The Demise of alt.religion.mormon?
�R.L.Measures
Church. Are we seeing the end?
--
R.L. Measures. 805-386-3734, www.somis.org
Teresita
> There are currently few discussions here about the history of the LdS
> Church. Are we seeing the end?
That's a shame, I subscribed to this group for that purpose.
--
Teresita
http://hackylinux.blogspot.com/
John Manning
> There are currently few discussions here about the history of the LdS
> Church. Are we seeing the end?
>
Here's some fun LDS history:
~~ ~ Joseph Smith Jr's Abortionist friend, Dr John C Bennett ~ ~~
"...I observed that he held something in the left sleeve of his coat.
Bennett smiled and said: 'Oh, a little job for Joseph; one of his women
is in trouble.' Saying this, he took the thing out of his left sleeve.
It was a pretty long instrument of a kind I had never seen before. It
seemed to be of steel and was crooked at one end.
I heard afterwards that the operation had been performed; that the woman
was very sick, and that Joseph was very much afraid that she might die,
but she recovered~~~
====
Sarah Pratt...told a reporter in 1885 and 1886 that Smith had directed
his Assistant President John C. Bennett, a medical doctor, to perform
abortions for Smith's polygamous wives who were officially single.[4]
Although mentioned by Bennett's biographer in 1971,[5] the merits of
this abortion allegation have not yet received significant scholarly
examination either by Mormon or secular scholars.[6]
~~ Citations here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Children_of_Joseph_Smith,_Jr.
=====
Sarah M. Pratt statement:
----It was in this way that I became acquainted with Dr. John C.
Bennett. When my husband went to England as a missionary, he got the
promise from Joseph that I should receive provisions from the
tithing-house. Shortly afterward Joseph made his propositions to me and
they enraged me so that I refused to accept any help from the
tithing-house or from the bishop. Having been always very clever and
very busy with my needle, I began to take in sewing for the support of
myself and children, and succeeded soon in making myself independent.
When Bennett came to Nauvoo, Joseph brought him to my house, stating
that Bennett wanted some sewing done, and that I should do it for the
doctor. I assented and Bennett gave me a great deal of work to do. He
knew that Joseph had his plans set on me; Joseph made no secret of them
before Bennett, and went so far in his impudence as to make propositions
to me in the presence of Bennett, his bosom friend.
Bennett, who was of a sarcastic turn of mind, used to come and tell me
about Joseph to tease and irritate me. One day they came both, Joseph
and Bennett, on horseback to my house. Bennett dismounted, Joseph
remained outside. Bennett wanted me to return to him a book I had
borrowed from him. It was a so-called doctor-book. I had a rapidly
growing little family and wanted to inform myself about certain matters
in regard to babies, etc., -- this explains my borrowing that book.
While giving Bennett his book, I observed that he held something in the
left sleeve of his coat. Bennett smiled and said: 'Oh, a little job for
Joseph; one of his women is in trouble.' Saying this. he took the thing
out of his left sleeve. It was a pretty long instrument of a kind I had
never seen before. It seemed to be of steel and was crooked at one end.
I heard afterwards that the operation had been performed; that the woman
was very sick, and that Joseph was very much afraid that she might die,
but she recovered.
"Bennett was the most intimate friend of Joseph for a time. He boarded
with the prophet. He told me once that Joseph had been talking with him
about his troubles with Emma, his wife. 'He asked me,' said Bennett,
smilingly, 'what he should do to get out of the trouble ?' I said, 'This
is very simple. GET A REVELATION that polygamy is right, and all your
troubles will be at an end.'
"The only 'wives' of Joseph that lived in the Mansion House were the
Partridge girls. This is explained by the fact that they were the
servants in the hotel kept by the prophet. But when Emma found out that
Joseph went to their room, they had to leave the house.
http://olivercowdery.com/smithhome/1886WWyl.htm#pg060a
=====
John Cook Bennett (1804�1867) was an American physician and a ranking
and influential�but short-lived�leader of the Latter Day Saint movement,
who acted as second in command to Joseph Smith, Jr. for a brief period
in the early 1840s...
His efforts on behalf of the Mormons, and the long time he spent living
in the Smith mansion in Nauvoo, secured for Bennett the confidence of
Joseph Smith. Smith was instrumental in promoting Bennett to ever
greater civic and ecclesiastical responsibilities in Nauvoo, Illinois.
Bennett became an Assistant President of the Church and Counselor in the
First Presidency, the mayor of the city of Nauvoo, General of the Nauvoo
Legion, and the chancellor of the University of Nauvoo...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_C._Bennett
Lady Veteran
>There are currently few discussions here about the history of the LdS
>Church. Are we seeing the end?
Well if we stick to history, that would be a finite subject indeed. I
thought this group was about discussing beliefs of LDS vs. other
churches because there is no shortages of fools who think they have
the right to do damage if they can.
LV
"I rode a tank and held a general's rank
When the blitzkrieg raged and the bodies stank."
---Sympathy for the Devil-The Rolling Stones
--------------------------------------------
"Some people are only alive because it is
illegal to kill them."
---Anonymous
----------------------------------------------
How does your idiocy measure up?
My Blog http://ladyveteranslog.blogspot.com
---------------------------------------------
Are you being harassed on Usenet and want to fight
back instead of leaving the net? Are you willing to
stand up to Internet bullies and stalkers?
Join my group http://groups.yahoo.com/group/antiCHU
----------------------------------------------
"I am mad as hell and I will not take it anymore!"
---Network
Logan Sacket
wrote:
>On Sat, 26 Dec 2009 03:37:18 -0800, r...@somis.org (�R.L.Measures) wrote:
>
>>There are currently few discussions here about the history of the LdS
>>Church. Are we seeing the end?
>
>Well if we stick to history, that would be a finite subject indeed. I
>thought this group was about discussing beliefs of LDS vs. other
>churches because there is no shortages of fools who think they have
>the right to do damage if they can.
The right to damage it?
Rather, the obligation to expose it.
�R.L.Measures
<rub...@newsguy.com> wrote:
> On Sat, 26 Dec 2009 03:37:18 -0800, �R.L.Measures wrote:
>
> > There are currently few discussions here about the history of the LdS
> > Church. Are we seeing the end?
>
> That's a shame, I subscribed to this group for that purpose.
� So did I. ... not with a bang but with a whimper.
�R.L.Measures
<jrob...@terra.com.br> wrote:
> �R.L.Measures wrote:
> > There are currently few discussions here about the history of the LdS
> > Church. Are we seeing the end?
> >
>
>
> Here's some fun LDS history:
� Good one John.
> John Cook Bennett (1804�1867) was an American physician and a ranking
> and influential�but short-lived�leader of the Latter Day Saint movement,
> who acted as second in command to Joseph Smith, Jr. for a brief period
> in the early 1840s...
>
> His efforts on behalf of the Mormons, and the long time he spent living
> in the Smith mansion in Nauvoo, secured for Bennett the confidence of
> Joseph Smith. Smith was instrumental in promoting Bennett to ever
> greater civic and ecclesiastical responsibilities in Nauvoo, Illinois.
> Bennett became an Assistant President of the Church and Counselor in the
> First Presidency, the mayor of the city of Nauvoo, General of the Nauvoo
> Legion, and the chancellor of the University of Nauvoo...
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_C._Bennett
--
R.L. Measures. 805-386-3734, www.somis.org
Lady Veteran
So regale us of how the LDS church is so evil and why you want to be
the angel of its death. Do you see yourself as a tolerant person who
goes about his business and keeps himself moral?
If you say yes, how do you justify your contradictory existence?
Lady Veteran
I get that one of the problems you have with LDS is polygamy. I don't
like it either. Some members of other churches owned slaves. Tell me
which activity is more heinous-one in which two adults are consenting
behind closed doors or one where one human being owns another?
The point I am making is that when comparing skeletons, there are very
few in the Mormon closet.
�R.L.Measures
<arm...@bigfoot.com> wrote:
� What other founder of an organized religion adopted 4 orphaned young
women and married all 4? What other "prophet" of God revealed that the
highest level of salvvation required large-scale impregnation?
Obadiah
> In article <1q8dj551qnhftgiqa01s1q4ojkuh60u...@4ax.com>, Lady Veteran
>
>
>
>
>
> <army...@bigfoot.com> wrote:
> > On Sat, 26 Dec 2009 15:15:37 -0800, r...@somis.org (•R.L.Measures) wrote:
>
>
> - Show quoted text -
The muslim religion. profit muhammid did the same thing ol' joe smith
did.
Logan Sacket
wrote:
>On Sat, 26 Dec 2009 17:14:09 GMT, logan....@gmail.com (Logan
>Sacket) wrote:
>
>>On Sat, 26 Dec 2009 10:21:50 -0600, Lady Veteran <arm...@bigfoot.com>
>>wrote:
>>
>>>On Sat, 26 Dec 2009 03:37:18 -0800, r...@somis.org (�R.L.Measures) wrote:
>>>
>>>>There are currently few discussions here about the history of the LdS
>>>>Church. Are we seeing the end?
>>>
>>>Well if we stick to history, that would be a finite subject indeed. I
>>>thought this group was about discussing beliefs of LDS vs. other
>>>churches because there is no shortages of fools who think they have
>>>the right to do damage if they can.
>>
>>The right to damage it?
>>Rather, the obligation to expose it.
>
>So regale us of how the LDS church is so evil and why you want to be
>the angel of its death.
Mormonism, simply isn't true. It is a religion based on the greed and
personal gain by the self proclaimed prophet JS.
It takes traditional Christanity and turns it into a works program
where the person takes on the responsibility of his own eternal life.
Worse yet, many who have been in the church and find that they have
been deceived are naturally suspect of any religion and become
agnostic or aithiets.
>Do you see yourself as a tolerant person who
>goes about his business and keeps himself moral?
One of my best friends is LDS. I'm tolerant, but resist those who try
to protray LDS as Christian.
>If you say yes, how do you justify your contradictory existence?
Born as a child of God.
Logan Sacket
Exactly
Lady Veteran
Sacket) wrote:
>On Sat, 26 Dec 2009 17:53:27 -0600, Lady Veteran <arm...@bigfoot.com>
>wrote:
>
>>On Sat, 26 Dec 2009 17:14:09 GMT, logan....@gmail.com (Logan
>>Sacket) wrote:
>>
>>>On Sat, 26 Dec 2009 10:21:50 -0600, Lady Veteran <arm...@bigfoot.com>
>>>wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Sat, 26 Dec 2009 03:37:18 -0800, r...@somis.org (�R.L.Measures) wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>There are currently few discussions here about the history of the LdS
>>>>>Church. Are we seeing the end?
>>>>
>>>>Well if we stick to history, that would be a finite subject indeed. I
>>>>thought this group was about discussing beliefs of LDS vs. other
>>>>churches because there is no shortages of fools who think they have
>>>>the right to do damage if they can.
>>>
>>>The right to damage it?
>>>Rather, the obligation to expose it.
>>
>>So regale us of how the LDS church is so evil and why you want to be
>>the angel of its death.
>
>Mormonism, simply isn't true. It is a religion based on the greed and
>personal gain by the self proclaimed prophet JS.
NO. It is a religion based upon the restored gospel of the church of
Jesus Christ. JS wasn't perfect but he and the people around him did
not do this out of greed. By being difference he made himself a
target. Unless you believe something strongly you would never want to
do that.
>
>It takes traditional Christanity and turns it into a works program
>where the person takes on the responsibility of his own eternal life.
NO. It means that the person has an influence as to his/her eternal
life. I have always believed that even before I learned about the LDS.
>
>Worse yet, many who have been in the church and find that they have
>been deceived are naturally suspect of any religion and become
>agnostic or aithiets.
How were they deceived? The church is not perfect to be sure. I don't
like how women are relegated to a mere support system while the men
make the decision, and I don't like polygamy, but most of the other
things seem to be part of a Christ-centered church.
>
>>Do you see yourself as a tolerant person who
>>goes about his business and keeps himself moral?
>
>One of my best friends is LDS. I'm tolerant, but resist those who try
>to protray LDS as Christian.
>
It is Christian. How can you say it isn't?
>>If you say yes, how do you justify your contradictory existence?
>
>Born as a child of God.
As am I but you are on the outside looking in, being very critical of
what you don't understand. Every religion has it's detractors. All any
of us can do is to hope that we have the right stuff come Judgment
day.
Lady Veteran
Let's see. David Koresh, Jim Jones and I am sure there are other
religious leaders.
In the 1800's a woman could only live a decent life if she was married
or in her parent's home. She couldn't vote, hold property of open a
line of credit.
Is it any wonder that a women would accept a family situation from a
kind loving man if she sincerely believed that it would lead to better
security?
Lots of men made women pregnant and left them to take care of the
results of their own. He Committed bigamy but he MARRIED them.
Why is it such a tall leap of logic to accept a living person who can
receive visions like to prophets of the bible?
I think the crux of this issue is this one fact. You seem to think
that no person can have visions and receive revelation.
Lady Veteran
<obadiah...@gmail.com> wrote:
>On Dec 27, 3:39�am, r...@somis.org (�R.L.Measures) wrote:
>> In article <1q8dj551qnhftgiqa01s1q4ojkuh60u...@4ax.com>, Lady Veteran
>> <army...@bigfoot.com> wrote:
>> > On Sat, 26 Dec 2009 15:15:37 -0800, r...@somis.org (�R.L.Measures) wrote:
>> > >In article <3aqdnStrn_HQtavWnZ2dnUVZ_jmdn...@giganews.com>, John Manning
>> > ><jrobe...@terra.com.br> wrote:
>> > >> �R.L.Measures wrote:
>>
>>
>> � �What other founder of an organized religion adopted 4 orphaned young
>> women and married all 4? � What other "prophet" of God revealed that the
>> highest level of salvvation required large-scale impregnation?
>>
>> --
>> R.L. Measures.,www.somis.org- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> - Show quoted text -
>
>The muslim religion. profit muhammid did the same thing ol' joe smith
>did.
True. Oh and by the way, So did the Catholics...
Sometimes people just don't get it.
�R.L.Measures
<0b393b85-de53-410f...@a21g2000yqc.googlegroups.com>,
Obadiah <obadiah...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Dec 27, 3:39=A0am, r...@somis.org (=95R.L.Measures) wrote:
> > In article <1q8dj551qnhftgiqa01s1q4ojkuh60u...@4ax.com>, Lady Veteran
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > <army...@bigfoot.com> wrote:
> > > On Sat, 26 Dec 2009 15:15:37 -0800, r...@somis.org (=95R.L.Measures) wr=
> ote:
> >
> > > >In article <3aqdnStrn_HQtavWnZ2dnUVZ_jmdn...@giganews.com>, John Manni=
> ng
> > > ><jrobe...@terra.com.br> wrote:
> >
> > > >> =95R.L.Measures wrote:
> > > >> > There are currently few discussions here about the history of the =
> LdS
> > > >> > Church. Are we seeing the end?
> >
> > > >> Here's some fun LDS history:
> >
> > > >=95 =A0Good one John.
> >
> > > >> ~~ =A0~ =A0Joseph Smith Jr's Abortionist friend, Dr John C Bennett =
> =A0~ =A0~~
> >
> > > >> "...I observed that he held something in the left sleeve of his coat=
> .
> > > >> Bennett smiled and said: 'Oh, a little job for Joseph; one of his wo=
> men
> > > >> is in trouble.' Saying this, he took the thing out of his left sleev=
> e.
> > > >> It was a pretty long instrument of a kind I had never seen before. I=
> t
> > > >> seemed to be of steel and was crooked at one end.
> >
> > > >> I heard afterwards that the operation had been performed; that the w=
> oman
> > > >> was very sick, and that Joseph was very much afraid that she might d=
> ie,
> > > >> but she recovered~~~
> > > >> =3D=3D=3D=3D
> >
> > > >> Sarah Pratt...told a reporter in 1885 and 1886 that Smith had direct=
> ed
> > > >> his Assistant President John C. Bennett, a medical doctor, to perfor=
> m
> > > >> abortions for Smith's polygamous wives who were officially single.[4=
> ]
> > > >> Although mentioned by Bennett's biographer in 1971,[5] the merits of
> > > >> this abortion allegation have not yet received significant scholarly
> > > >> examination either by Mormon or secular scholars.[6]
> >
> > > >> ~~ Citations here:
> > > >>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Children_of_Joseph_Smith,_Jr.
> > > >> =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
> >
> > > >> Sarah M. Pratt statement:
> >
> > > >> ----It was in this way that I became acquainted with Dr. John C.
> > > >> Bennett. When my husband went to England as a missionary, he got the
> > > >> promise from Joseph that I should receive provisions from the
> > > >> tithing-house. Shortly afterward Joseph made his propositions to me =
> and
> > > >> they enraged me so that I refused to accept any help from the
> > > >> tithing-house or from the bishop. Having been always very clever and
> > > >> very busy with my needle, I began to take in sewing for the support =
> of
> > > >> myself and children, and succeeded soon in making myself independent=
> .
