or theology. I really don't think it's that they can't live in a world where their religion is not literally, factually, historically true, so much as they might fear that the theological/spiritual beliefs of that religion may not really be as meaningful to them as they say they are.

Anyway, that's the way it looks.

Not in the last 100 years methinks. I haven't really kept up with it though. The individual members do things the church denounces and the church has in the past encouraged things the individual members say were made up by some anti-mormon conspiracy. It's hard to separate what is really going on and what is rumored and what used to happen but doesn't anymore and what the church "frowns" on but still goes on and what the fundamentalists do and what the mainstream know nothing about.

So the magic underwear isn't true? :(

So the magic underwear isn't true? :(

Temple garments are real, how magic they are is debatable. I haven't heard many willing to explain them to me, I guess it's a private thing.

Temple garments are real, how magic they are is debatable. I haven't heard many willing to explain them to me, I guess it's a private thing.

How do you know so much about Mormonism?

How do you know so much about Mormonism?

Either the poster is Mormon or he's actually cracked a book and maybe talked to some of the people instead of running around making wild accusations and reading.

Frankly I find it sad that with all the troubles in the world that people on NS have nothing better to do than to rip on other people's personal beliefs of Religion and God and spirituality. Get off your computer and go do something in your community for a change.

Either the poster is Mormon or he's actually cracked a book and maybe talked to some of the people instead of running around making wild accusations and reading.

Frankly I find it sad that with all the troubles in the world that people on NS have nothing better to do than to rip on other people's personal beliefs of Religion and God and spirituality. Get off your computer and go do something in your community for a change.

Rip on other peoples personal beliefs is exactly what the Mormon church did to prevoke this.

And by rip on personal beliefs, what I mean is, take away rights.

Rip on other peoples personal beliefs is exactly what the Mormon church did to prevoke this.

And by rip on personal beliefs, what I mean is, take away rights.

Don't you get it? It's okay to be a bigot and do bad things if it's in the name of Jeebus!

How do you know so much about Mormonism?

I've read a lot, and met a few missionaries.

Either the poster is Mormon or he's actually cracked a book and maybe talked to some of the people instead of running around making wild accusations and reading.It always irritates me when people try to explain other people's motivation and background when they don't even know them well enough to get their gender right.

I would have picked a different name. One that didn't look like "moron."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moron_(psychology)

http://mfrost.typepad.com/photos/uncategorized/2007/05/29/the_more_you_know2.jpg

Sadly, it takes more than a couple of posts to do. :(

So I'll just give you the address to the Church's web page which has links and all sorts of stuff. :)

http://lds.org which has a link to

http://www.mormon.org/mormonorg/eng/

As a Christian, convince me that what was to Joseph Smith was given from a real angel. For it is written: But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach a gospel other than the one we preached to you, let him be eternally condemned! As we have already said, so now I say again: If anybody is preaching to you a gospel other than what you accepted, let him be eternally condemned! (Galatians 1:8-9) What was given to J. Smith was an entirely different gospel than what we read in the New Testament. Why am I to believe that God would send a different message, via an angel, to J. Smith, and only he could read it? If God wanted a message sent to mankind, wouldn't he make in an earthly language that could be translated for anyone? Furthermore, why should I believe J. Smith's story, when its a badly replicated story of what happened to Mohammad,and Islam some 1400 years prior? After all, J. Smith did say he liked the approach Mohammad had, and had very similar qualities to him. So why should I accept Mormonism as a legit Christian movement, when it sounds nothing like Christianity, minus the part about Jesus?

It always irritates me when people try to explain other people's motivation and background when they don't even know them well enough to get their gender right.

Pffft, everybody knows that there are no wimminz on the internets.

I mean, who would put a computer in the kitchen?

Pffft, everybody knows that there are no wimminz on the internets.

I mean, who would put a computer in the kitchen?

Exactly. Last time I checked a computer doesn't

A) Get me a sammich, now!
B) Do the laundry
C) Make babies.

Women obviously don't need to use one. ;)

Exactly. Last time I checked a computer doesn't

A) Get me a sammich, now!
B) Do the laundry
C) Make babies.

Women obviously don't need to use one. ;)
You two have probably not heard of the fridges that order depleted groceries, have you?

You two have probably not heard of the fridges that order depleted groceries, have you?