> >
> > > >> When Bennett came to Nauvoo, Joseph brought him to my house, stating
> > > >> that Bennett wanted some sewing done, and that I should do it for th=
> e
> > > >> doctor. I assented and Bennett gave me a great deal of work to do. H=
> e
> > > >> knew that Joseph had his plans set on me; Joseph made no secret of t=
> hem
> > > >> before Bennett, and went so far in his impudence as to make proposit=
> ions
> > > >> to me in the presence of Bennett, his bosom friend.
> >
> > > >> Bennett, who was of a sarcastic turn of mind, used to come and tell =
> me
> > > >> about Joseph to tease and irritate me. One day they came both, Josep=
> h
> > > >> and Bennett, on horseback to my house. Bennett dismounted, Joseph
> > > >> remained outside. Bennett wanted me to return to him a book I had
> > > >> borrowed from him. It was a so-called doctor-book. I had a rapidly
> > > >> growing little family and wanted to inform myself about certain matt=
> ers
> > > >> in regard to babies, etc., -- this explains my borrowing that book.
> >
> > > >> While giving Bennett his book, I observed that he held something in =
> the
> > > >> left sleeve of his coat. Bennett smiled and said: 'Oh, a little job =
> for
> > > >> Joseph; one of his women is in trouble.' Saying this. he took the th=
> ing
> > > >> out of his left sleeve. It was a pretty long instrument of a kind I =
> had
> > > >> never seen before. It seemed to be of steel and was crooked at one e=
> nd.
> >
> > > >> I heard afterwards that the operation had been performed; that the w=
> oman
> > > >> was very sick, and that Joseph was very much afraid that she might d=
> ie,
> > > >> but she recovered.
> >
> > > >> "Bennett was the most intimate friend of Joseph for a time. He board=
> ed
> > > >> with the prophet. He told me once that Joseph had been talking with =
> him
> > > >> about his troubles with Emma, his wife. 'He asked me,' said Bennett,
> > > >> smilingly, 'what he should do to get out of the trouble ?' I said, '=
> This
> > > >> is very simple. GET A REVELATION that polygamy is right, and all you=
> r
> > > >> troubles will be at an end.'
> >
> > > >> "The only 'wives' of Joseph that lived in the Mansion House were the
> > > >> Partridge girls. This is explained by the fact that they were the
> > > >> servants in the hotel kept by the prophet. But when Emma found out t=
> hat
> > > >> Joseph went to their room, they had to leave the house.
> >
> > > >>http://olivercowdery.com/smithhome/1886WWyl.htm#pg060a
> > > >> =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
> >
> > > >> John Cook Bennett (1804=961867) was an American physician and a rank=
> ing
> > > >> and influential=97but short-lived=97leader of the Latter Day Saint m=
> ovement,
> > > >> who acted as second in command to Joseph Smith, Jr. for a brief peri=
> od
> > > >> in the early 1840s...
> >
> > > >> His efforts on behalf of the Mormons, and the long time he spent liv=
> ing
> > > >> in the Smith mansion in Nauvoo, secured for Bennett the confidence o=
> f
> > > >> Joseph Smith. Smith was instrumental in promoting Bennett to ever
> > > >> greater civic and ecclesiastical responsibilities in Nauvoo, Illinoi=
> s.
> > > >> Bennett became an Assistant President of the Church and Counselor in=
> the
> > > >> First Presidency, the mayor of the city of Nauvoo, General of the Na=
> uvoo
> > > >> Legion, and the chancellor of the University of Nauvoo...
> >
> > > >>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_C._Bennett
> >
> > > I get that one of the problems you have with LDS is polygamy. I don't
> > > like it either. Some members of other churches owned slaves. Tell me
> > > which activity is more heinous-one in which two adults are consenting
> > > behind closed doors or one where one human being owns another?
> >
> > > The point I am making is that when comparing skeletons, there are very
> > > few in the Mormon closet.
> >
> > > LV
> >
> > =95 =A0What other founder of an organized religion adopted 4 orphaned you=
> ng
> > women and married all 4? =A0 What other "prophet" of God revealed that th=
> e
> > highest level of salvvation required large-scale impregnation?
> >
> > --
> > R.L. Measures.,www.somis.org- Hide quoted text -
> >
> > - Show quoted text -
>
> The muslim religion. profit muhammid did the same thing ol' joe smith
> did.
** Smith married 47 women. Muhammad only married 9.
�R.L.Measures
logan....@gmail.com wrote:
� Muhammad (PBUH) had coitus with an 8-yr old. The youngest Smith boned
was 14.
�R.L.Measures
<arm...@bigfoot.com> wrote:
> On Sun, 27 Dec 2009 03:39:31 -0800, r...@somis.org (�R.L.Measures) wrote:
>
> >In article <1q8dj551qnhftgiqa...@4ax.com>, Lady Veteran
> ><arm...@bigfoot.com> wrote:
> >
> >> On Sat, 26 Dec 2009 15:15:37 -0800, r...@somis.org (�R.L.Measures) wrote:
> >>
> >> >In article <3aqdnStrn_HQtavW...@giganews.com>, John Manning
> >> ><jrob...@terra.com.br> wrote:
> >> >
> >>
> >> I get that one of the problems you have with LDS is polygamy. I don't
> >> like it either. Some members of other churches owned slaves. Tell me
> >> which activity is more heinous-one in which two adults are consenting
> >> behind closed doors or one where one human being owns another?
> >>
> >> The point I am making is that when comparing skeletons, there are very
> >> few in the Mormon closet.
> >>
> >> LV
> >>
> >� What other founder of an organized religion adopted 4 orphaned young
> >women and married all 4? What other "prophet" of God revealed that the
> >highest level of salvvation required large-scale impregnation?
>
>
> Let's see. David Koresh, Jim Jones and I am sure there are other
> religious leaders.
� Assuredly many.
>
> In the 1800's a woman could only live a decent life if she was married
> or in her parent's home. She couldn't vote, hold property of open a
> line of credit.
>
� the 19th Ammendment was clearly a big mistake.
> Is it any wonder that a women would accept a family situation from a
> kind loving man if she sincerely believed that it would lead to better
> security?
>
> Lots of men made women pregnant and left them to take care of the
> results of their own. He Committed bigamy but he MARRIED them.
� who is he?
>
> Why is it such a tall leap of logic to accept a living person who can
> receive visions like to prophets of the bible?
� some men tell the truth and some men do not.
>
> I think the crux of this issue is this one fact. You seem to think
> that no person can have visions and receive revelation.
>
� the difference is whether the "revelation" eventually proves to be true
or not true. The only revelation from Prophet Smith that proved to be
true was "No Man Knows My History". - which is also the title of Fawn
Brodie's biography of Smith..It is a quote from one of Smith's sermons.
In it the prophet threw down a challenge to future biographers. He
said:"no man knows my history". Many men and one woman wrote biographies
of prophet Smith. Where all of the men failed, the woman succeeded
brilliantly.
Lady Veteran
Aren't we talking about Joseph Smith?
>>
>> Why is it such a tall leap of logic to accept a living person who can
>> receive visions like to prophets of the bible?
>
>� some men tell the truth and some men do not.
No news there.
>>
>> I think the crux of this issue is this one fact. You seem to think
>> that no person can have visions and receive revelation.
>>
>� the difference is whether the "revelation" eventually proves to be true
>or not true.
A revelation is not a prophesy.
> The only revelation from Prophet Smith that proved to be
>true was "No Man Knows My History". - which is also the title of Fawn
>Brodie's biography of Smith..It is a quote from one of Smith's sermons.
>In it the prophet threw down a challenge to future biographers. He
>said:"no man knows my history". Many men and one woman wrote biographies
>of prophet Smith. Where all of the men failed, the woman succeeded
>brilliantly.
Good.
�R.L.Measures
<arm...@bigfoot.com> wrote:
� Joseph Smith, Junior was only legally married to one woman, the rest of
the "marriages" were essentially excuses for adultery.
> >>
> >> Why is it such a tall leap of logic to accept a living person who can
> >> receive visions like to prophets of the bible?
> >
> >� some men tell the truth and some men do not.
>
> No news there.
� indeed
> >>
> >> I think the crux of this issue is this one fact. You seem to think
> >> that no person can have visions and receive revelation.
> >>
> >� the difference is whether the "revelation" eventually proves to be true
> >or not true.
>
> A revelation is not a prophesy.
� depends on contents
>
> > The only revelation from Prophet Smith that proved to be
> >true was "No Man Knows My History". - which is also the title of Fawn
> >Brodie's biography of Smith..It is a quote from one of Smith's sermons.
> >In it the prophet threw down a challenge to future biographers. He
> >said:"no man knows my history". Many men and one woman wrote biographies
> >of prophet Smith. Where all of the men failed, the woman succeeded
> >brilliantly.
>
> Good.
� we can be sure she did a good job because the LdS church excommunicated her.
>
> LV
<'}}><
>� Joseph Smith, Junior was only legally married to one woman, the rest of
>the "marriages" were essentially excuses for adultery.
Humans are either a slave to God or the Devil. And it�s an upside
down world when a human slave takes steps to be legalist the gospel
laws written by God.
Latter-day Saints are NOT Legalists: "(We) believe that legalism was
and is a wrong use and attitude towards the Mosaic Law. Legalism is a
false religion (man by man's efforts seeking to gain the approbation
or blessing of God). This is wrong and is a works' program in
opposition to God's grace program (Eph. 2:8-9; Titus 3:5-6; Rom. 3:20;
Gal. 2:16)! Legalism says, I can work to gain my salvation"; I can
work to be spiritual." Legalism was the error of the Galatians who
wanted to add to the finished work of Christ, the keeping of "the Law
of Moses" and ''circumcision after the manner of Moses" (Acts 15:1,5)
in order to be saved. The Galatians also thought that their
spirituality was a matter of the "works of the Law" instead of "by the
Spirit" (Gal. 3:1-5). Paul called these legalists "false brethren" and
condemned them (Gal. 2:4-5)."
I wasn�t looking to be specific enough, we lose people when we engage
them to be specific about the supervision of God laws as delegated by
the prophet seers. However, I like to point out that we engage in
crisis when no body else will, we mobilize our church resources to
help those in need; while all the smaller puritan mom & pop fly by
night holy roller churches only work to heap coals of fire upon us
Latter-day Saints for being the children of the light when there�s an
national crisis. I think it is an exceedingly ugly topic when we
have the words of St. Paul (1 Cor. 13: 2) "And though I have the gift
of prophecy, and understand all mysteries, and all knowledge; and
though I have all faith, so that I could remove mountains, and have
not charity, I am nothing."
Let us not disguise our spirituality with a rage that splits us apart.
We Latter-day Saints are an informed people, and if we should ever
become a misinformed kingdom for lack of prophets; then we fall as a
people, and it can happen, but today no works to destroy us will
succeed while we have knowledge from prophets to duly guide us.
When Americans institute unjust laws in hopes of reforming the
Latter-day Saints, their hope are darken in by their acts to fool
others and label us as being unspiritual. While screwing the
Latter-day Saints is now a little crazy today, it wasn�t in the past,
but when you need us to stand up against the despotic powers that are
in the world today, you need to stop fettering our freedom of religion
as a people for it is unconstitutional.
It matters so little to nation�s misinformed that they work to weaken
the backbone of our nation, to undermine our country�s future freedom,
if we as a people had built upon another planets with life; Do you
think we have the moral right to change the gospel laws of the
natives, because we think that its too much religion for us to
stomach? I think we are an ill prepared people to take on the moral
issues of other worlds, much less the little indiscretions of the
Latter-day kingdom. The social questions about plural marriage are
pass�, past moral issues now that have already been dealt with in the
LDS kingdom, and are not based upon past just laws, but a puritan
perspective that was based upon the fears of losing control over the
people�s votes. Now, if I am ring, we should be more concern with our
present state of affairs in allowing illegal Mexicans to cross our
borders and then registering them to vote in our elections!
Let�s not be stupid here, if we allow these foreign aliens to vote
here, it will lead to other nations wanting to divide up our nation by
crossing our borders and bring in more poor voters here. If that is
allowed to happened, then these foreign voters will favor plural
marriage and it will being reinstituted upon our land. Think not? it
is now a growing practiced in ruthless eastern lands, in far less
charitable kingdoms than the LDS kingdom. They hold their women as
indentured servants, second-class citizens to be used as property.
Today, there is a growing Mexican presence in Salt Lake City, for it
is a city of refuge and sanctuary, but what will you do when the
Latter-day Saints open its doors to all foreign religions, even the
ones now practicing plural marriage?
As you know the fastest growing religion in the world is a faith that
practices plural marriage. What will you do Mr. Measures when our
nation is ruled by Moslems? Will you then find our Mormons kingdom
more acceptable? As you know, Mormons and Moslems both believe in a
God that allows for plural marriage. We need to see the puritan
perspective of religion as the root cause for Mormons not being
allowing to practice their spirituality, as in plural marriage.
Perhaps, if saw the movie: Avatar, you will understand what is being
repeated by the American puritan perspective being imposed upon an
alien world of Pandora, and how the pure spirits overruled one day.
- Joshua <�}}><
<'}}><
correction:
Perhaps, if [you] saw the movie: Avatar, you will understand what is
being repeated by the American puritan perspective being imposed upon
an alien world of Pandora, and how the pure spirits overruled [it] one
day.
>
>- Joshua <�}}><
<'}}><
>>� Joseph Smith, Junior was only legally married to one woman, the rest of
>>the "marriages" were essentially excuses for adultery.
>
correction:
Humans are either a slave to God or the Devil, and it�s an upside down
world when a slave takes steps to change the gospel laws written by
God.
<'}}><
correction:
Now, if I am [right], we should be more concern with our
present state of affairs in allowing illegal Mexicans to cross our
borders [so they can] register to vote in our elections!
<'}}><
correction:
Let�s not be stupid here, if we allow these foreign aliens to vote
here, it will lead to other nations wanting to divide up our nation by
crossing our borders and bring in more poor voters here. If that is
allowed to happened, then these foreign voters will favor plural
marriage and it will being reinstituted upon our land. Think not? it
is [now practiced] in ruthless eastern lands, in far less charitable
kingdoms than the LDS kingdom. They hold their women as indentured
servants, second-class citizens to be used as property.
Today, there is a growing Mexican presence in Salt Lake City, [a
sanctuary city,] but what will you do when the Latter-day Saints open
its doors to all foreign [lands], even the ones now practicing plural
marriage?
Duwaynea Anderson
> On Sat, 26 Dec 2009 17:53:27 -0600, Lady Veteran <army...@bigfoot.com>
> wrote:
>
>
>
> >On Sat, 26 Dec 2009 17:14:09 GMT, logan.sac...@gmail.com (Logan
> >Sacket) wrote:
>
> >>On Sat, 26 Dec 2009 10:21:50 -0600, Lady Veteran <army...@bigfoot.com>
> >>wrote:
>
> >>>On Sat, 26 Dec 2009 03:37:18 -0800, r...@somis.org ( R.L.Measures) wrote:
>
> >>>>There are currently few discussions here about the history of the LdS
> >>>>Church. Are we seeing the end?
>
> >>>Well if we stick to history, that would be a finite subject indeed. I
> >>>thought this group was about discussing beliefs of LDS vs. other
> >>>churches because there is no shortages of fools who think they have
> >>>the right to do damage if they can.
>
> >>The right to damage it?
> >>Rather, the obligation to expose it.
>
> >So regale us of how the LDS church is so evil and why you want to be
> >the angel of its death.
>
> Mormonism, simply isn't true. It is a religion based on the greed and
> personal gain by the self proclaimed prophet JS.
>
> It takes traditional Christanity and turns it into a works program
> where the person takes on the responsibility of his own eternal life.
>
> Worse yet, many who have been in the church and find that they have
> been deceived are naturally suspect of any religion and become
> agnostic or aithiets.
>
> >Do you see yourself as a tolerant person who
> >goes about his business and keeps himself moral?
>
> One of my best friends is LDS. I'm tolerant, but resist those who try
> to protray LDS as Christian.
For fundamentalist Christians Mormonism isn't *their* brand of
Christianity, but for the rest of us Mormonism simply looks like a
different flavor of fundamentalist Christianity; Mormons apply their
particular spin to the Bible while fundamentalists apply a different
spin.