There's a fridge that does that?! :eek:

As a Christian, convince me that what was to Joseph Smith was given from a real angel. For it is written: But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach a gospel other than the one we preached to you, let him be eternally condemned! As we have already said, so now I say again: If anybody is preaching to you a gospel other than what you accepted, let him be eternally condemned! (Galatians 1:8-9) What was given to J. Smith was an entirely different gospel than what we read in the New Testament. Why am I to believe that God would send a different message, via an angel, to J. Smith, and only he could read it? If God wanted a message sent to mankind, wouldn't he make in an earthly language that could be translated for anyone? Furthermore, why should I believe J. Smith's story, when its a badly replicated story of what happened to Mohammad,and Islam some 1400 years prior? After all, J. Smith did say he liked the approach Mohammad had, and had very similar qualities to him. So why should I accept Mormonism as a legit Christian movement, when it sounds nothing like Christianity, minus the part about Jesus?

Ummm, what part about "The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints" doesn't include Jesus Christ?

http://www.mormon.org/mormonorg/eng/basic-beliefs/learning-center-video-popup?mediaId=mormons-are-christians-2-27

Ummm, what part about "The Church of [I]Jesus Christ[I] of Latter-Day Saints" doesn't include Jesus Christ?

http://www.mormon.org/mormonorg/eng/basic-beliefs/learning-center-video-popup?mediaId=mormons-are-christians-2-27

Way to utterly ignore the point of his post.

Just because you call yourself something doesnt mean you are. Al-Quade calls themselves freedom fighters after all...

There's a fridge that does that?! :eek:
Behold the wonders of science! (http://www.firebox.com/product/411/Internet-Fridge)

Ummm, what part about "The Church of [I]Jesus Christ[I] of Latter-Day Saints" doesn't include Jesus Christ?

http://www.mormon.org/mormonorg/eng/basic-beliefs/learning-center-video-popup?mediaId=mormons-are-christians-2-27
What part of the Democratic People's Republic of Korea doesn't include democracy or a republic?

Way to utterly ignore the point of his post.

Just because you call yourself something doesnt mean you are. Al-Quade calls themselves freedom fighters after all...

Given the density of his response, one has to wonder if the origin for the Book of Mormon wasn't in fact a few plates of solid lead.

Behold the wonders of science! (http://www.firebox.com/product/411/Internet-Fridge)

I....must....have....it!

Yay, now I can be even more recluse! :D

Given the density of his response, one has to wonder if the origin for the Book of Mormon wasn't in fact a few plates of solid lead.

Maybe a few plates of uranium?

I....must....have....it!
=/ I haet u, dsholt, for 3 character limits >=(
Sorry, this product is not available.

Maybe a few plates of uranium?Or gold. That's pretty dense.

Behold the wonders of science! (http://www.firebox.com/product/411/Internet-Fridge)

And you thought fridges just kept things cool...:eek:

Sorry, this product is not available.:(

=/ I haet u, dsholt, for 3 character limits >=(

:( Wilgrove is a sad panda....

Maybe a few plates of uranium?

The ironic thing is, I just checked and apparently gold is, in fact, more dense than lead. And more dense than uranium. Though Iridium is more dense than gold, so maybe I should stop making materials sciences jokes.

The ironic thing is, I just checked and apparently gold is, in fact, more dense than lead. And more dense than uranium. Though Iridium is more dense than gold, so maybe I should stop making materials sciences jokes.
And I beat you to it. Huzzah!
Or gold. That's pretty dense.
Lead and gold are right next to eachother on the periodic table of elements and are only one electron apart in charges. That's why alchemists thought lead would be the perfect material for changing into gold.

Lead and gold are right next to eachother on the periodic table of elements and are only one electron apart in charges. That's why alchemists thought lead would be the perfect material for changing into gold.

And it indeed is doable. Just bloody expensive ;)

And I beat you to it. Huzzah!

Lead and gold are right next to eachother on the periodic table of elements and are only one electron apart in charges. That's why alchemists thought lead would be the perfect material for changing into gold.

Just removing the electron doesn't make it into gold. It just becomes lead, but missing an electron. I believe its called an isotope.

What's a tittle?
Also, can anyone explain to me why so many religious people carve that feeling that somewhere out there, there are people who hate them because of their religious beliefs?
To the point of virtually hoping for abuse on internet forums?

I love when people point out typos then spell crave carve.

Lead and gold are right next to eachother on the periodic table of elements

as much as watching Hudson Hawk or reading fancy treaties on alchemy might say otherwise, they're actually not. Gold (AU) has an atomic number of 79. Lead (Pb) has an atomic number of 82. They are separated by hydrargyrum (80) and thallium (81).

See here (http://61.19.145.8/student/m5year2006-2/502/group11/periodic_table.gif).

And I beat you to it. Huzzah!

Lead and gold are right next to eachother on the periodic table of elements and are only one electron apart in charges. That's why alchemists thought lead would be the perfect material for changing into gold.

Indeed, you beat me to it. And I was wrong. *seppuku*

Just removing the electron doesn't make it into gold. It just becomes lead, but missing an electron. I believe its called an isotope.

removing a proton WOULD make lead into gold, if they were right next to each other, as Laerod states. Since they're not, removing a proton would make it thallium

Just removing the electron doesn't make it into gold. It just becomes lead, but missing an electron. I believe its called an isotope.I never said alchemy worked.
as much as watching Hudson Hawk or reading fancy treaties on alchemy might say otherwise, they're actually not. Gold (AU) has an atomic number of 79. Lead (Pb) has an atomic number of 82. They are separated by hydrargyrum (80) and thallium (81).

See here (http://61.19.145.8/student/m5year2006-2/502/group11/periodic_table.gif).
Hm. My memory has failed me =(

But you could have at least called it mercury, like normal people.

Ummm, what part about "The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints" doesn't include Jesus Christ?

I might have poorly worded it. I was saying that Mormonism has no points of similarity to any other Christian group, outside of using the name of Jesus. With that in mind, why should I accept them as a Christian group. Behold, Jesus said that there will be those who say they are followers, but because of what they do and believe, we will know they are false, and they will be cast aside.


http://www.mormon.org/mormonorg/eng/basic-beliefs/learning-center-video-popup?mediaId=mormons-are-christians-2-27

Okay,I want you to think for yourself. I want YOU to explain to me why you should be considered Christian. You can post links and videos all day, but that doesn't really address what you believe, and why.

Indeed, you beat me to it. And I was wrong. *seppuku*Yeah, well, as Neo Art pointed out, fucking Skitt's law got me.

But you could have at least called it mercury, like normal people.

I was wondering if anyone would get that :p

Everyone knows that the Mormons are the only religion who are right and will get into heaven.
I mean, South Park wouldn't lie to me!
...
Would it?

I was wondering if anyone would get that :pI did need to boost my natural sciences cred after that embarassment.

As a Christian, convince me that what was to Joseph Smith was given from a real angel. For it is written: But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach a gospel other than the one we preached to you, let him be eternally condemned! As we have already said, so now I say again: If anybody is preaching to you a gospel other than what you accepted, let him be eternally condemned! (Galatians 1:8-9) What was given to J. Smith was an entirely different gospel than what we read in the New Testament. Why am I to believe that God would send a different message, via an angel, to J. Smith, and only he could read it? If God wanted a message sent to mankind, wouldn't he make in an earthly language that could be translated for anyone? Furthermore, why should I believe J. Smith's story, when its a badly replicated story of what happened to Mohammad,and Islam some 1400 years prior? After all, J. Smith did say he liked the approach Mohammad had, and had very similar qualities to him. So why should I accept Mormonism as a legit Christian movement, when it sounds nothing like Christianity, minus the part about Jesus?

Ummm, what part about "The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints" doesn't include Jesus Christ?

http://www.mormon.org/mormonorg/eng/basic-beliefs/learning-center-video-popup?mediaId=mormons-are-christians-2-27

Way to utterly ignore the point of his post.

Just because you call yourself something doesnt mean you are. Al-Quade calls themselves freedom fighters after all...

What part of the Democratic People's Republic of Korea doesn't include democracy or a republic?

They believe in the divinity of Joe's son Josh, they follow his teachings in the New Testament. Yes, they add to them with a new holy book but Christians did the same to the Jews.

They are therefore, by any rational definition, a Christian sect. Let's get off this tangent and rip on the Mormons for something accurate like their rampant homophobia.

LOL, a bit off topic but the ads on this page say "Fun Mormon weight loss plans!"