However, when it comes to practical applications of religion Mormons
and other fundamentalist "Christians" are look pretty much the same:
Fundamentalist Christians are the core constituency of the Republican
Party, so are Mormons
http://www.poligazette.com/2007/05/30/the-mormon-problem/
Fundamentalist Christians tend not to believe in evolution; so do
Mormons.
http://pewresearch.org/pubs/1292/mormon-religion-demographics-beliefs-practices-politics
Fundamentalist Christians supported George W. Bush and his war based
on lies; so did Mormons
Fundamentalist Christians work diligently to denigrate Gays and deny
them equal protection under the law; do do Mormons
Fundamentalist Christians tend to oppose attempts to curb global
warming; so do Mormons
Mormons believe in a devil that temps mankind; so do fundamentalist
Christians
Mormons believe in the second coming; so to fundamentalist
Christians
Mormons believe that Jesus will rule for 1000 years; so do
fundamentalist Christians
Mormons believe that people will be damned for not following their
religion; so do fundamentalist Christians
Mormons believe in using governments to limit personal freedom; so do
fundamentalist Christians
In fact, I can think of virtually *no* major areas of political/
judicial policy where Mormons and Fundamentalist Christians differ.
While there are undeniable differences in how Mormons and
fundamentalist Christians read the Bible, the practical differences
(defined in terms of how they think, organize their lives, vote, etc.)
are much smaller. Mormons and fundamentalist Christians are
philosophical bedfellows.
I think the major reason that fundamentalist Christians hate Mormons
is because Mormons steal their members away, thus enriching the Mormon
Church and depleting the membership of fundamentalist organizations --
depriving them of money.
Like a lot of things in life (including Logan Sacket's support of
global polluters) it's all about the money.
<snip to end>
Duwayne Anderson
Author of "Farewell to Eden: Coming to terms with Mormonism and
science"
American Quarter Horse: The ultimate all-terrain vehicle
Gerald Bostock
> There are currently few discussions here about the history of the LdS
> Church. Are we seeing the end?
>
> R.L. Measures. 805-386-3734,www.somis.org
Usenet in general is in huge decline in favor of blogs. Some people
just can't cope with unmoderated discussion. A lot of ISPs refuse to
provide and support usenet servers.
I'd also speculate that people like Kerry Shirts, Russ McGregor,
Charles Dowis and Woody Brison just got worn down. If they didn't lose
their testimony, the mental upkeep probably just got to be too much.
Duwaynea Anderson
> On Dec 26, 4:37 am, r...@somis.org (•R.L.Measures) wrote:
>
> > There are currently few discussions here about the history of the LdS
> > Church. Are we seeing the end?
>
> > --
> > R.L. Measures. 805-386-3734,www.somis.org
>
> Usenet in general is in huge decline in favor of blogs. Some people
> just can't cope with unmoderated discussion. A lot of ISPs refuse to
> provide and support usenet servers.
>
> I'd also speculate that people like Kerry Shirts, Russ McGregor,
> Charles Dowis and Woody Brison just got worn down.
Defending the wrong point of an argument can do that to a person.
> If they didn't lose
> their testimony, the mental upkeep probably just got to be too much.
I doubt they have "testimonies." I don't think any educated, informed
Mormons do.
Gerald Bostock
wrote:
>
> - Show quoted text -
You really don't know much about the people who call themselves
Christians. What do you know about the difference between salvation by
grace and salvation by works? What do you know about the schisms that
have occurred in Christian denominations over beliefs about baptism or
about communion? What do you know about the differences between
Christians about biblical inerrancy? Theologically there are huge
differences between Mormons and what might be called mainstream
Christians. That's a factor in why Rommney couldn't get the
nomination. There are plenty of Christian democrats, they just aren't
as vocal as the right-wingers.
You can't just lump people into a category called "Christians" and
make such broad generalizations about them. You probably should even
make a distinction between LDS (Brigham Young) Mormons and all the
rest of the Mormon splinter groups. To make the generalizations that
you do, you might as well make the same generalizations about white
people and black people etc.
Lady Veteran
Would you say that about the Arab Potentate who has 50 wives?
>>
>> No news there.
>
>� indeed
>>
>> A revelation is not a prophesy.
>
>� depends on contents
True, but a revelation is not always a prophesy. It could be
clarification or instructions.
>> Good.
>
>� we can be sure she did a good job because the LdS church excommunicated her.
>>
>> LV
Even among Mormons, there are those who are intolerant.
Lady Veteran
>On Mon, 28 Dec 2009 01:03:18 -0800, r...@somis.org (�R.L.Measures) wrote:
>
>>� Joseph Smith, Junior was only legally married to one woman, the rest of
>>the "marriages" were essentially excuses for adultery.
>
>Humans are either a slave to God or the Devil. And it�s an upside
>down world when a human slave takes steps to be legalist the gospel
>laws written by God.
That does not mean that man's laws can be ignored.
>
>Latter-day Saints are NOT Legalists: "(We) believe that legalism was
>and is a wrong use and attitude towards the Mosaic Law. Legalism is a
>false religion (man by man's efforts seeking to gain the approbation
>or blessing of God). This is wrong and is a works' program in
>opposition to God's grace program (Eph. 2:8-9; Titus 3:5-6; Rom. 3:20;
>Gal. 2:16)! Legalism says, I can work to gain my salvation"; I can
>work to be spiritual." Legalism was the error of the Galatians who
>wanted to add to the finished work of Christ, the keeping of "the Law
>of Moses" and ''circumcision after the manner of Moses" (Acts 15:1,5)
>in order to be saved. The Galatians also thought that their
>spirituality was a matter of the "works of the Law" instead of "by the
>Spirit" (Gal. 3:1-5). Paul called these legalists "false brethren" and
>condemned them (Gal. 2:4-5)."
Today, that information would not be logical. Every think I have
learned in the church so far DEMANDS that I obey the laws of man and
GOD.
>
>I wasn�t looking to be specific enough, we lose people when we engage
>them to be specific about the supervision of God laws as delegated by
>the prophet seers. However, I like to point out that we engage in
>crisis when no body else will, we mobilize our church resources to
>help those in need; while all the smaller puritan mom & pop fly by
>night holy roller churches only work to heap coals of fire upon us
>Latter-day Saints for being the children of the light when there�s an
>national crisis.
I notice that most of the other churches tend to point fingers and
gossip.
John Manning
Duwayne referred specifically to "fundamentalist" Christians in his
commentary, Gerald. Are you a "fundamentalist" Christian? Is that why
you're offended?
teresita
> Usenet in general is in huge decline in favor of blogs. Some people just
> can't cope with unmoderated discussion. A lot of ISPs refuse to provide
> and support usenet servers.
It tends to weed out the clueless. If you have to pay $9 a month for a
third-party newsfeed, and configure a newsreader to get USENET rather
than just click on an AOL link, then the quality of discussion is bound
to rise.
Of course I'm mostly here for the binaries.
--
Teresita
http://hackylinux.blogspot.com/
Gerald Bostock
>
> - Show quoted text -
No. Do you know anyone who calls themselves fundamentalist christians?
In a way they all do, but they wouldn't call each other
fundamentalist. I object to the generalization. I know a lot of people
who call themselves christian that don't fit into the mold that is
described here. Is a fundamentalist mormon a polygamist? Some that
call themsleves such will say yes and others will say no, so which one
is right?
John Manning
The "fundies" are a distinct bunch, Gerald. Mainstream Christianity is a
very different animal.
Duwaynea Anderson
My post *specifically* acknowledges theological differences between
Mormons and fundamentalist Christians, but highlights the similarities
in the "practical applications of [the two] religions."
Gerald, of course, didn't post any evidence to the contrary -- opting,
instead, to launch into a discussion of the theological differences
between his brand of superstition and that practiced by Mormons; a
point upon which we don't disagree.
> What do you know about the difference between salvation by
> grace and salvation by works?
Thanks for making my point, Gerald.
You rightly point out that Mormons and fundamentalist Christians
disagree over doctrines. But when it comes to observable behaviors
the two groups look very much the same.
> What do you know about the schisms that
> have occurred in Christian denominations over beliefs about baptism or
> about communion?
In blissful ignorance Gerald keeps on highlighting the theological
differences, oblivious to the post to which he is responding and its
specific focus on the practical differences between Mormonism and
fundamentalist Christianity.
> What do you know about the differences between
> Christians about biblical inerrancy?
Gerald just doesn't get it.
> Theologically there are huge
> differences between Mormons and what might be called mainstream
> Christians.
Because he apparently didn't bother to read the post to which he
replied.
> That's a factor in why Rommney couldn't get the
> nomination. There are plenty of Christian democrats, they just aren't
> as vocal as the right-wingers.
> You can't just lump people into a category called "Christians" and
> make such broad generalizations about them. You probably should even
> make a distinction between LDS (Brigham Young) Mormons and all the
> rest of the Mormon splinter groups. To make the generalizations that
> you do, you might as well make the same generalizations about white
> people and black people etc.
People are born white and black. Nobody is born a Mormon or an
Evangelical Christian.
�R.L.Measures
<endt...@non.net> wrote:
� In my opinion, Saul-Paul succeeded in fooling the Chistian community,
>
> Let us not disguise our spirituality with a rage that splits us apart.
> We Latter-day Saints are an informed people,
� The LdS missionaries that used to come to my house knew exceedingly
little about the history of Joseph Smith, Junior.
and if we should ever
> become a misinformed kingdom for lack of prophets;
� Which LdS prophet has prophecied something that came true?
>then we fall as a
> people, and it can happen, but today no works to destroy us will
> succeed while we have knowledge from prophets to duly guide us.
� The only source of destruction I see for the LdS church is unmoderated
discussion about the history of Joseph Smith, Jr. on the Internet.
>
> When Americans institute unjust laws in hopes of reforming the
> Latter-day Saints, their hope are darken in by their acts to fool
> others and label us as being unspiritual. While screwing the
> Latter-day Saints is now a little crazy today, it wasn�t in the past,
> but when you need us to stand up against the despotic powers that are
> in the world today, you need to stop fettering our freedom of religion
> as a people for it is unconstitutional.
>
> It matters so little to nation�s misinformed that they work to weaken
> the backbone of our nation, to undermine our country�s future freedom,
> if we as a people had built upon another planets with life; Do you
> think we have the moral right to change the gospel laws of the
> natives, because we think that its too much religion for us to
> stomach? I think we are an ill prepared people to take on the moral
> issues of other worlds, much less the little indiscretions of the
> Latter-day kingdom. The social questions about plural marriage are
> pass�,
� It went on under the table by LdS church liars n SLC until at least 1906.
"I have many a time, in this stand, dared the world to produce as mean
devils as we can; we can beat them at anything. We have the greatest and
smoothest liars in the world, the cunningest and most adroit thieves, and
any other shade of character that you can mention."
--- Brigham Young
> past moral issues now that have already been dealt with in the
> LDS kingdom, and are not based upon past just laws, but a puritan
> perspective that was based upon the fears of losing control over the
> people�s votes. Now, if I am ring, we should be more concern with our
> present state of affairs in allowing illegal Mexicans to cross our
> borders and then registering them to vote in our elections!
>
> Let�s not be stupid here, if we allow these foreign aliens to vote
> here, it will lead to other nations wanting to divide up our nation by
> crossing our borders and bring in more poor voters here. If that is
> allowed to happened, then these foreign voters will favor plural
> marriage and it will being reinstituted upon our land. Think not? it
> is now a growing practiced in ruthless eastern lands, in far less
> charitable kingdoms than the LDS kingdom. They hold their women as
> indentured servants, second-class citizens to be used as property.
>
> Today, there is a growing Mexican presence in Salt Lake City, for it
> is a city of refuge and sanctuary, but what will you do when the
> Latter-day Saints open its doors to all foreign religions, even the
> ones now practicing plural marriage?
>
> As you know the fastest growing religion in the world is a faith that
> practices plural marriage. What will you do Mr. Measures when our
> nation is ruled by Moslems?
� I will be dead meat before that happens.
> Will you then find our Mormons kingdom
> more acceptable?
� I've been to Utah and there is no such thing.
>As you know, Mormons and Moslems both believe in a
> God that allows for plural marriage. We need to see the puritan
> perspective of religion as the root cause for Mormons not being
> allowing to practice their spirituality, as in plural marriage.
� J. Smith, Jr. invented plural marriage to cover his philandering ass.
> Perhaps, if saw the movie: Avatar, you will understand what is being
> repeated by the American puritan perspective being imposed upon an
> alien world of Pandora, and how the pure spirits overruled one day.
>
> - Joshua <�}}><
� I'm not into fiction.
�R.L.Measures
<endt...@non.net> wrote:
� Smith was undoubtedly a slave of nubile women since he married no less
than 7 teenagers in 1843.
�R.L.Measures
<1862bd14-549f-4725...@e27g2000yqd.googlegroups.com>,
Gerald Bostock <gbos...@excite.com> wrote:
> On Dec 26, 4:37=A0am, r...@somis.org (=95R.L.Measures) wrote:
> > There are currently few discussions here about the history of the LdS
> > Church. Are we seeing the end?
> >
> > --
> > R.L. Measures. 805-386-3734,www.somis.org
>
> Usenet in general is in huge decline in favor of blogs. Some people
> just can't cope with unmoderated discussion.
** Indeed. I know of one case that led to suicide.
>A lot of ISPs refuse to
> provide and support usenet servers.
** There is a plenitude of Usenet providers, some for under $4 a month.
>
> I'd also speculate that people like Kerry Shirts, Russ McGregor,
> Charles Dowis and Woody Brison just got worn down.
** No one, not even the formidable Russ McxGregor, will ever be able to
successfully defend a "prophet" whose wife caught him in flagrante delicto
in the barn having coitus with her 16-yr old maid,
> If they didn't lose
> their testimony, the mental upkeep probably just got to be too much.
** LdS Testimony is pretend, alt.religion.mormon is a trip through an
active caldera,
�R.L.Measures
<arm...@bigfoot.com> wrote:
� Islam currently allows only 4 wives.
> >>
> >> No news there.
> >
> >� indeed
> >>
> >> A revelation is not a prophesy.
> >
> >� depends on contents
>
> True, but a revelation is not always a prophesy. It could be
> clarification or instructions.
>
� true enough, but a real prophet should be able to prophecy at least one
thing that comes true.
>
> >> Good.
> >
> >� we can be sure she did a good job because the LdS church
excommunicated her.
> >>
> >> LV
>
> Even among Mormons, there are those who are intolerant.
>
� Nobody likes to admit that when they were children that their parents
led them down Prevarication Street.
<'}}><
wrote:
>Today, that information would not be logical. Every think I have
>learned in the church so far DEMANDS that I obey the laws of man and
>GOD.
The brave die only once, since when have we been taught to runaway
from destiny. From my youth I have broken free of unrighteous
dominion, jealousies, and fears to keep my faith pure. While the
kingdom of God has DEMANDS from us obedience to those in governing
authority, the Kingdom of Heaven will question our submission to the
unjust will, and our concealing of our faith for another day of
survival.
What we need is a Grail King to lead, one who is brave and filled with
the confidence that God is with him. Did you know that there are two
Grail Kings alive today? The old one was born at his appointed time,
he was 44 years, 4 months, 4 days old on April 6, 2001 when our Lord's
seventh day began.
Tribulation began on 2005 and ends seven years later on June 12, 2012,
and my broken heart will be healed when I see the physical deliverance
of the Lost Tribes of Israel from the great deep. The Lost Tribes
cannot wait upon the wisdom of men in the United Nations to end our
suffering and oppression as a holy people, for this reason I was born
to seek a higher calling, I believe my mission to the world is to
establish the Kingdom of Heaven by bring forth the Lost Tribes.
Yes, I obey those in authority, but my cup is not filled with the
cares of this world, and I have had much time to fill my mind with the
spirit of our God, and when the world comes up against me in the name
of the god of power, I shall go forth in the name of the God of
Israel, and no one will takes me out of His hands. For I will be one
with God on the day of judgment, and I know that I will not be alone
tomorrow, there are others that God will call, and they will hear the
call of our God to gather.
Angels have great authority over man, I have seen and spoken with
angels, but still I had to conceal their visitations. This truth I
know in respect of those that have authority over me, I know how
church leaders must feel when they witness the administration of
angels, yet they cannot move the people to seek their God. While
angels must work unnoticed by the world during tribulation, yet I know
that the day soon approaches when the church prophet will have to tell
the church about my mission to the world. And when that day comes in
2012 God will sent his angels to prepare the way for the Lost Tribes
to return from the north. And those who are not with the God of
Israel shall scatter before the angels of God. So much for their
authority.
Glory to our God for He fulfills His promises He made to our
forefathers. In the beginning God revealed the end of Satan's rule
over our world, and the beginning of the Kingdom of heaven upon this
earth. When His government and church will unite to form His
theocracy, and then it will be just one authority upon this earth.
There's prophecy about the authority of the Kingdom of Heaven in
Genesis:
�And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy
seed and her seed; IT shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise
his heel.� [Genesis 3:15]
God in prophecy revealed from the beginning the end of Satan's
authority over mankind, for mankind was in the hands of God, and the
diabolical plot to crush woman's seed (mankind) would be overruled by
God's priesthood. As it was further revealed in the standard works:
�And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, between thy seed
and her seed; and HE shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his
heel.� [Moses 4:21]
�And the God of peace shall bruise Satan UNDER YOUR FEET shortly. The
grace of our Lord Jesus Christ be with you. Amen.� [Rom. 16:20]
Yes, we suffer from despotic authorities and unrighteous dominion
daily in our human affairs, this prophecy speaks of a time when
satanic rule over the hearts of mankind will be bruise by theocracy
that God would one day setup to put an end to Satan's control over
mankind. This kingdom is not identified as a church (Kingdom of God),
but a government (Kingdom of Heaven). It is clear that during the
1000 years of peace mankind will be under a theocracy setup by �IT�,
�HE�, �UNDER YOUR FEET�, all of which signifies God's priesthood under
the leadership of a Grail King.
As the priesthood of God calls upon two servants in the hands of the
Lord to become world leaders in 2012, they will have the rights to
hold the scepter of God power and establish the theocracy of God,
these two servants are referred to in (D&C 113: 4, 6), they will bring
forth the Kingdom of Heaven, and they will direct the priesthood of
God in how to capture Satan, and put Satan away for a thousand years
of peace. The world will accept these two servants as the Grail
Kings, this uncle and nephew team will make their grand appearance
once the Lost Tribes come in search of them. At this moment the
church leadership is commanded to conceal their identities, but when
the Lost Tribes come from the northern lands from within the earth's
inner world, there will be no need for their identities to be keep
concealed.
Have I reveal to much? I'm sorry, it one of my weakness.
The older Grail King will be 56 years old in December 2012, and the
older one has literally been physical bruised by Satan on his right
heel when he was only six years old, he lost his right heel. It was
the older one who asked God to sent forth the other younger one. The
younger Grail King will be 33 years old in 2012, and the LDS church
prophet in Salt Lake City sent a group of men to bless the younger one
as the one who will inherit the throne of Christ. But the scriptures
reveal that there will be two world capitals, and both Grail Kings
will rule, one New Jerusalem, the other Old Jerusalem.
It's a mystery, but wisdom is known of her children, if you can find
it out more, so be it.
- Joshua <'}}><
<'}}><
I read somewhere on the internet that mortality rate of women was low
in those days; women were expect to die while giving birth to their
second child. However, there�s no point in covering up the fact that
he had a weakness for women. Did you know that Joseph Smith was
related to me? I didn�t know until recently, however I always had an
inner feeling that I would find Joseph Smith family line in my family
tree. It is fascinating Mr. Measures, the more I look into my family
tree, the more I think that my family tree is the chosen line that
Joseph Smith�s family branch off from. There are more Holy Grail
signs in my family tree, more royalty, and more Templar signs. Even
my family motto translated from Latin says, "My Heritage Christ." Yes,
my ancestors was Gamel Lord of Carrick, and he owned several castles
in Scotland. And his ancient coat of arms was the lion�s arm
crossed, which was also the same banner of the royal Household of King
David.
Yes, there are more trappings of the Holy Grail in my family than that
of Joseph Smith. My connect with the Joseph Smith line come from
southern part of England, his great-great-great-grandfather was Robert
Smith.
Joseph Smith had the following family tree:
Robert Smith (<1599> - )
Robert Smith (B: 1626, Kirton, Lincolnshire, England)
Samuel Smith (B: 26 Jan 1666, Boxford, Essex, Massachusetts)
Samuel Smith (B: 26 Jan 1714, Topsfield, Essex, Massachusetts)
Asael Smith (B: 7 Mar 1744, Topsfield, Essex, Massachusetts)
Joseph Smith Sr. (B: 12 Jul 1771, Topsfield, Essex, Massachusetts)
Joseph Smith Jr. (B: 23 Dec 1805, Sharon, Windsor, Vermont)
My family tree has:
Robert Smith + Susannah Smith (Abt 1684 - Of Lowestoft, Suffolk,
England)
Susanna Smith
Susanna Thurston
Daniel Chamberlin
Charlotte Maria Chamberlin
Alfred George Balls
Jane Louisa Balls
Alfred George Gemmell
George Henry Gemmell
George Erick Gemmell
Both Robert Smiths lived within a hundred miles, and around the same
time period. While most of the Smith lived in Aberdeen, Scotland, my
Robert and Joseph�s Robert lived in the southern part of England.
I have no doubt that we are of the same stock of Smith with the same
origins.
AS a side note, I also found another distance cousin related to Alfred
George Balls, her name was Mary Balls, and she married Theodore
Palaiologos, second brother to Constantine, the last of the line that
reigned in Constantinople, called John. So, my cousins were the last
of the Constantine line, her children were the rightful heirs of
Greece. It was in a book (1830 - "The history of modern Greece By
James Emerson Tennent [p143]), it said that the Greece sent a group of
men in search of my distance cousins, for they were the last of the
line royal line. Unfortunately all the male sons of Mary Balls (a
lady from Suffolk) had died, leaving no male children, only Mary two
daughters were alive.
- Joshua (a.k.a. Erick) <�{{><
sully
wrote:
That's a bit simplistic and unfair. I suspect you were very well
educated and informed when you were a Mormon, Duwayne.
I imagine you would have been a most formidible apologist on ARM if
you were here while a TBM.
We've evolved with shades of propensity to follow authority or
emotion, and to reason. resolving those conflicts in the favor of
reason is the rub...
sully
> There are currently few discussions here about the history of the LdS
> Church. Are we seeing the end?
>
> --
> R.L. Measures. 805-386-3734,www.somis.org
Rich
You have been on ARM for as long as I remember, and I've been here for
many many years. I can't remember very many original contributions
of yours, where you would begin a topic. Ironic that this would be
one of the few.
Usenet is dying, and I shall miss it if it does. The social
networking sites are not very forgiving of strong opinions and a back
and forth of the sort I appreciate on ARM.
Even some of my more "social" usenet sites, I enjoy a harsh flame war
that goes over badly on facebook, but fits in well there.
My guess is that if we hang in there, the next gen of youngsters will
rediscover usenet as some sort of "retro cool", then we'll be back in
business.
In the meantime, thanks for the question, Manning's response was
really interesting. Abortion!!!
regards
Mike
RetroProphet
Or not...
Corrections to Joseph Smith's English Ancestry
by Elaine C. Nichols
www.josephfsmith.org/genealogy/documents/englishancestryt.pdf
I'm sorry, Josh, but this analysis demonstrates that
there is far too much ambiguity in the extant records
to sustain your lineage claim. Also, DNA markers from
known Smith descendants indicate that Irish lineage
is most likely.
Duwaynea Anderson
> On Dec 28, 9:03 am, Duwaynea Anderson <duwayneander...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Dec 28, 8:53 am, Gerald Bostock <gbost...@excite.com> wrote:> On Dec 26, 4:37 am, r...@somis.org (•R.L.Measures) wrote:
>
> > > > There are currently few discussions here about the history of the LdS
> > > > Church. Are we seeing the end?
>
> > > > --
> > > > R.L. Measures. 805-386-3734,www.somis.org
>
> > > Usenet in general is in huge decline in favor of blogs. Some people
> > > just can't cope with unmoderated discussion. A lot of ISPs refuse to
> > > provide and support usenet servers.
>
> > ----
>
> > > I'd also speculate that people like Kerry Shirts, Russ McGregor,
> > > Charles Dowis and Woody Brison just got worn down.
>
> > Defending the wrong point of an argument can do that to a person.
>
> > > If they didn't lose
> > > their testimony, the mental upkeep probably just got to be too much.
>
----
> > I doubt they have "testimonies." I don't think any educated, informed
> > Mormons do.
>
> That's a bit simplistic and unfair. I suspect you were very well
> educated and informed when you were a Mormon, Duwayne.
A degree in physics doesn't mean a person is "informed" about
archeology and the fraudulent nature of the Book of Mormon, or the way
the LDS Church lies about its history.
Like many Mormons I was educated, but I wasn't informed. Like most
members of the cult I trusted the prophet. I was content to learn
what I knew about ancient America and church history from the cult's
academic spokes organizations, like FARMS and FAIR.
When I began studying outside church-sanctioned venues my testimony
melted like butter on a hot August day.
You see, Mormonism isn't just wrong, it's fabulously wrong. There is
*nothing* in the Book of Mormon that non-trivially describes ancient
America. *Every* non-trivial description in the Book of Mormon about
ancient America is wrong. The Book of Mormon is a stupendously clumsy
fraud -- it requires an uninformed person to believe in it. It
requires an uninformed or dishonest person to profess belief in it.
Mormon history isn't much better. When I started researching LDS
history I found I'd been lied to by the church. For example, seminary
teachers told me that Joseph Smith only married "old ugly women" that
couldn't have husbands any other way. But, of course, many of Smith's
adulterous affairs (which he tried to justify with a revelation about
polygamy) were with young girls -- many of them teenagers.
So I'll stand by my statement. I don't think any educated and
informed Mormons have testimonies. That goes for pretty much all the
General Authorities, too. I think they know they are peddling a
fraud. I think they know it's all a crock. I think that Thomas S.
Monson and the other cult leaders justify what they are doing by
pretending that the church does more good than harm -- but regardless
how they justify their fraud, I'm pretty sure they know the church
isn't "true."
> I imagine you would have been a most formidible apologist on ARM if
> you were here while a TBM.
> We've evolved with shades of propensity to follow authority or
> emotion, and to reason. resolving those conflicts in the favor of
> reason is the rub...
If you are not using reason you are thinking irrationally.
http://m-w.com/dictionary/irrational
It's hardly surprising that a defender of Mormonism would denigrate
the use of reason, thus demonstrating his preference for
irrationality.
Gerald Bostock
>
> - Show quoted text -
You're not getting my point. Those that you call Mainstream would
probably call themselves Fundamentalists. There are very few
Christians that would not call themselves fundamentalist. The only
ones that wouldn't are probably Unitarians.
Duwaynea Anderson
> You're not getting my point. Those that you call Mainstream would
> probably call themselves Fundamentalists. There are very few
> Christians that would not call themselves fundamentalist. The only
> ones that wouldn't are probably Unitarians.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fundamentalist_Christianity
Fundamentalist Christianity, also known as Christian fundamentalism or
fundamentalist evangelicalism, is a movement that arose mainly within
British and American Protestantism in the late 19th and early 20th
centuries among conservative evangelical Christians, who, in a
reaction to liberal theology, actively asserted that the following
ideas were fundamental to the Christian faith:
1) The inerrancy of the Bible
2) Sola Scriptura
3) The virgin birth of Christ
4) The doctrine of substitutionary atonement
5) The bodily resurrection of Jesus
6) The imminent personal return of Jesus Christ
Fundamentalism was a rejection of the liberal churches that accepted
“biblical higher criticism,” and doubted the literal supernatural
claims of the Bible.
http://christianfriend.wordpress.com/2007/10/15/a-simple-definition-of-christian-fundamentalism/
Using that definition, are you a fundamentalist Christian, Gerald?
I'm particularly interested in whether or not you believe in "the
inerrancy of the Bible"
For example, do you believe that an ass actually talked? Do you
believe that the world was actually covered by a universal flood -- as
described in the Bible -- about 4-5 thousand years ago? Do you
believe that the world was made in 6 days, about 6 thousand years
ago? Do you think rabbits chew their cud? Do you think pi = 3?
Mormons tend to take the Bible literally. They believe in a literal
world-wide flood. They believe in a literal creation that culminated
in Adam being kicked out of a literal Garden of Eden about 6 thousand
years ago. As a group they disbelieve evolution more than any other
major religion in America, except Muslims. Mormons are very much like
their fundamentalist cousins in this regard. Although Mormons do take
the Bible figuratively some of the time, they take it literally more
often.
How about you? Do you take the Bible literally?
John Manning
I disagree with you Gerald. The "fundamentalists" are usually recognized
as the unorthodox radicals and extremists. They mostly take the Bible
*literally* and generally consider it to be inerrant.
They are generally the low information bunch who dance around, wave
their arms, roll on the floor, speak in tongues, hate the gays, hate
women's rights, claim to caste out devils with weird practices, etc. You
see a lot of them in the Christian Right.
Mainstream Christianity; Catholic and most Protestant denominations are
generally much more sedate and interpret Biblical teachings as
allegorical rather than literal. They don't subscribe to the black and
white extreme Old Testament dictates and mindsets like the "fundies"
often do.
I was raised as a Catholic after I was about 8 yrs old until I dumped it
later on. I've encountered "fundies" first hand on and off all my life.
While there are many variations and gray areas, the dramatic distinct
difference in perspective and behavior between the two groups is clear
and undeniable.
Gerald Bostock
I saw a lot of similarities, but would you care to point out the
differences again?
>
> Gerald, of course, didn't post any evidence to the contrary -- opting,
> instead, to launch into a discussion of the theological differences
> between his brand of superstition and that practiced by Mormons; a
> point upon which we don't disagree.
Here you go again, Mr.. Patronization. Address the "audience" instead
of me as if you are so high and mighty. What the hell evidence did you
post? You just posted your assertions and berate me for not posting
evidence? you posted no evidence whatsoever. What superstitions do you
think I hold? The fact is I don't hold any of the superstitions that
you think I do. Just because I referenced beliefs doesn't mean that I
hold them. If that applied to you, you'd be the most devout mormon
around.
>
> > What do you know about the difference between salvation by
> > grace and salvation by works?
>
> Thanks for making my point, Gerald.
Way to evade the question Duwayne. You're as good at that as Charles
Dowis.
>
> You rightly point out that Mormons and fundamentalist Christians
> disagree over doctrines. But when it comes to observable behaviors
> the two groups look very much the same.
Your observations are clouded by your prejudice. You are associating
the behaviors of the few with an entire group. That tends to work well
with the LDS since they have the Brethren doing their thinking for
them, but it doesn't work so well with the christian who do not listen
to Limbaugh, Hannity, Beck et al.
>
> > What do you know about the schisms that
> > have occurred in Christian denominations over beliefs about baptism or
> > about communion?
>
> In blissful ignorance Gerald keeps on highlighting the theological
> differences, oblivious to the post to which he is responding and its
> specific focus on the practical differences between Mormonism and
> fundamentalist Christianity.
Way to evade the question Duwayne. You're as good at that as Charles
Dowis. Also way to engage in ad hominem. You obviusly don't know
anything about the people that call themselves fundamentalist
christians, but you know you are an expert on them.
>
> > What do you know about the differences between
> > Christians about biblical inerrancy?
>
> Gerald just doesn't get it.
Says the guy who doesn't understand the ramifications of the question
and has to dodge it to make himself look good.
>
> > Theologically there are huge
> > differences between Mormons and what might be called mainstream
> > Christians.
>
> Because he apparently didn't bother to read the post to which he
> replied.
Says the guy who can't answer the questions and doesn't understand how
they apply to what he wrote.
>
> > That's a factor in why Rommney couldn't get the
> > nomination. There are plenty of Christian democrats, they just aren't
> > as vocal as the right-wingers.
> > You can't just lump people into a category called "Christians" and
> > make such broad generalizations about them. You probably should even
> > make a distinction between LDS (Brigham Young) Mormons and all the
> > rest of the Mormon splinter groups. To make the generalizations that
> > you do, you might as well make the same generalizations about white
> > people and black people etc.
>
> People are born white and black. Nobody is born a Mormon or an
> Evangelical Christian.
So by your standards it is OK to make generalizations about groups
that self identify, but not about groups that can be identified by
traits that they were born with. That's called a double standard and
it's not practised by people with integrity. Prejudice and bigotry are
what they are, whether applied to people who are born with certain
traits or people who choose to identify a certain way. It's no
different from saying that everyone who is a memeber of the American
Quarter Horse Association are rude boors who all behave the same way.
It's wrong either way.
Duwaynea Anderson
<snip>
> > My post *specifically* acknowledges theological differences between
> > Mormons and fundamentalist Christians, but highlights the similarities
> > in the "practical applications of [the two] religions."
>
> I saw a lot of similarities,
No, Gerald, you did not, because I didn't list *any* specific
theological differences or similarities.
In fact, I specifically said I was talking about the practical
differences (defined in terms of how they think, organize their lives,
vote, etc.) between Mormons and Fundamentalist Christians, which are
much smaller than their theological differences.
> but would you care to point out the
> differences again?
Look, this is the second time you've tried to erect a strawman
argument based on incomplete (or just plain dishonest) reading of what
I wrote; you just make yourself look stupid when you keep repeating
it.
> > Gerald, of course, didn't post any evidence to the contrary -- opting,
> > instead, to launch into a discussion of the theological differences
> > between his brand of superstition and that practiced by Mormons; a
> > point upon which we don't disagree.
>
> Here you go again, Mr.. Patronization.
Says the guy that thinks he speaks for god.
And, I'll note that Gerald still hasn't provided any evidence to the
contrary.
<snip>
> > > What do you know about the difference between salvation by
> > > grace and salvation by works?
>
> > Thanks for making my point, Gerald.