:hail:

I have never understood why people insist on trying to claim historical accuracy for the myths of their religions anyway. History is not the point of religion. Who gives a shit if this or that event is real or just a story? The question is, do the religion's tenets make sense spiritually and/or morally? And that is a very personal question.

I can't help it, but every time someone starts talking about how historically accurate their religious texts are, I start thinking there's a disconnect somewhere between them and their religion.

And let me :hail: right back at'cha.

You're quite right that faith and religious belief - or lack thereof - is a deeply personal experience and choice. Certainly the Orthodox Church (and this is true of many of the very old Christian groups) freely admits - and has done so to a certain extent since at least the 4th century - that looking for literal historical accuracy in the Bible is a fool's errand. The Orthodox Church has also been comfortable since at least Eusebius of Caesarea's 4th-century History of the Church - and possibly before - in openly admitting that several New Testament Epistles weren't written by their purported authors. Why American fundies get so upset about this escapes me.

This is one of the areas where Mormons go so tragically wrong - insisting on the literal truth of a new sacred text that's so demonstrably false on so many levels, archaeologically and historically.

Though oddly, I have a Mormon colleague in North America who's a respected authority on Meso-American civilisations; I don't want to even contemplate the Orwellian doublethink he must go through every time he engages in fieldwork.


Having demolished the Mormon claims to historical and/or archaeological accuracy - where I had practically all the non-Mormons, whether theist, atheist, or miscellaneous other on my side - I hope that the atheists and agnostics among you will forgive me if I address some of the theological issues.

Mormons simply aren't Christian in the commonly accepted sense; for one, they reject the Trinity. I realise that there are many reading this thread who'll consider the whole concept of the Trinity to be a particularly abtuse and arcane theological argument, but it remains central to Christian belief whether you're a fundamentalist American Protestant, an Eastern Orthodox Bishop, a liberal Scottish Episcopalian theologian, or any shade of opinion in-between. Mormonism's conception of the 'spiritual brotherhood' between Jesus and Lucifer is also anathema to any common Christian understanding of Christ's status.

The minority of you interested in a specifically Eastern Orthodox argument on why Mormons shouldn't be considered Christian can go to this link (http://orthodoxwiki.org/Mormonism).

Mormons are a kind and loving people. Just dont try to show up in the State of Utah without being a Mormon and expect to be hired for any job or not be treated like a leper where ever you go.

LOL, a bit off topic but the ads on this page say "Fun Mormon weight loss plans!"I got:
No one knew Jesus was going to die [John 20:9]
So what gospel could he have preached?

Mormons are a kind and loving people. Just dont try to show up in the State of Utah without being a Mormon and expect to be hired for any job or not be treated like a leper where ever you go.

So kind and loving they also beat up several members of a Christian church in Nauvoo, as well as tried burning down the building.


Then again, I do know some very nice Mormons, like Neo Bretonnia and my uncle. Its sad that there are a whole lot of crazy ones out there though. I am quite serious, if you want to see insane, go to Nauvoo, Illinois, and spend a day there. I was there for maybe a whole of 20 mins, and I had to get out of there.

If he had made it all up, how come there are no contradictions?

There are lots, many mentioned a few post before yours.


who is L. Ron Hubbard?

Founder of Scientology, and king of phail.

Founder of Scientology, and king of phail.

He is also the second coming of John Smith.

Sadly, it takes more than a couple of posts to do. :(

So I'll just give you the address to the Church's web page which has links and all sorts of stuff. :)

http://lds.org which has a link to

http://www.mormon.org/mormonorg/eng/

And the question is?

I'd hate to think you had just started a thread to preach, rather than debate... something?

I respect Mormons, but once you get to know them, you'll understand that they treat you as second class citizens. At least, that's happened in my experience. I was going to get together with Mormon friend, and Athiest friend, and Mormon friend said he would meet up with us later (even though we had already agreed on a time) because he "had" to go out to lunch with a "friend" who turned out to be a husband in his early fifties.

I wasn't really offended, I just noticed that he blew us off like it was no big deal whatsoever. I think that's the worst part. He didn't even realize he was doing it.

I don't know if that's with all Mormons, but from what I've gathered, they eat up bible lessons and scriptures like children and candy; they just can't get enough of it. They will have no problem going off and doing missionary work which involves going away from two years, having to ask ther "Elders" to do stuff like look at women, listen to music, play baseball, movies, etc.

They're superficial to me. They take their religion far too seriously. I don't like it.

There's also that whole Legacy of Cain bullshit. They decided black people were human in 1978.

That's a low grade in my book.

Lead and gold are right next to eachother on the periodic table of elements and are only one electron apart in charges. That's why alchemists thought lead would be the perfect material for changing into gold.

Wait...no they're not...

False. Gold may not rust, but "least reactive metal" does not mean "non-reactive metal". Gold can be corroded.

Gold isn't even the least reactive metal. Iridium is. It's the only metal that hydrofluoric acid will not dissolve.

Gold isn't even the least reactive metal. Iridium is. It's the only metal that hydrofluoric acid will not dissolve.

Wow. Is it useful for anything? Or is it too soft, like gold?

Wait...no they're not...

You know, it strikes me that the other problem with Laerod's statement regarding lead and gold being next to each other on the periodic table is that the table wasn't developed by Mendeleev until 1869. The earliest direct precursor, Döbereiner's law of triads, was only developed in 1829.

So any medieval alchemist using lead and gold's supposed proximity on the periodic table (let's ignore mercury and thallium for now) as a justification for transmuting one into the other must have been blessed with amazing powers of prophecy on top of his talent for alchemy.

Wait...no they're not...

You know, it strikes me that the other problem with Laerod's statement regarding lead and gold being next to each other on the periodic table is that the table wasn't developed by Mendeleev until 1869. The earliest direct precursor, Döbereiner's law of triads, was only developed in 1829.

So any medieval alchemist using lead and gold's supposed proximity on the periodic table (let's ignore mercury and thallium for now) as a justification for transmuting one into the other must have been blessed with amazing powers of prophecy on top of his talent for alchemy.Which, ladies and gentlemen, is why you should read the whole thread. What you're saying has already been pointed out.

Which, ladies and gentlemen, is why you should read the whole thread. What you're saying has already been pointed out.

Really? I'd read the bit several pages earlier over lead and gold, but I'd missed the bit where someone pointed out that the reference to the periodic table itself was anachronistic.

Curses.

Them Mormons must have temporarily disabled my reading comprehension using some sort of Moronic reformed Egyptian mind-meld on me through the power of their magic underpants.

Really? I'd read the bit several pages earlier over lead and gold, but I'd missed the bit where someone pointed out that the reference to the periodic table itself was anachronistic.

Curses.

Them Mormons must have temporarily disabled my reading comprehension using some sort of Moronic reformed Egyptian mind-meld on me through the power of their magic underpants.

It's funny because it's a pun on the name of that Mormon angel!

Wow. Is it useful for anything? Or is it too soft, like gold?

It's extremely useful for things that need to resist corrosion and for things that need an extremely dense metal. (It's the second densest. Osmium beats it slightly, but osmium is rather unstable) It's also extremely rare.

And gold isn't really "too soft" to be useful. It just can't be used for things that need something hard. It's an excellent conductor, and it's resistant to enough corrosives to be good as corrosion-resistant plating.

Which, ladies and gentlemen, is why you should read the whole thread. What you're saying has already been pointed out.
Sorry about that. It's not often I can say with complete certainty that a post is wrong here, so I got excited and didn't double-check the past comments.

What part of the Democratic People's Republic of Korea doesn't include democracy or a republic?

The Korea part.

Every time i see this thread title, I remember that line from the simpsons.

There's the truth (:() and the truth (:))

Mormons are not really that bad. They may ask you to come to church once in a while, and missionaries might knock on your door to talk to you, but I find them to be okay people. But with the Prop 8 thing, why don't the gays protest the Catholics and the Orthodox Jews? They also heavily supported proposition 8. Heck, 70% of blacks in California supported Proposition 8. Why are they singling out the Mormons?

Mormons are not really that bad. They may ask you to come to church once in a while, and missionaries might knock on your door to talk to you, but I find them to be okay people. But with the Prop 8 thing, why don't the gays protest the Catholics and the Orthodox Jews? They also heavily supported proposition 8. Heck, 70% of blacks in California supported Proposition 8. Why are they singling out the Mormons?

Because the primary financing for the Yes on Prop 8 GOTV movement came from Mormons, by a wide margin.

Mormons are not really that bad. They may ask you to come to church once in a while, and missionaries might knock on your door to talk to you, but I find them to be okay people. But with the Prop 8 thing, why don't the gays protest the Catholics and the Orthodox Jews? They also heavily supported proposition 8. Heck, 70% of blacks in California supported Proposition 8. Why are they singling out the Mormons?