>
> Way to evade the question Duwayne.
I didn't evade the question, Gerald. The answer is in the post that
you responded to, but refused to read. I said in that post that
Mormons and Fundamentalist Christians disagree over doctrine.
What part of "Mormons and Fundamentalists disagree over doctrine"
don't you understand?
> You're as good at that as Charles
> Dowis.
Don't be stupid, Gerald.
Of course Mormons and Fundamentalists disagree over doctrine. They
disagree over salvation, works, grace, ect.
None of that is in dispute. You'd know that if you would bother to
read the post to which you replied.
> > You rightly point out that Mormons and fundamentalist Christians
> > disagree over doctrines. But when it comes to observable behaviors
> > the two groups look very much the same.
>
> Your observations are clouded by your prejudice.
It's a matter of fact that Fundamentalist Christians and Mormons
supported the war criminal George W. Bush more than any other major
religious groups in America.
It's a matter of fact that Fundamentalist Christians and Mormons are
more heavily Republican (implying that they support the Republican
agenda) more than any other religious groups.
As with your Mormon bedfellows you seem unable to deal with contrary
facts.
<snip>
> > > What do you know about the schisms that
> > > have occurred in Christian denominations over beliefs about baptism or
> > > about communion?
>
> > In blissful ignorance Gerald keeps on highlighting the theological
> > differences, oblivious to the post to which he is responding and its
> > specific focus on the practical differences between Mormonism and
> > fundamentalist Christianity.
>
> Way to evade the question Duwayne.
As if his bliss and ignorance knows no bounds, Gerald Bostock just
keeps at it -- erecting his strawman argument and knocking it down.
Yes, Gerald. Mormons and Fundies disagree about things like baptism
and communion.
What part of "Mormons apply their particular spin to the Bible while
fundamentalists apply a different spin. however, when it comes to
practical applications of religion Mormons and other fundamentalist
"Christians" are look pretty much the same."
<snip>
> > > What do you know about the differences between
> > > Christians about biblical inerrancy?
>
> > Gerald just doesn't get it.
>
> Says the guy who doesn't understand the ramifications of the question
You mean the "ramification" that Mormons and Fundamentalists disagree
over doctrine? I stipulated that specifically.
My post clearly states that "While there are undeniable differences in
how Mormons and fundamentalist Christians read the Bible, the
practical differences
(defined in terms of how they think, organize their lives, vote, etc.)
are much smaller. Mormons and fundamentalist Christians are
philosophical bedfellows."
That's an actual quotation from the post to which you replied.
Really, Gerald. Don't be so stupid.
�R.L.Measures
<endt...@non.net> wrote:
> On Mon, 28 Dec 2009 14:10:45 -0800, r...@somis.org (�R.L.Measures) wrote:
>
> >In article <4ulhj5t9k8g25o2ub...@4ax.com>, "<'}}><"
> ><endt...@non.net> wrote:
> >
> >> On Mon, 28 Dec 2009 09:56:31 -0600, "<'}}><" <endt...@non.net> wrote:
> >>
> >> >>� Joseph Smith, Junior was only legally married to one woman, the
rest of
> >> >>the "marriages" were essentially excuses for adultery.
> >> >
> >>
> >> correction:
> >>
> >> Humans are either a slave to God or the Devil, and it�s an upside down
> >> world when a slave takes steps to change the gospel laws written by
> >> God.
> >
> >� Smith was undoubtedly a slave of nubile women since he married no less
> >than 7 teenagers in 1843.
>
> I read somewhere on the internet that mortality rate of women was low
> in those days; women were expect to die while giving birth to their
> second child. However, there�s no point in covering up the fact that
> he had a weakness for women. Did you know that Joseph Smith was
> related to me?
� no
--
R.L. Measures. 805-386-3734, www.somis.org
Bret Ripley
This is simply not true, Gerald. Many mainstream Christians would be
surprised, amused, or even offended to be identified with fundamentalism.
> The only
> ones that wouldn't are probably Unitarians.
No. There are non-fundie Baptists, Lutherans, Methodists, Pentecostals,
Presbyterians, Episcopalians, etc.
Bret
Duwaynea Anderson
<snip>
> So by your standards it is OK to make generalizations about groups
> that self identify,
You think there's something wrong with saying that most Mormons adhere
to certain beliefs? Or that most Fundamentalist Christians adhere to
certain beliefs?
> but not about groups that can be identified by
> traits that they were born with.
A person doesn't believe something simply because they are black.
> That's called a double standard
No, that's called not being a racist.
> and
> it's not practised by people with integrity. Prejudice and bigotry are
> what they are,
Hyperbole will get you nowhere.
Really. Mormons and Fundamentalist Christians are very similar in
their non-religious beliefs and practices. Here, I'll prove it to
you:
52% of Mormons are Republican (more than any other religious group).
The next highest group is Fundamentalist Christians, at 38%
http://religions.pewforum.org/comparisons#
60% of Mormons self identify as conservative (more than any other
religious group). The next highest group is Fundamentalist
Christians, at 52%
http://religions.pewforum.org/comparisons#
56% of Mormons want smaller government (more than any other religious
group). The third highest group is Fundamentalist Christians ,at 48%
http://religions.pewforum.org/comparisons#
68% of Mormons want society to discriminate against Gays (second
highest among religious groups). The third highest group, right after
Mormons, is Fundamentalist Christians, at 64%
http://religions.pewforum.org/comparisons#
36% of Mormons oppose stricter environmental laws (second highest
among religious groups). The third highest group, right after
Mormons, is Fundamentalist Christians, at 35%
22% of Mormons believe that evolution is the best explanation for the
origin of human life (second lowest among religious groups). The
third lowest group, right after the Mormons, is Fundamentalist
Christians, at 24%. The lowest group is the Jehovah's Witnesses.
http://pewresearch.org/pubs/1105/darwin-debate-religion-evolution
> whether applied to people who are born with certain
> traits or people who choose to identify a certain way.
People have the right to be respected regardless of their skin color,
sexual orientation, and other physical conditions and/or
abnormalities.
People have the right to believe whatever they want. That's
fundamental.
But you *don't* have the right to be respected if you choose to
believe in stupid things.
If you want to believe in a 6,000-year-old earth, that's your right;
you have the right to be stupid.
If you don't want to believe in evolution, that's your right; you have
the right to be stupid.
But you have no right to be stupid & be respected. Pick one or the
other; you can't have both.
> It's no
> different from saying that everyone who is a memeber of the American
> Quarter Horse Association are rude boors who all behave the same way.
> It's wrong either way.
Stop pretending you are persecuted, Gerald.
Bret Ripley
<snips>
> People have the right to believe whatever they want. That's
> fundamental.
>
> But you *don't* have the right to be respected if you choose to
> believe in stupid things.
>
> If you want to believe in a 6,000-year-old earth, that's your right;
> you have the right to be stupid.
>
> If you don't want to believe in evolution, that's your right; you have
> the right to be stupid.
>
> But you have no right to be stupid & be respected. Pick one or the
> other; you can't have both.
"You can believe anything you want. The universe is not obliged to keep a
straight face." -- David Gerrold (attributed to "Solomon Short")
Bret
Bret Ripley
> On Dec 26, 4:37 am, r...@somis.org (•R.L.Measures) wrote:
>> There are currently few discussions here about the history of the LdS
>> Church. Are we seeing the end?
>>
>> --
>> R.L. Measures. 805-386-3734,www.somis.org
>
> Usenet in general is in huge decline in favor of blogs. Some people
> just can't cope with unmoderated discussion. A lot of ISPs refuse to
> provide and support usenet servers.
>
> I'd also speculate that people like Kerry Shirts, Russ McGregor,
> Charles Dowis and Woody Brison just got worn down. If they didn't lose
> their testimony, the mental upkeep probably just got to be too much.
Speaking of which: recently spotted on alt.religion.mormon.fellowship --
"... the Spanish Conquistadores burned all the
native books they could find. Not much left to testify of
the Nephites, but some of their books and art is gradually
coming forth." -- Woody Brison
Yeah, I did a double-take at that, too. (I can see the advertisements now:
Don't miss this newly rediscovered book by best-selling Nephite author
Abinadi the Lesser: "Oy Vey, But These Lamanites Are a Surly Bunch".)
Anyway, RetroProphet asked him for a list of these Nephite books that are
"coming forth", but it appears that Woody is probably too busy to post that
information right now. What, with the holidays and all.
Bret
<'}}><
<RetroProp...@newsguy.com> wrote:
>I'm sorry, Josh, but this analysis demonstrates that
>there is far too much ambiguity in the extant records
>to sustain your lineage claim. Also, DNA markers from
>known Smith descendants indicate that Irish lineage
>is most likely.
RetroProphet,
I have a book called �Dynasty of The Holy Grail� by Vern Grosvenor
Swanson, and on page 282 it shows 'Joseph Smith, Jr., Inferred
Y-Chromosome Haplotype' chart. As you know this Y-Chromosome is pass
from father to son, and all the direct male descents of Robert Smith
will care the same Y-Chromosome.
Swanson make a good case for the family of Jesus, the Holy Grail line
coming from Ireland to southern England, so in that respect you are
correct RetroProphet, if Joseph Smith was of the Holy Grail line, his
roots would go back to Ireland.
Now, there is ambiguity about who Robert Smith mother, and was, since
it was not a custom to record the mother's name in the church records
at the time, there for it a little of a mystery as to who is connect
to Robert Smith. However, there is a English pattern to name their
siblings, it goes like this:
From the beginning of the 18th Century to end of the 19th Century, the
naming convention for children born to English-speaking families often
followed a basic pattern. Although the naming convention does not
always follow this order, many children's given names originated from
their ancestors. For example - the first son was usually named after
the father's father. Below is the commonly accepted pattern:
English Naming Patterns
1st Son -------------------------Father's Father
2nd Son ----------------------- Mother's Father
3rd So-------------------------- Father
4th Son ------------------------ Father's Eldest Brother
1st Daughter ------------------ Mother's Mother
2nd Daughter ----------------- Father's Mother
3rd Daughter-------------------Mother
4th Daughter ------------------ Mother's Eldest Sister
and so forth.
So, something can be derived from this, that family names were pass on
to their siblings.
The fact that I have an ancestor by the same name Robert Smith, that
was born only about 100 mile from the other Robert Smith, may appear
�far too much ambiguity� at first glance, but further research and you
will come up with this:
�The Smith name first found in norther England and Scotland, where
they held a family seat from ancient times. In trying to establish a
single source for this amazing, monumentally prolific surname Smith,
it is asserted that they descended from Neil Cromb, a Chieftain who
flourished in 1150, third son of Murdoch, Chief of the Clan Chattan,
a confederation of twenty-six Clans of which Smith was a member clan.�
From this I deduct that while Smith is 'prolific surname' in England,
it's ancient family seat which the Smiths sprouted from was in
'norther England and Scotland', to which I also found another
reference to the Smith being mostly found around the northern sea port
of Aberdeen, Scotland (the "Silver City," or the "Granite City,
because all the houses were built out of granite, and from the sea the
city shines.) I have been to Aberdeen, and it a pretty sight to see.
While Smith is found everywhere, it is mostly found around Aberdeen,
therefore, to find my Robert Smith a hundred miles from another Robert
Smith opens the possible that they were related. And the fact that
Robert Smith had to go near a port city to embark to the new world, it
would bring him even closer to my Robert Smith who live on the coast.
Well, what you said was that my family tree need more information to
prove my connection, so here is more.....
Descendants of Robert SMITH and Susannah SMITH
1. Robert1 SMITH [161], born abt 1684 Of Lowestoft, Suffolk, England.
He married Susannah SMITH [162], born abt 1688 Of Lowestoft, Suffolk,
England.
Children of Robert SMITH and Susannah SMITH were as follows:
+ 2 i Susanna2 SMITH [160], born abt 1710 Of
Lowestoft, Suffolk, England. She married Edward THURSTON [159].
Generation 2
2. Susanna2 SMITH [160] (Robert1), born abt 1710 Of Lowestoft,
Suffolk, England. She married on 19 Apr 1733 in Lowestoff, Suffolk,
England Edward THURSTON [159], born abt 1708 in Wimondham, Suffolk,
England; buried 22 Feb 1760.
Children of Susanna SMITH and Edward THURSTON were as follows:
+ 3 i Susanna3 THURSTON [139], born 19 Oct 1734 in
Lowestoft, Suffolk, England; died 20 Mar 1817. She married Daniel
CHAMBERLIN [138].
Generation 3
3. Susanna3 THURSTON [139] (Susanna2 SMITH, Robert1), born 19 Oct 1734
in Lowestoft, Suffolk, England; died 20 Mar 1817. She married on 2
Apr 1758 in Lowestoff, Suffolk, England Daniel CHAMBERLIN [138], born
1 Mar 1733 in Pakefield, Suffolk, England; died 10 Apr 1774, son of
James CHAMBERLIN [155] and Jedidiah JACKSON [156].
Notes for Daniel CHAMBERLIN
b. 1732/1733
Children of Susanna THURSTON and Daniel CHAMBERLIN were as
follows:
4 i Susanna4 CHAMBERLIN [158], born 4 Mar 1759 in
Lowestoft, Suffolk, England. She married on 29 Sep 1785 James DURRANT
[163], born abt 1755 in Lowestoft, Suffolk, England.
+ 5 ii Daniel4 CHAMBERLIN [131], born 25 Sep 1763 in
Lowestoft, Suffolk, England; buried 7 Feb 1837. He married Elizabeth
DRAPER [132].
6 iii Jadidiah4 CHAMBERLIN [157], born 12 May 1765
in Lowestoft, Suffolk, England.
Generation 4
5. Daniel4 CHAMBERLIN [131] (Susanna3 THURSTON, Susanna2 SMITH,
Robert1), born 25 Sep 1763 in Lowestoft, Suffolk, England; buried 7
Feb 1837. He married on 14 Feb 1786 in Gt Yarmouth, Norfolk, England
Elizabeth DRAPER [132], born abt 1765 Of Great Yarmouth, Norfolk,
England, daughter of John NICKHOLS [140] and Elizabeth CHAMBERLIN
[141].
Children of Daniel CHAMBERLIN and Elizabeth DRAPER were as
follows:
7 i Elizabeth5 CHAMBERLIN [148], born 18 May 1787
in Great Yarmouth, Norfolk, England.
8 ii Daniel5 CHAMBERLIN [147], born 7 May 1789 in
Great Yarmouth, Norfolk, England.
9 iii Elizabeth5 CHAMBERLIN [152], born 17 Aug 1792
in Great Yarmouth, Norfolk, England.
10 iv James5 CHAMBERLIN [144], born 7 Oct 1793 in
Great Yarmouth, Norfolk, England; died 28 Aug 1794.
+ 11 v Charlotte Maria5 CHAMBERLIN [101], born 19 Jan
1796 in Great Yarmouth, Norfolk, England; buried 25 Mar 1865 in
Lowestoft, Suffolk, England. She married James Gustavis BALLS [79].
12 vi James Samuel5 CHAMBERLIN [145], born 31 Oct
1797 in Great Yarmouth, Norfolk, England; died 26 Jan 1880.
13 vii William5 CHAMBERLIN [150], born 1 Jul 1799 in
Great Yarmouth, Norfolk, England; died 22 Oct 1801.
14 viii William5 CHAMBERLIN [146], born 26 Mar 1802 in
Great Yarmouth, Norfolk, England.
15 ix Sophia5 CHAMBERLIN [153], born 16 Dec 1803 in
Great Yarmouth, Norfolk, England.
16 x George5 CHAMBERLIN [149], born 28 May 1805 in
Great Yarmouth, Norfolk, England; died 30 Jun 1805.
17 xi Mary Ann5 CHAMBERLIN [154], born 19 Dec 1806
in Great Yarmouth, Norfolk, England; died 31 Jun 1808.
18 xii Amelia5 CHAMBERLIN [151], born 13 Jul 1809 in
Great Yarmouth, Norfolk, England.
Generation 5
11. Charlotte Maria5 CHAMBERLIN [101] (Daniel4, Susanna3 THURSTON,
Susanna2 SMITH, Robert1), born 19 Jan 1796 in Great Yarmouth, Norfolk,
England; buried 25 Mar 1865 in Lowestoft, Suffolk, England. She
married on 11 May 1817 in Gt Yarmouth, Norfolk, England James Gustavis
BALLS [79], born 1797; buried 30 Apr 1870 in Lowestoff, Suffolk,
England, son of Samuel BALLS [129] and Elizabeth (---) [130].
Children of Charlotte Maria CHAMBERLIN and James Gustavis
BALLS were as follows:
19 i James Gustavis6 BALLS [134], born 4 Oct 1817
in Great Yarmouth, Norfolk, England.
20 ii (---)6 BALLS [137], born abt 1819 in
Lowestoft, Suffolk, England.