It has been made pretty clear in these discussions why the public is especially angry at the LDS. It is because they did more, and had more direct involvement, than any other individual religious organization to support and promote Prop 8 and the dishonest ad campaign in support of it. This makes them the leader among all the religious groups that supported Prop 8, and that makes them the primary target for protest.

Also, the reason pro-gay rights activists don't protest black people is because they are not racists. Black voters did not support Prop 8 because they are black, but because they were following cultural biases, which need to be addressed far more effectively than has been done to date, AND because many of them, like many of the other voters in favor of Prop 8, were influenced by the above-mentioned dishonest Prop 8 propaganda.

Well, it passed. If it did not, then I would have shrugged my shoulders and got on with life. But, it seems the Gays are taking this like two year olds; vandalism, protests. I mean, it passed by a comfortable margin, say what you will about dishonest campaigning. So get on with your life, prop 8 opponents! Become productive citizens! Maybe then they will allow your marriages, but unless you clean up your idiocy, I am not sure they will in the near future.

Well, it passed. If it did not, then I would have shrugged my shoulders and got on with life. But, it seems the Gays are taking this like two year olds; vandalism, protests. I mean, it passed by a comfortable margin, say what you will about dishonest campaigning. So get on with your life, prop 8 opponents! Become productive citizens! Maybe then they will allow your marriages, but unless you clean up your idiocy, I am not sure they will in the near future.

So black people should have just happily got along with their lives and hoped the white man gave them civil rights, rather than protesting, in the 1960s? Do you even read the things you post?

Yes I do. What the gays need is someone like Martin Luther King Jr. or Gandhi. Peaceful protests. Civil disobedience. Not radical attacks on church buildings.

Well, it passed. If it did not, then I would have shrugged my shoulders and got on with life. But, it seems the Gays are taking this like two year olds; vandalism, protests.

Citation needed on the bold. As for protests, that's the standard accepted method of changing laws that violate civil rights.

Yes I do. What the gays need is someone like Martin Luther King Jr. or Gandhi. Peaceful protests. Civil disobedience. Not radical attacks on church buildings.

So, in the interim, between now and whenever a charismatic, well-spoken movement leader surfaces, gay people should just be happily relegated to second-class citizenry?

Gay people should not have to rely that "they" will "allow" gay marriage.

Well, it passed. If it did not, then I would have shrugged my shoulders and got on with life. But, it seems the Gays are taking this like two year olds; vandalism, protests. I mean, it passed by a comfortable margin, say what you will about dishonest campaigning. So get on with your life, prop 8 opponents! Become productive citizens! Maybe then they will allow your marriages, but unless you clean up your idiocy, I am not sure they will in the near future.
Oh my, oh my, where to begin?

1) If it had not passed you could afford to just shrug it off because you would have lost nothing by it. Gays and everyone else who believes in social equality, on the other hand, lost a great deal because they were stripped of already existing civil rights. If you had suddenly lost the right to marry, would you just shrug it off?

2) Is it your contention that a lie should never be challenged? So, if the votes were won by deceit, no one should ever call the liars out on that or seek to correct the false picture they created?

3) "Comfortable margin" or not, civil rights are not to be given up lightly. Or do you think it was stupid for black Americans to keep fighting to end segregation even in the face of terrorism and murder? Do you think women should have just given up, rather than keep fighting for the vote, even being sent to prison for their efforts?

4) We are productive citizens. We can protest and earn our livings at the same time. Also, fighting to expand civil rights and equality is being a productive citizen.

5) The only appropriate response to scoldings that gays should just shut up and behave themselves so that their oppressors might someday allow them to have equal protection of the law is a resounding "Fuck that shit."

On the vandalism http://www.standard.net/live/news/148152/

And, since it seems all I get is flames when trying to introduce an alternate side to this situation, I will withdraw.

Yes I do. What the gays need is someone like Martin Luther King Jr. or Gandhi. Peaceful protests. Civil disobedience. Not radical attacks on church buildings.
You have any evidence that "radical attacks" were launched?

Seriously, if the protests were violent or destructive, please post the media accounts of this so we can criticize people for doing the wrong thing. Because I have not seen any video that shows any crowds doing anything unacceptable in protest. However, there has been very little video of protests shown on the news sources I've seen, so please, if you have more info, provide it.