21 iii William Daniel Chamberlin6 BALLS [136], born 6
Jan 1820 in Lowestoft, Suffolk, England.
22 iv Hannah Maria6 BALLS [143], born 22 Dec 1821 in
Lowestoft, Suffolk, England.
+ 23 v Alfred George6 BALLS [12], born 2 Oct 1826 in
Lowestoft, Suffolk, England; died 1904 in Tynemouth, Northumberland,
Enlgand. He married Grace Grant ELLISON [100].
24 vi Mary Ann6 BALLS [133], born 10 May 1828 in
Lowestoft, Suffolk, England.
25 vii Jane Elizabeth6 BALLS [135], born 1 Oct 1830
in Lowestoft, Suffolk, England.
26 viii John6 BALLS [142], born 21 Aug 1835 in
Lowestoft, Suffolk, England; died 9 Jul 1836.
Generation 6
23. Alfred George6 BALLS [12] (Charlotte Maria5 CHAMBERLIN, Daniel4,
Susanna3 THURSTON, Susanna2 SMITH, Robert1), born 2 Oct 1826 in
Lowestoft, Suffolk, England; died 1904 in Tynemouth, Northumberland,
Enlgand. He married in 1850 in Tynemouth, Northumberland Grace Grant
ELLISON [100], born 1833 in North Shields, Northumberland, England,
daughter of Thomas ELLISON [102] and Caroline (---) [103].
Children of Alfred George BALLS and Grace Grant ELLISON were
as follows:
27 i Anne Maria7 BALLS [115], born abt 1852.
28 ii Alfred James7 BALLS [116], born abt 1854.
29 iii Matthew Ellison7 BALLS [117], born abt 1856.
30 iv William C.7 BALLS [118], born abt 1858 in
North Shields, Northumberland, England.
+ 31 v Jane Louisa7 BALLS [11], born abt 1860 in
North Shields, Northumberland, England. She married George GEMMELL
[8].
32 vi Arthur7 BALLS [120], born abt 1863.
+ 33 vii Matilda7 BALLS [114], born abt 1866 in North
Shields, Northumberland, England. She married John Gascoigne SQUIRE
[119].
34 viii Amelia Martha7 BALLS [121], born abt 1870.
35 ix Grace M7 BALLS [122], born abt 1874 in
Tynemouth, Northumberland, Enlgand.
36 x Mildred7 BALLS [123], born abt 1876 in
Tynemouth, Northumberland, Enlgand.
Generation 7
31. Jane Louisa7 BALLS [11] (Alfred George6, Charlotte Maria5
CHAMBERLIN, Daniel4, Susanna3 THURSTON, Susanna2 SMITH, Robert1), born
abt 1860 in North Shields, Northumberland, England. She married on 25
Jul 1879 in Tynemouth, Northumberland George GEMMELL [8], born 31 Aug
1852 in Wanlockhead, Dumfriesshire, Scotland; died 7 May 1885 in
Wanlockhead, Dumfriesshire, Scotland, son of Andrew GEMMELL [9] and
Margaret LAIDLAW [13].
Children of Jane Louisa BALLS and George GEMMELL were as
follows:
37 i Andrew George8 GEMMELL [104], born abt 1881 in
Newcastle On Tyne, Northumberland, England.
+ 38 ii Alfred George8 GEMMELL [7], born 26 Apr 1884
in Rockland, New York; died 21 Mar 1962 in , Guatemala, Guatemala. He
married (1) Rosa Pompilia R�BULI Galindo [10]; (2) unknown.
33. Matilda7 BALLS [114] (Alfred George6, Charlotte Maria5 CHAMBERLIN,
Daniel4, Susanna3 THURSTON, Susanna2 SMITH, Robert1), born abt 1866 in
North Shields, Northumberland, England. She married in 1885 in
Tynemouth, Northumberland John Gascoigne SQUIRE [119], born 1849 in
Walker, Newcastle, son of Thomas SQUIRE [124] and Elizabeth GASCOIGNE
[125].
Children of Matilda BALLS and John Gascoigne SQUIRE were as
follows:
39 i John Gascoigne8 SQUIRE [126], born abt 1886.
40 ii Louisa Grace8 SQUIRE [127], born abt 1887.
41 iii Albert Ernest8 SQUIRE [128], born abt 1889.
Generation 8
38. Alfred George8 GEMMELL [7] (Jane Louisa7 BALLS, Alfred George6,
Charlotte Maria5 CHAMBERLIN, Daniel4, Susanna3 THURSTON, Susanna2
SMITH, Robert1), born 26 Apr 1884 in Rockland, New York; died 21 Mar
1962 in , Guatemala, Guatemala. He married (1) Rosa Pompilia R�BULI
Galindo [10], born 4 Sep 1900, daughter of Guadalupe R�BULI Capeli
[71] and Ramira GALINDO [72]; (2) unknown.
Children of Alfred George GEMMELL and Rosa Pompilia R�BULI
Galindo were as follows:
+ 42 i Alfredo9 GEMMELL R�buli [23], died 23 Apr
2006. He married Dorothy Tam VAKEY [67].
+ 43 ii George Henry9 GEMMELL [2], born 3 Dec 1923 in
Ciudad de Guatemala, Guatemala, C.A.; died 15 Mar 2007 in Panama City,
Bay, Florida. He married Judith ESQUIVEL [3].
+ 44 iii Grace9 GEMMELL R�buli [25]. She married
unknown.
+ 45 iv Victor Alberto9 GEMMELL R�buli [21], born 16
Feb 1927; died 1 Jan 2008. He married (1) Ofelia (---) [197]; (2)
unknown.
46 v Roy Gemmell9 GEMMELL R�buli [22]. Notes: He
was murdered a day before his birthday, he was buried on his birthday.
He was shot in the back.
+ 47 vi John9 GEMMELL R�buli [24]. He married
unknown.
Children of Alfred George GEMMELL were as follows:
48 i Alfred9 GEMMELL [85]. He married Louise (---)
[193]. Notes: Lynne Gemmell as quite a bit of informations about
Alfred Gemmell, who she believe died in the 1970's. He was a teacher.
Generation 9
43.George Henry9 GEMMELL [2] (Alfred George8, Jane Louisa7 BALLS,
Alfred George6, Charlotte Maria5 CHAMBERLIN, Daniel4, Susanna3
THURSTON, Susanna2 SMITH, Robert1), born 3 Dec 1923 in Ciudad de
Guatemala, Guatemala, C.A.; died 15 Mar 2007 in Panama City, Bay,
Florida.
Generation 10
George Erick Gemmell, is the firstborn son of George Henry Gemmell,
Erick legally changed his name to Joshua Israel Gemmell.
AS you can see RetroProphet, there is no doubt that I have Robert
Smith in on my family tree, however the DNA is not going to match the
DNA of Robert, becuase it can only be pass on from father to son, not
from father to daughter. And as you can see I am not a father to son
link, but still that does not matter unto God, for he can bring out
more of the blood line if there is a small trace of it in the blood. I
notice this in hearing the lineage of people in the church, sometimes
the church blessing will give the siblings of the same parnets
different lineage, you can have brother and sister that all have
different trible lineage, yet have the same parents. Well, I don't
expect you to understand that becuase it based upon faith in church
blessings. However, I have no doubt that I have more of the Holy
Grail bloodline than Joseph Smith, and if the Smith are connected with
my family tree it is because the Lord kept mixing the royal lines
(families) together throughout the ages.
RetroProphet you would have to read the book "Dynasty of the Holy
Grail to understand what I know, the author Vern Swanson has emailed
me a couple of times, wanting information about prophecy dates that I
had about the coming of Christ. He wasn't sure why I said that Christ
would come around 2021 or 2022 in glory, but that a he would make a
few appearances in 2012. He wanted to know how I figured out the
Lord's second coming would be 21 years after the opening of the
seventh seal back in April 6, 2001. This author read all the 400
texts on the Holy Grail line, that states that the blood of Jesus
Christ was pass on, and Brother Swanson wanted to prove Joseph Smith
connection to that line. Swanson is the latest author on the Holy
Grail, and presents a good case.
- Joshua <'{{><
<'}}><
correction...
>AS you can see RetroProphet, there is no doubt that I have Robert
>Smith in on my family tree, however the DNA is not going to match the
>DNA of Robert, becuase it can only be pass on from father to son, not
>from father to daughter. And as you can see I am not a father to son
>link, but still that does not matter unto God, for he can bring out
>more of the blood line if there is a small trace of it in the blood. I
>notice this in hearing the lineage of people in the church, sometimes
>the church blessing will give the siblings of the same parnets
>different lineage, you can have brother and sister that all have
different [lineage tribe], yet have the same parents. Well, I
don't...
Duwaynea Anderson
<snip>
> Speaking of which: recently spotted on alt.religion.mormon.fellowship --
>
> "... the Spanish Conquistadores burned all the
> native books they could find. Not much left to testify of
> the Nephites, but some of their books and art is gradually
> coming forth." -- Woody Brison
>
> Yeah, I did a double-take at that, too. (I can see the advertisements now:
> Don't miss this newly rediscovered book by best-selling Nephite author
> Abinadi the Lesser: "Oy Vey, But These Lamanites Are a Surly Bunch".)
>
> Anyway, RetroProphet asked him for a list of these Nephite books that are
> "coming forth", but it appears that Woody is probably too busy to post that
> information right now. What, with the holidays and all.
>
> Bret
Whenever a person asks Mormon apologists for a list of non-trivial
evidences for the Book of Mormon (such as Nephite books) that are
documented in peer-reviewed science journals, silence is all you ever
hear.
That's because there is none.
Woody's lie (that's right -- he knows there are no such books) is an
excellent example of the fact that there are no informed, honest and
educated members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.
To have a testimony requires that you give up at least one of those
three qualities.
RetroProphet
Duwaynea Anderson says...
>
>On Dec 29, 3:09=A0pm, Bret Ripley <rip...@gotsky.com> wrote:
>
><snip>
>> Speaking of which: recently spotted on alt.religion.mormon.fellowship --
>>
>> "... the Spanish Conquistadores burned all the
>> native books they could find. Not much left to testify of
>> the Nephites, but some of their books and art is gradually
>> coming forth." -- Woody Brison
>>
>:
>> Don't miss this newly rediscovered book by best-selling Nephite author
>> Abinadi the Lesser: "Oy Vey, But These Lamanites Are a Surly Bunch".)
>>
>> Anyway, RetroProphet asked him for a list of these Nephite books that are
>at
>> information right now. What, with the holidays and all.
>>
>> Bret
>
>Whenever a person asks Mormon apologists for a list of non-trivial
>evidences for the Book of Mormon (such as Nephite books) that are
>documented in peer-reviewed science journals, silence is all you ever
>hear.
>
>That's because there is none.
>
>Woody's lie (that's right -- he knows there are no such books) is an
>excellent example of the fact that there are no informed, honest and
>educated members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.
>To have a testimony requires that you give up at least one of those
>three qualities.
>
>Duwayne Anderson
>Author of "Farewell to Eden: Coming to terms with Mormonism and
>science"
>American Quarter Horse: The ultimate all-terrain vehicle
>
What bothered me was that Woody's assertion was
almost identical to what a missionary once said to me
-- it was an effortless part of the missionary's patter
to imply that the historicity of the Book of Mormon
is an established fact.
Duwaynea Anderson
wrote:
> In article <e7456ca4-9942-4b2a-bf89-a33e9f6f0...@j4g2000yqe.googlegroups.com>,
> What bothered me was that Woody's assertion was
> almost identical to what a missionary once said to me
> -- it was an effortless part of the missionary's patter
> to imply that the historicity of the Book of Mormon
> is an established fact.
Missionaries are allowed - often encouraged -- to lie. The church
knows they do it. The church doesn't stop it, even though the
missionaries are official ministers of the church. And the church
provides encouragement and facilities to various apologetic
organizations (FARMS and FAIR) through which many of these lies are
disseminated.
The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (LDS or Mormon) should
be ashamed of the way they tell lies about the science of ancient
American archeology. Their lies demonstrate that the church knows the
Book of Mormon is a fraud, and that the leaders of the church
knowingly perpetuate a fraud.
Any serious investigator of the LDS Church should ask themselves this
question: If the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is true,
why does it lie about the scientific evidence that disproves the
"corner stone" of the church?
rasqual
> There are currently few discussions here about the history of the LdS
> Church. Are we seeing the end?
In October 1999 I posted at SRM: "I'm becoming more and more
convinced that s.r.m. is moribund."
In Nov. 2008, Craig Olson and I had a couple exchanges concerning
SRM's fate.
Since then, SRM has completely and literally died.
The death curve took a while: http://marquardts.org/images/SRM_posts.jpg
It seems to me that ARM has died in this way as well; it exists as a
dumping ground for nonsense mainly because it's not moderated so it
can't die more than a thematic death.
Doubtless this is partly due to the rise of web forums; usenet itself
is the moribund backwater of early Internet adopters. There's no lack
of activity in various web forums concerned with Mormonism and its
history. Personally, I've lamented usenet's inevitable doom for years;
it would have been good for a Usenet 2.0 to have been developed. As it
turns out, some ideas I had for that have been implemented -- though
badly, so far -- in Google Wave. IMO, for many years we'll still have
inadequate indexing of web forums. For my part, I hope that serious
interoperability and metadata standards will emerge.
Whatever.
Bret Ripley
<snips>
> Woody's lie (that's right -- he knows there are no such books)
If you were to ask him, I'm sure he would claim to be a lover of rational
truth. However, it seems evident that the arrangement is hardly an
exclusive one: the truth is sometimes seen to contradict him in public, and
he is free to date other syllogisms.
Bret
Duwaynea Anderson
> R.L.Measures wrote:
> > There are currently few discussions here about the history of the LdS
> > Church. Are we seeing the end?
>
> In October 1999 I posted at SRM: "I'm becoming more and more
> convinced that s.r.m. is moribund."
>
> In Nov. 2008, Craig Olson and I had a couple exchanges concerning
> SRM's fate.
>
> Since then, SRM has completely and literally died.
>
> The death curve took a while:http://marquardts.org/images/SRM_posts.jpg
>
> It seems to me that ARM has died in this way as well; it exists as a
> dumping ground for nonsense mainly because it's not moderated so it
> can't die more than a thematic death.
With regard to SRM, I think moderation was part of the reason it died;
the moderators turned to censorship, and when that happens people just
don't see the point.
I recall a post of mine where I said Joseph Smith was "clueless" about
General Relativity. The post was blocked by one of the censorship
committee for that simple observation. They said it wasn't
"respectful."
Originally SRM was started because Mormons said they needed a group
where people wouldn't discuss their "sacred" stuff (like temple
ceremonies). Gradually the censors began to interpret other blunt
criticisms of Mormonism as falling into the same category, and the
serious critics left.
As for ARM, there are a lot of threads that have nothing to do with
Mormonism. Others that are only marginally related to Mormonism (such
as political topics that Mormons generally support, but are not unique
to Mormonism). The tide ebbs and the tide flows, but I think it's too
early to write the obituary of ARM. There's a place in the world for
an unmoderated discussion of Mormonism that the LDS Church can't
censor.
> Doubtless this is partly due to the rise of web forums; usenet itself
> is the moribund backwater of early Internet adopters. There's no lack
> of activity in various web forums concerned with Mormonism and its
> history. Personally, I've lamented usenet's inevitable doom for years;
> it would have been good for a Usenet 2.0 to have been developed. As it
> turns out, some ideas I had for that have been implemented -- though
> badly, so far -- in Google Wave. IMO, for many years we'll still have
> inadequate indexing of web forums. For my part, I hope that serious
> interoperability and metadata standards will emerge.
Yeah. That would be nice.
>
> Whatever.
rasqual
wrote:
> On Dec 30, 10:13 am, rasqual <sc...@marquardts.org> wrote:
> With regard to SRM, I think moderation was part of the reason it died;
> the moderators turned to censorship, and when that happens people just
> don't see the point.
>
> I recall a post of mine where I said Joseph Smith was "clueless" about
> General Relativity. The post was blocked by one of the censorship
> committee for that simple observation. They said it wasn't
> "respectful."
>
> Originally SRM was started because Mormons said they needed a group
> where people wouldn't discuss their "sacred" stuff (like temple
> ceremonies). Gradually the censors began to interpret other blunt
> criticisms of Mormonism as falling into the same category, and the
> serious critics left.
Not why I left, and my criticisms continued to be blunt and
unanswered.
I suspect the reasons SRM died and ARM is moribund, aside from web
forums, include common factors such as the growing irrelevance of
Mormon history and even Mormon authority to contemporary Mormon
culture. Critics don't matter not only because they're critics -- they
no longer matter because not even church authority or Mormon history
matter. Mormon experience is ahistorical, primarily cultural, and
under threat from critics no more than its doctrinal countours are
determined by authority.
Aside from strictly ritualistic elements, Mormons are free to believe
anything they want, and they've been assured that doing so -- even if
the result cannot possibly have anything to do with truth, when
considered in the aggregate -- is the Holy Spirit at work in their
minds.
Solipsism is not motivated to engage critics any more than it's
inclined to look for guidance on matters of belief. I don't think
Mormons feel threatened by critics such that they need to be censored,
so much as that Mormons deem the authority of reason moot because
their leadership has led in that direction by example.
Obviously there are numerous exceptions among LdS, and there's some
great scholarship that's been done by Mormons. Alas, it doesn't defend
Mormon claims regarding its origins, nor its putative history of the
Americas.
Two cents.
Duwaynea Anderson
> On Dec 30, 1:24 pm, Duwaynea Anderson <duwayneander...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> > On Dec 30, 10:13 am, rasqual <sc...@marquardts.org> wrote:
> > With regard to SRM, I think moderation was part of the reason it died;
> > the moderators turned to censorship, and when that happens people just
> > don't see the point.
>
> > I recall a post of mine where I said Joseph Smith was "clueless" about
> > General Relativity. The post was blocked by one of the censorship
> > committee for that simple observation. They said it wasn't
> > "respectful."
>
> > Originally SRM was started because Mormons said they needed a group
> > where people wouldn't discuss their "sacred" stuff (like temple
> > ceremonies). Gradually the censors began to interpret other blunt
> > criticisms of Mormonism as falling into the same category, and the
> > serious critics left.
>
> Not why I left,
Understood -- I'm not suggesting everyone left for the same reasons I
did.
> and my criticisms continued to be blunt and
> unanswered.
I tend to be a bit more blunt than others. I have no compunction, for
example, in saying Mormonism is a stupid religion. Lot's of Mormons
get offended at that. But I don't think any idea is owed any degree
of politeness.
>
> I suspect the reasons SRM died and ARM is moribund, aside from web
> forums, include common factors such as the growing irrelevance of
> Mormon history and even Mormon authority to contemporary Mormon
> culture.
Good point. For typical Mormons the fact the church lies about its
history and is based on a fraud (BofM) is irrelevant. They believe in
their church, and that's that. Facts are irrelevant.
> Critics don't matter not only because they're critics -- they
> no longer matter because not even church authority or Mormon history
> matter. Mormon experience is ahistorical, primarily cultural, and
> under threat from critics no more than its doctrinal countours are
> determined by authority.
Spot on.
Extrapolating on that theme, do you think apologetic groups will face
the same eventual irrelevance as ARM?
After all, with members that don't care about history and facts
related to things like the BoM and BoA, there's little need for
apologetic organizations.
> Aside from strictly ritualistic elements, Mormons are free to believe
> anything they want, and they've been assured that doing so -- even if
> the result cannot possibly have anything to do with truth, when
> considered in the aggregate -- is the Holy Spirit at work in their
> minds.
I'd like to point out that the "ritualistic elements" are all
predicated on paying money to the church. A father cannot baptize his
kids unless he pays tithing. He can't go to his daughter's temple
wedding without paying tithing either. So the LDS Church has cleverly
constructed a religion in which participation in core family
activities is predicated upon making the church richer.
From this point of view it's not even the ritualistic elements that
matter -- just money. The ritualistic elements are only tools/wedges
for squeezing members out of their cash. The focus isn't on doctrine,
ritual, families, or people. Just money.
I can think of no other religion that makes money a *requirement* for
participating in core family activities related to the religion.
Can you?
> Solipsism is not motivated to engage critics any more than it's
> inclined to look for guidance on matters of belief. I don't think
> Mormons feel threatened by critics such that they need to be censored,
> so much as that Mormons deem the authority of reason moot because
> their leadership has led in that direction by example.
Some Mormons, yes. But the church and it's members still react
vociferously towards critics, with libel and slander to spare. While
the threat may be diminishing, there are still people who will leave
the church if you can prove it's false.
Critics hit the church in the money belt in other ways, too. Namely
by reducing the church's public appeal and ability to recruit fresh
tithing payers. Suppression of convert baptism need not be large for
the church to take notice -- every fresh convert is potentially worth
hundreds of thousands of dollars to the church.
Then there is the political POV. Arguably Romney owed some of his
trouble in the Presidential race to critics that made a very public
spectacle of how stupid Mormonism really is. If news outlets only
knew (and printed) what the LDS Church tells them in their official
news releases I think the public view of Mormonism would be far more
positive than it actually is.
The Mormon Church is obsessed with its public image, and critics are a
perpetual thorn in their side -- even if the threat to true believing
members is diminished with blinders of faith.
> Obviously there are numerous exceptions among LdS, and there's some
> great scholarship that's been done by Mormons. Alas, it doesn't defend
> Mormon claims regarding its origins, nor its putative history of the
> Americas.
>
> Two cents.
And two more.
Bret Ripley
> R.L.Measures wrote:
>> There are currently few discussions here about the history of the LdS
>> Church. Are we seeing the end?
>
> In October 1999 I posted at SRM: "I'm becoming more and more
> convinced that s.r.m. is moribund."
>
> In Nov. 2008, Craig Olson and I had a couple exchanges concerning
> SRM's fate.
>
> Since then, SRM has completely and literally died.
Hi, Scott.
FWIW, activity on SRM was certainly in decline, but it was technical
problems that shut it down completely in February. The server that hosts
SRM is still up and running, but no messages can reach the moderators'
queue. The problem occurred when the server's owner reconfigured his
servers and began using a different server to handle mail. Before that,
SRM's moderation program connected locally to the mail server over an
unencrypted TCP socket connection. In order for SRM to work, it would need
to access the remote server over an encrypted connection. This can be done,
of course, but none of the folks who used to keep SRM up and running has
the necessary combination of time and knowledge to resolve the problem.
> The death curve took a while: http://marquardts.org/images/SRM_posts.jpg
>
> It seems to me that ARM has died in this way as well; it exists as a
> dumping ground for nonsense mainly because it's not moderated so it
> can't die more than a thematic death.
>
> Doubtless this is partly due to the rise of web forums; usenet itself
> is the moribund backwater of early Internet adopters. There's no lack
> of activity in various web forums concerned with Mormonism and its
> history. Personally, I've lamented usenet's inevitable doom for years;
> it would have been good for a Usenet 2.0 to have been developed. As it
> turns out, some ideas I had for that have been implemented -- though
> badly, so far -- in Google Wave. IMO, for many years we'll still have
> inadequate indexing of web forums. For my part, I hope that serious
> interoperability and metadata standards will emerge.
>
> Whatever.
Yep.
Bret
Duwaynea Anderson
> On Wed, 30 Dec 2009 10:13:06 -0800 (PST), rasqual wrote:
> > R.L.Measures wrote:
> >> There are currently few discussions here about the history of the LdS
> >> Church. Are we seeing the end?
>
> > In October 1999 I posted at SRM: "I'm becoming more and more
> > convinced that s.r.m. is moribund."
>
> > In Nov. 2008, Craig Olson and I had a couple exchanges concerning
> > SRM's fate.
>
> > Since then, SRM has completely and literally died.
>
> Hi, Scott.
>
> FWIW, activity on SRM was certainly in decline, but it was technical
> problems that shut it down completely in February. The server that hosts
> SRM is still up and running, but no messages can reach the moderators'
> queue. The problem occurred when the server's owner reconfigured his
> servers and began using a different server to handle mail. Before that,
> SRM's moderation program connected locally to the mail server over an
> unencrypted TCP socket connection. In order for SRM to work, it would need
> to access the remote server over an encrypted connection. This can be done,
> of course, but none of the folks who used to keep SRM up and running has
> the necessary combination of time and knowledge to resolve the problem.
Bret, you are an invaluable source of information and insight.
Thanks!
Gerald Bostock
wrote:
> On Dec 29, 10:40 am, Gerald Bostock <gbost...@excite.com> wrote:
>
>
> Says the guy that thinks he speaks for god.
WTF!?!?! You're claiming to know what I think? I never made any such
claim. I don't beleive in any revelation at all. You just pulled this
out of your ass because you can't make a coherent argument on what I
did write. With crap like that coming in, it's worthless to respond to
you.
Gerald Bostock
The problem is entirely in terminology. If you ask those that you are
claiming would be surprised, amused or even offended if they are
fundmentalist christians they'd say no. If you came back later and
asked those same people "Do you adhere to the fundamentals of
christianity?" they'd probably say yes. That would make them a
fundamentalist christian whether they like the term or not. The terms
fundamentalist, mainstream and evangelical christian hve been beaten
into uselessness.
I bet if you asked the notorius right-wing conservatives Jimmy Carter,
Bill Clinton, Al Gore and Barack Obama if they adhere to the
fundamentals of christianity they'd say yes.
>
> Bret- Hide quoted text -
Duwaynea Anderson
> On Dec 29, 12:09 pm, Duwaynea Anderson <duwayneander...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> > On Dec 29, 10:40 am, Gerald Bostock <gbost...@excite.com> wrote:
>
> > Says the guy that thinks he speaks for god.
>
> WTF!?!?! You're claiming to know what I think? I never made any such
> claim. I don't beleive in any revelation at all.
You don't pretend to speak for god?
Good.
Then you don't claim the Bible is god's word.
You don't claim that god wants us to believe in Jesus.
You don't claim that god sent Jesus to save anyone.
You don't claim that god wants us to believe in him.
You don't claim that god wants anyone to have faith.
Right?
> You just pulled this
> out of your ass because you can't make a coherent argument on what I
> did write. With crap like that coming in, it's worthless to respond to
> you.
And yet you did respond. But you won't answer the questions (above).
Like Mormons, you seem to have difficulty keeping all your various
points of view properly compartmentalized.
Duwaynea Anderson
> > No. There are non-fundie Baptists, Lutherans, Methodists, Pentecostals,
> > Presbyterians, Episcopalians, etc.
>
> The problem is entirely in terminology. If you ask those that you are
> claiming would be surprised, amused or even offended if they are
> fundmentalist christians they'd say no. If you came back later and
> asked those same people "Do you adhere to the fundamentals of
> christianity?" they'd probably say yes. That would make them a
> fundamentalist christian whether they like the term or not.
Mormons will tell you they believe in the fundamentals of
Christianity. So will *every* member of *any* Jesus cult. But
that's not the definition of a "Fundamentalist Christian.? like it
or not the term "Fundamentalist Christian" has a specific meaning.
Fundamentalist Christianity, also known as Christian fundamentalism or
fundamentalist evangelicalism, is a movement that arose mainly within
British and American Protestantism in the late 19th and early 20th
centuries among conservative evangelical Christians, who, in a
reaction to liberal theology, actively asserted that the following
ideas were fundamental to the Christian faith:
1) The inerrancy of the Bible
2) Sola Scriptura
3) The virgin birth of Christ
4) The doctrine of substitutionary atonement
5) The bodily resurrection of Jesus
6) The imminent personal return of Jesus Christ
Fundamentalism was a rejection of the liberal churches that accepted
“biblical higher criticism,” and doubted the literal supernatural
claims of the Bible.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fundamentalist_Christianity
http://christianfriend.wordpress.com/2007/10/15/a-simple-definition-o...
Using that definition, are you a fundamentalist Christian, Gerald?
I'm particularly interested in whether or not you believe in "the
inerrancy of the Bible"
For example, do you believe that an ass actually talked? Do you
believe that the world was actually covered by a universal flood -- as
described in the Bible -- about 4-5 thousand years ago? Do you
believe that the world was made in 6 days, about 6 thousand years
ago? Do you think rabbits chew their cud? Do you think pi = 3?
Mormons tend to take the Bible literally. They believe in a literal
world-wide flood. They believe in a literal creation that culminated
in Adam being kicked out of a literal Garden of Eden about 6 thousand
years ago. As a group they disbelieve evolution more than any other
major religion in America, except Muslims. Mormons are very much like
their fundamentalist cousins in this regard. Although Mormons do take
the Bible figuratively some of the time, they take it literally more
often.
How about you? Do you take the Bible literally?
<snip to end>
Bret Ripley
And yet they would still fail to meet the definition for Fundamentalist,
and continue to acknowledge as much.
> That would make them a
> fundamentalist christian whether they like the term or not. The terms
> fundamentalist, mainstream and evangelical christian hve been beaten
> into uselessness.
I don't think so. Fundamentalism (the movement) has a pretty
well-recognized definition and seems to work well enough to discern
Fundamentalists from non-Fundamentalists. That seems to indicate that our
terminology is working rather well, yes?
Beyond that, I see no point in equivocating over use of the word
"fundamental".
Bret
Duwaynea Anderson
> On Dec 29, 12:09 pm, Duwaynea Anderson <duwayneander...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> > On Dec 29, 10:40 am, Gerald Bostock <gbost...@excite.com> wrote:
>
> > Says the guy that thinks he speaks for god.
>
> WTF!?!?! You're claiming to know what I think? I never made any such
> claim.
Gerald Bostock: "These days I am a deist in the sense that I only
believe that the natural world did not create itself and therefore
must be the result of something outside of nature (supernatural or
extranatural)"
In case you're wondering, here's a nice discussion of the word
"deist."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deism
Would you mind explaining how you can define the deity, including its
attributes and what it does/doesn't do? Not everyone seems to know
the deity as well as you -- how did you arrive at your special
knowledge of the deity?
> I don't beleive in any revelation at all.
Really?
And how, exactly, did you arrive at the conclusion that a deity
(that's the root word in "deist," by the way) is the prime mover of
the universe?
Just to remind you, here is what's meant by the word "deity:"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deity
> You just pulled this
> out of your ass
No, I pulled it out of the Google archives.
You wrote it.
Perhaps it came out of your ass?
> because you can't make a coherent argument on what I
> did write.
Those are quotations up there, Gerald. There's even a link to verify
the accuracy of the quotations.
> With crap like that coming in, it's worthless to respond to
> you.
If I had a dollar every time someone said that I could retire.
Perhaps I should setup a PayPall account?
rasqual
wrote:
> On Dec 30, 11:36 am, rasqual <scott.marqua...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Dec 30, 1:24 pm, Duwaynea Anderson <duwayneander...@gmail.com>
> > Critics don't matter not only because they're critics -- they
> > no longer matter because not even church authority or Mormon history
> > matter. Mormon experience is ahistorical, primarily cultural, and
> > under threat from critics no more than its doctrinal countours are
> > determined by authority.
>
> Spot on.
>
> Extrapolating on that theme, do you think apologetic groups will face
> the same eventual irrelevance as ARM?
I don't know. I think they'll evolve. How they interact with
outsiders, I'd suppose, will change.
Tough prognostication. I'm out of the loop and don't intend to go back
in for the foreseeable future.
> I can think of no other religion that makes money a *requirement* for
> participating in core family activities related to the religion.
>
> Can you?
You've often raised points of interest regarding Mormonism which your
own history peculiarly suits you to address. That's some valuable
insight. I'm more philosophical about it all.
But "follow the money" is always a great approach to understanding any
organization, yes.
The requirements for accessing key privileges -- some of them
putatively eternal -- in Mormonism are not unlike the indulgences of
old. It's selling salvation, and promising family togetherness
forever. Based on scores of threads concerned with the insanity of
that whole mess, I'd say it would be an utter scam if it were not that
I think the leadership actually believes this stuff.
Sure would like to know what's in that safe in the president's
office. ;-)
> Some Mormons, yes. But the church and it's members still react
> vociferously towards critics, with libel and slander to spare. While
> the threat may be diminishing, there are still people who will leave
> the church if you can prove it's false.
Is the noise at ARM worth wading through, any more?
> The Mormon Church is obsessed with its public image, and critics are a
> perpetual thorn in their side -- even if the threat to true believing
> members is diminished with blinders of faith.
Yes.
Many well-said things.
Happy New Year to you and others here!
- S
�R.L.Measures
<3bff2a2f-e756-4ed9...@o28g2000yqh.googlegroups.com>,
rasqual <sc...@marquardts.org> wrote:
> R.L.Measures wrote:
> > There are currently few discussions here about the history of the LdS
> > Church. Are we seeing the end?
>
> In October 1999 I posted at SRM: "I'm becoming more and more
> convinced that s.r.m. is moribund."
** I realized fairly early on that it was a mutual admiration society.
>
> In Nov. 2008, Craig Olson and I had a couple exchanges concerning
> SRM's fate.
>
> Since then, SRM has completely and literally died.
>
> The death curve took a while: http://marquardts.org/images/SRM_posts.jpg
>
> It seems to me that ARM has died in this way as well; it exists as a
> dumping ground for nonsense mainly because it's not moderated so it
> can't die more than a thematic death.
** IMO it's not dead yet, but it has a weak pulse. It seems to me that
the backslide started when politics diverted the attention of one of the
key antagonists of the one true church, John Manning.