Can't find any violent protests. But heres some of the footage on the Temple Square one.

Pick Your Poison-

http://video.google.com/videosearch?sa=N&tab=nv&q=Protest%20at%20temple%20square#

No, I truly withdraw.

On the vandalism http://www.standard.net/live/news/148152/
From your source:
"A lot of opinion has generated that this is in connection with Prop 8," said Layton Police Lt. Quinn Moyes. "We aren't making that connection yet."

And from the opinion page:
In the Top of Utah within the past few days, several LDS churches have been vandalized. Police are not ready to link these criminal acts to the Prop. 8 vote.

Apparently, there is no evidence as to who may have vandalized some LDS churches, so your assertion that this is part of anti-Prop 8 protests is, it seems, premature at best and false at worst.

And, since it seems all I get is flames when trying to introduce an alternate side to this situation, I will withdraw.
You have not been flamed. Your statements have been challenged. There is a difference.

Can't find any violent protests. But heres some of the footage on the Temple Square one.

Pick Your Poison-

http://video.google.com/videosearch?sa=N&tab=nv&q=Protest%20at%20temple%20square#

No, I truly withdraw.
Followed the link to you tube. Saw nothing but peaceful protest. Anything else? Or are you withdrawing because you really have nothing to support your claims?

On the vandalism http://www.standard.net/live/news/148152/

And, since it seems all I get is flames when trying to introduce an alternate side to this situation, I will withdraw.

Local law enforcement officials are investigating and say they cannot yet say there is any connection between the vandalism and the recent passage of Proposition 8, the controversial California State ballot that overturned the Supreme Court decision recognizing same-sex marriage in the state as a fundamental right.

Got any that can be proven to be connected?

Can't find any violent protests. But heres some of the footage on the Temple Square one.

Pick Your Poison-

http://video.google.com/videosearch?sa=N&tab=nv&q=Protest%20at%20temple%20square#

No, I truly withdraw.

This has what to do with any of your arguments?

Well, it passed. If it did not, then I would have shrugged my shoulders and got on with life. But, it seems the Gays are taking this like two year olds; vandalism, protests. I mean, it passed by a comfortable margin, say what you will about dishonest campaigning. So get on with your life, prop 8 opponents! Become productive citizens! Maybe then they will allow your marriages, but unless you clean up your idiocy, I am not sure they will in the near future.

If you are a Californian... did you vote on it?

(If not a Californian... would you have?)

He took off, as he said he would. Do people think that if they post on a controversial topic in a debate forum that they're not going to get challenged?

Can't find any violent protests. But heres some of the footage on the Temple Square one.

Pick Your Poison-

http://video.google.com/videosearch?sa=N&tab=nv&q=Protest%20at%20temple%20square#

No, I truly withdraw.

See, what it looks like is that you came in to the thread hoping to preach, were asked to verify your claims, and decided it was too much work to do so.

What's a tittle?
Also, can anyone explain to me why so many religious people carve that feeling that somewhere out there, there are people who hate them because of their religious beliefs?
To the point of virtually hoping for abuse on internet forums?

maybe it helps them score?

So what's with you Americans hating Mormons so much? Seriously, this is like English anti-Catholic feelings or something. I know they voted for Prop 8 and all, and they're sort of annoying when they come up to your door, but still. That's very disappointing, not anger-inducing.

No, it's quite a bit beyond "disappointing" when a group of strangers decides who I can and can not marry.

But you often see attempts to find persecution where there is none. Case in point, the "War on Christmas" crap.

At least he's getting paid to make up a persecution complex, though. What's everyone else's excuse?

Often the "ridiculisation" is in fact "pointing out that there are other beliefs as well". Or at least starts out that way.

Slight detour to an interesting issue I'm having: whether or not to celebrate "Christmas" even in it's secular form in my classroom, since the majority of my students are not Christian, and many come from countries that don't celebrate Christmas (at least the way we do, with a spending orgy).

I'm also really debating the Bay Area tradition of celebrating Chinese New Year. We have a huge Chinese population, and a huge history in San Francisco, so we usually do, but I have no Chinese students. I do, however, have Muslim, Hindu and Sikh students, all of whom have already observed their new year. Why celebrate an arbitrary date that no one in the class shares?

/hijack

Slight detour to an interesting issue I'm having: whether or not to celebrate "Christmas" even in it's secular form in my classroom, since the majority of my students are not Christian, and many come from countries that don't celebrate Christmas (at least the way we do, with a spending orgy).

I'm also really debating the Bay Area tradition of celebrating Chinese New Year. We have a huge Chinese population, and a huge history in San Francisco, so we usually do, but I have no Chinese students. I do, however, have Muslim, Hindu and Sikh students, all of whom have already observed their new year. Why celebrate an arbitrary date that no one in the class shares?

/hijack

You could make it a solstice celebration. Every culture that I know of celebrates the solstice. You could have your students do presentations on their cultural observances, which would include Christmas. You could have decorations from each represented culture.

/continues hijack/

Slight detour to an interesting issue I'm having: whether or not to celebrate "Christmas" even in it's secular form in my classroom, since the majority of my students are not Christian, and many come from countries that don't celebrate Christmas (at least the way we do, with a spending orgy).

You could consider it an anthropology class ? Or make a game of it - how many different religions can be spotted in the Christmas celebrations ?

Bonus points for the people who realise that even the animals near the crib are not Christian ;)


I'm also really debating the Bay Area tradition of celebrating Chinese New Year. We have a huge Chinese population, and a huge history in San Francisco, so we usually do, but I have no Chinese students. I do, however, have Muslim, Hindu and Sikh students, all of whom have already observed their new year. Why celebrate an arbitrary date that no one in the class shares?

Do the students want to ?

You could consider it an anthropology class ? Or make a game of it - how many different religions can be spotted in the Christmas celebrations ?

Bonus points for the people who realise that even the animals near the crib are not Christian ;)




Do the students want to ?

Well, they're five, so they want to do anything involving food and parades. I just feel like it's a little weird that we didn't do anything for Ramadan or Diwali (mostly because I forgot when they were) when there are students who actually celebrate those.

Slight detour to an interesting issue I'm having: whether or not to celebrate "Christmas" even in it's secular form in my classroom, since the majority of my students are not Christian, and many come from countries that don't celebrate Christmas (at least the way we do, with a spending orgy).

I'm also really debating the Bay Area tradition of celebrating Chinese New Year. We have a huge Chinese population, and a huge history in San Francisco, so we usually do, but I have no Chinese students. I do, however, have Muslim, Hindu and Sikh students, all of whom have already observed their new year. Why celebrate an arbitrary date that no one in the class shares?

/hijack

You could make it a solstice celebration. Every culture that I know of celebrates the solstice. You could have your students do presentations on their cultural observances, which would include Christmas. You could have decorations from each represented culture.

/continues hijack/

A solstice celebration could be taken as specifically Pagan, better to do as I suggested to a teacher I worked with in Denver and call it a "Winter Celebration".

/hijack ahoy

LOL, a bit off topic but the ads on this page say "Fun Mormon weight loss plans!"

This be one of the threads where banner ads are on topic.

Click it, you will never come back. :tongue:

Yes I do. What the gays need is someone like Martin Luther King Jr. or Gandhi. Peaceful protests. Civil disobedience. Not radical attacks on church buildings.

Do me a favor and Wiki Stonewall Riots before you send my bloodpressure up to stroke levels.

Well, they're five, so they want to do anything involving food and parades. I just feel like it's a little weird that we didn't do anything for Ramadan or Diwali (mostly because I forgot when they were) when there are students who actually celebrate those.
Back in the day, when Americans were still civilized, my grade school in NYC had what they called (something like) a "heritage program" which involved celebrating all the cultures in the room plus the cultures that had historical significance to the city we lived in.

So, the kids themselves would do, like, a kind of show-and-tell/classroom party, with every one sharing something of their own family and/or ethnic background associated with some kind of holiday of the season. They might bring holiday snacks, or tell stories, or show pictures, do art projects in class, etc. Also, the teacher would teach about the cultural history of major immigrant groups in NYC and how they celebrate holidays, etc.

So, since everyone has winter holidays, you could ask all the kids to share something about their own holidays, celebrating them all together. And as for Chinese New Year, since Chinese immigration is a huge part of California history, I think you could go ahead with it in that sense. It's educational.

/exit hijack :)

later day morons ARE annoying. but then so are ALL direct 'prostlitizers'.