>
> Doubtless this is partly due to the rise of web forums; usenet itself
> is the moribund backwater of early Internet adopters. There's no lack
> of activity in various web forums concerned with Mormonism and its
> history. Personally, I've lamented usenet's inevitable doom for years;
> it would have been good for a Usenet 2.0 to have been developed. As it
> turns out, some ideas I had for that have been implemented -- though
> badly, so far -- in Google Wave. IMO, for many years we'll still have
> inadequate indexing of web forums. For my part, I hope that serious
> interoperability and metadata standards will emerge.
>
> Whatever.
** whatever happens, discussion groups should not be moderated (censored)
because in my experiences the majority of censors want the job because
they either have a hidden agenda to protect someone or something from
legitimate criticism, or they get off on bossing others around. .
�R.L.Measures
<0cbf38a1-8ec0-410a...@v25g2000yqk.googlegroups.com>,
Duwaynea Anderson <duwayne...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Dec 30, 10:13=A0am, rasqual <sc...@marquardts.org> wrote:
> > R.L.Measures wrote:
> > > There are currently few discussions here about the history of the LdS
> > > Church. Are we seeing the end?
> >
> > In October 1999 I posted at SRM: =A0"I'm becoming more and more
> > convinced that s.r.m. is moribund."
> >
> > In Nov. 2008, Craig Olson and I had a couple exchanges concerning
> > SRM's fate.
> >
> > Since then, SRM has completely and literally died.
> >
> > The death curve took a while:http://marquardts.org/images/SRM_posts.jpg
> >
> > It seems to me that ARM has died in this way as well; it exists as a
> > dumping ground for nonsense mainly because it's not moderated so it
> > can't die more than a thematic death.
>
> With regard to SRM, I think moderation was part of the reason it died;...
** Amen to that Duwayne.
Duwaynea Anderson
---
> Is the noise at ARM worth wading through, any more?
I understand there are filters. I don't use them (don't know how,
have no interest in learning how), but I understand others use them.
Personally I find it rather easy to filter out the noise. Some people
just don't write anything worth reading. Others (you, Retro Prophet,
Bret, John Manning and even Sully and Gerald) can actually make
interesting conversation. Bret and Retro are particularly valuable
for their insight and new sources of information.
>
> > The Mormon Church is obsessed with its public image, and critics are a
> > perpetual thorn in their side -- even if the threat to true believing
> > members is diminished with blinders of faith.
>
> Yes.
>
> Many well-said things.
>
> Happy New Year to you and others here!
You too.
A year ago I posted my prophecies for 2009. I'm going to re-post them
today -- see how I did.
>
> - S
rasqual
> ** whatever happens, discussion groups should not be moderated (censored)
> because in my experiences the majority of censors want the job because
> they either have a hidden agenda to protect someone or something from
> legitimate criticism, or they get off on bossing others around. .
I agree with you in general about moderation. But you and I will have
to continue agreeing to disagree about whether, in the instance of
SRM, moderation significantly hampered critics. It hampered me rarely,
and I don't think anyone's going to claim I was a milquetoast critic
in SRM's heyday.
One thing I haven't seen acknowledged here at ARM -- where complaints
of SRM moderation have generally issued from critics -- is the extent
to which moderation frustrated even LDS at SRM. There was a long
period where the moderators were sincerely trying to just keep things
civil. Sure, they'd go overboard at times -- but during that golden
era I saw no evidence of suppression of critical posts, and LDS
"suffered" as much as anyone else.
Looking back over a few threads, I'm impressed with how well the forum
worked for distilling truth from an accounting of facts via reasonable
discourse. That works well at ARM too -- or used to before noise drove
off, I'd suppose, folks more willing to engage the signal. Some folks
just have a low tolerance for noise, and to the extent that ARM has
been politicized, I suspect a good number of otherwise valuable
interlocutors are just going to roll their eyes and move along.
Americans, especially, are often weary of polarization of late.
But yeah, the other thing -- how does anyone even discover usenet
nowadays? There's just so much other chum in the water...
Duwaynea Anderson
I recall the debates about starting the SRM moderated group (mid 90's,
I think). The justification for forming the group was *all* about the
temple ordinances. I don't recall any discussions about anything
else. When did "civil" become a requirement for posting?
Everyone knows that Mormons don't consider it "civil" to come right
out and say the religion is a fraud, that Smith was a con man, and
that the Book of Mormon is pure fantasy. It seems that a requirement
for some nebulous characteristic like "civil" leaves the door wide
open to virtually any sort of censorship -- even if it never happened.
Bret Ripley
> On Dec 31, 7:38 am, rasqual <scott.marqua...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Dec 31, 6:57 am, r...@somis.org (•R.L.Measures) wrote:
>>
>>> ** whatever happens, discussion groups should not be moderated (censored)
>>> because in my experiences the majority of censors want the job because
>>> they either have a hidden agenda to protect someone or something from
>>> legitimate criticism, or they get off on bossing others around. .
>>
>> I agree with you in general about moderation. But you and I will have
>> to continue agreeing to disagree about whether, in the instance of
>> SRM, moderation significantly hampered critics. It hampered me rarely,
>> and I don't think anyone's going to claim I was a milquetoast critic
>> in SRM's heyday.
>>
>> One thing I haven't seen acknowledged here at ARM -- where complaints
>> of SRM moderation have generally issued from critics -- is the extent
>> to which moderation frustrated even LDS at SRM.
I'm glad Scott brought this up. SRM's charter required that at least one
moderator be non-LDS, and it sometimes had more than one. During my stint
as a moderator (which in a technical sense may include the present since I
still have access to the server), more rejected messages were from LDS
posters than from critics. This should be expected, perhaps, since most
submissions came from LDS posters in the first place. It should be noted
that relatively few posts were rejected for being discourteous: by far the
most common reasons for rejection were "off-topic" and "over-quoting".
Actually, there is a folder on the server that still stores the rejected
messages from early November 2008 up to the point where the moderation
software lost contact with the mail server in early February 2009. I did a
quick tally, and there were a total of 28 rejected messages during this
period. I will not violate anyone's privacy, but I will note that of these
28 rejected messages, 12 were from posters I recognize as LDS, 9 were
clearly from non-LDS posters, 4 were from posters I don't recognize (and
can't tell from the content whether they are LDS or not), and 3 were
cross-posted non-LDS spam-type stuff.
For these 28 messages, the reasons for rejection break down like this:
Excessive quotation: 10 (5 LDS, 5 non-LDS)
Off-topic: 7 (3 non-LDS posters, 2 LDS, 2 unknown)
No context: 5 (3 unknown, 1 LDS, 1 non-LDS)
Crossposted: 3 (3 non-LDS)
Duplicate message: 2 (2 LDS)
Disallowed topic: 1 (LDS)
Inconsistent formatting: 1 (non-LDS)
Obscene or vulgar language: 1 (non-LDS)
The numbers add up to more than 28 because sometimes more than one reason
for rejection was indicated.
It's a relatively small sample size, but maybe a little interesting
nonetheless.
FWIW: the hate mail came from both sides, and in roughly equal measures.
>> There was a long
>> period where the moderators were sincerely trying to just keep things
>> civil. Sure, they'd go overboard at times -- but during that golden
>> era I saw no evidence of suppression of critical posts, and LDS
>> "suffered" as much as anyone else.
>>
>> Looking back over a few threads, I'm impressed with how well the forum
>> worked for distilling truth from an accounting of facts via reasonable
>> discourse. That works well at ARM too -- or used to before noise drove
>> off, I'd suppose, folks more willing to engage the signal. Some folks
>> just have a low tolerance for noise, and to the extent that ARM has
>> been politicized, I suspect a good number of otherwise valuable
>> interlocutors are just going to roll their eyes and move along.
>> Americans, especially, are often weary of polarization of late.
>>
>> But yeah, the other thing -- how does anyone even discover usenet
>> nowadays? There's just so much other chum in the water...
>
> I recall the debates about starting the SRM moderated group (mid 90's,
> I think). The justification for forming the group was *all* about the
> temple ordinances. I don't recall any discussions about anything
> else. When did "civil" become a requirement for posting?
Good question. I wasn't around in the mid-1990s and I don't know the
answer. Somehow, it made it into SRM's charter:
http://www.olsonhome.com/srm/charter.html
> Everyone knows that Mormons don't consider it "civil" to come right
> out and say the religion is a fraud, that Smith was a con man, and
> that the Book of Mormon is pure fantasy. It seems that a requirement
> for some nebulous characteristic like "civil" leaves the door wide
> open to virtually any sort of censorship -- even if it never happened.
I kind of agree with you, here. There is indeed a fair amount of ambiguity
built into SRM's charter, and the opportunity for censorship does in theory
exist. Following normal moderator protocol for rejecting messages, it would
require at least 2 moderators working together to pull off some sort of
organized censorship. For the record: I did not see anything like this.
Moderation by committee can be a messy and cumbersome business, and even
when conscientiously applied it is bound to piss some folks off. I never
cared for (and still don't care for) posting to moderated groups, so it was
a weird but quite educational experience to see things from the other side.
Bret
Duwaynea Anderson
I know Mormons that think the underwear section in the Sears catalog
is pornography and that punctuating your sentences with "bitch,"
"damn," "hell," or "shit" is obscene.
I know other people that think the Book of Mormon's depiction of Nephi
beheading Laban is obscene.
Somehow I think "shit" was more likely to be censored on SRM than
those obscene Book of Mormon verses.
The point being that "obscene" and "vulgar" language is a certain
point of view.
Personally I find it "obscene" when people pray to a dead guy in the
name of a holy ghost. Obscenely stupid, that is.
But again, I don't think that's the sort of "Obscene" language that
the moderators were intent on deleting. I really do find it curious
that so many people (Mormons, especially) get offended more by words
than by obscene ideas. Every Mormon I know will look at you in shock
if you say "fuck" but during the entire decade of the 60's I never
heard a single Mormon object to burning kids alive with napalm. In
fact they all seemed pretty okay with that -- they voted for Nixon en
mass and thought the criminals were the ones trying to get him
impeached.
Anyway, any organization/society that decides to censor on the basis
of "obscenity" is bound to abuse censorship.
Do you know I was once kicked out (actually asked to leave) the Gospel
Doctrine class? The teacher (a very uptight woman) was explaining
that we need to kick all the "homosexuals" out of public schools;
fire any teacher that was gay. Here reasoning was that gay teachers
will teach our kids to be gay. Well, I raised my hand and commented
that a person can't be tempted to do something unless some part of
them wants to; they have to be conflicted. I said that I could never
be tempted to be gay because no part of me (not even an ensi weensi
teeny tiny part) want to do that. So, I said, she was implying that
her kids were gay -- since she said that they could be tempted by the
gay lifestyle. And I insinuated that she might be gay, too.
Well, the shit hit the fan (ooh, was I vulgar just there?) and she
asked me to leave "her" class. The bishop had a go at me too. He
thought I was very vulgar and disrespectful.
That's how it goes in the Mormon Church -- censorship has completely
run amok. They'd love to censor society, too. Hopefully society will
know better than to buy off on the arguments people make about the
need for censorship.
When I was censored (1997) I think (can't be sure) it was just one
moderator. Here's a link to a post I wrote, describing the
situation.
There's lots of interesting commentary in the thread, including posts
from the "moderator" that did the censoring.
I just wrote SRM off after that experience. It's difficult enough to
get your point across (what with all the distortions and
misrepresentations that take place) without having to worry about
offending some damned moderator (oh, shit, there I go being vulgar
again -- good thing this isn't SRM or you'd never know what I just
said).
> For the record: I did not see anything like this.
>
> Moderation by committee can be a messy and cumbersome business, and even
> when conscientiously applied it is bound to piss some folks off.
Initially the reasons that people give for censorship seem simple and
reasonable, but it seems that as soon as this camel sticks his nose
under the tent he just can't be satisfied until he's all the way in.
At the start Mormons said they needed a moderated newsgroup so they
wouldn't be offended by seeing postings of the temple rituals
(apparently after they start reading a post they can't stop, and have
to read -- and be offended by -- the whole damned thing. Oh, hell,
there I go being vulgar again). Then, somewhere along the way,
someone decided that calling Joseph Smith "clueless" about relativity
was good enough reason to censor a post, too.
I think our founding fathers understood the insidious creeping nature
of censorship, and that's why they put freedom of speech into the
Constitution. We ought to keep it in usenet, too.
Anyway -- my $0.02 worth.
> I never
> cared for (and still don't care for) posting to moderated groups, so it was
> a weird but quite educational experience to see things from the other side.
Here's a thought.
Whenever there's a moderated newsgroup there could be a mirror site
where the rejected posts are put. That way the folks that only wanted
to read the censored stuff could be assured their delicate
sensibilities were not going to be offended, and the rest of us could
see what the moderators were throwing out with the trash.
What do you think?
>
> Bret
rasqual
> Moderation by committee can be a messy and cumbersome business, and even
> when conscientiously applied it is bound to piss some folks off. I never
> cared for (and still don't care for) posting to moderated groups, so it was
> a weird but quite educational experience to see things from the other side.
My hopes for the group were pretty much realized: serious, creative,
reasonable, and sometimes-unprecedented criticisms of Mormonism (read:
stuff not on Mormon apologists' radar screens) were aired and
frequently went unanswered. Also, Mormon misunderstandings of
mainstream Christendom were aired and answered consistently. The
extent to which Mormonism has consistently and historically
misunderstood orthodox theology is an important part of critiquing it,
from an orthodox Christian perspective, because the putative need of
restoration rested on Smith's -- and his followers' -- utter confusion
on numerous matters.
On other fronts, Fanny Alger and other of Smith's forays were
salaciously covered at SRM. A huge number of historical conversations
leaving Smith looking like a royal asshole didn't get filtered by
moderation. Even the temple ceremony itself was covered obliquely in
strikingly damaging ways to Mormon credibility.
Ah, those were the days. ;-)
Bret Ripley
<snip>
> I know Mormons that think the underwear section in the Sears catalog
> is pornography and that punctuating your sentences with "bitch,"
> "damn," "hell," or "shit" is obscene.
>
> I know other people that think the Book of Mormon's depiction of Nephi
> beheading Laban is obscene.
>
> Somehow I think "shit" was more likely to be censored on SRM than
> those obscene Book of Mormon verses.
>
> The point being that "obscene" and "vulgar" language is a certain
> point of view.
>
> Personally I find it "obscene" when people pray to a dead guy in the
> name of a holy ghost. Obscenely stupid, that is.
>
> But again, I don't think that's the sort of "Obscene" language that
> the moderators were intent on deleting. I really do find it curious
> that so many people (Mormons, especially) get offended more by words
> than by obscene ideas. Every Mormon I know will look at you in shock
> if you say "fuck" but during the entire decade of the 60's I never
> heard a single Mormon object to burning kids alive with napalm. In
> fact they all seemed pretty okay with that -- they voted for Nixon en
> mass and thought the criminals were the ones trying to get him
> impeached.
I think it's part of American culture that gets distilled into the very
religious. For example, there are several words and a few body parts that
would send people into conniptions if heard/seen on "regular" TV or radio,
but depictions of kidnappings, murder, and rape are A-OK.
There was a preacher named Tony Campolo who made a bit of a stir when he
announced: "I have three things I'd like to say today. First, while you
were sleeping last night, 30,000 kids died of starvation or diseases
related to malnutrition. Second, most of you don't give a shit. What's
worse is that you're more upset with the fact that I said shit than the
fact that 30,000 kids died last night."
> Anyway, any organization/society that decides to censor on the basis
> of "obscenity" is bound to abuse censorship.
>
> Do you know I was once kicked out (actually asked to leave) the Gospel
> Doctrine class?
Actually, I have no problem at all believing that. ;)
It looks like it was probably 1997 from the link you provided. In a message
dated March 6, 1997, Peggy (RIP) indicated that a slightly revised version
of your post was accepted "today".
> it was just one
> moderator. Here's a link to a post I wrote, describing the
> situation.
>
> http://groups.google.com/group/alt.religion.mormon/tree/browse_frm/thread/a50b5ac9441032d4/acdb8273fa76471d?rnum=1&q=Joseph+Smith+clueless+about+relativity&_done=%2Fgroup%2Falt.religion.mormon%2Fbrowse_frm%2Fthread%2Fa50b5ac9441032d4%2Facdb8273fa76471d%3Fq%3DJoseph%2BSmith%2Bclueless%2Babout%2Brelativity%26#doc_acdb8273fa76471d
>
> There's lots of interesting commentary in the thread, including posts
> from the "moderator" that did the censoring.
>
> I just wrote SRM off after that experience. It's difficult enough to
> get your point across (what with all the distortions and
> misrepresentations that take place) without having to worry about
> offending some damned moderator (oh, shit, there I go being vulgar
> again -- good thing this isn't SRM or you'd never know what I just
> said).
One of the reasons I stopped posting to SRM several years ago was that I
grew impatient with the moderation process. Part of it was simply
impatience at waiting for messages to appear, another part was the
frustration of having messages rejected. I preferred the free-for-all of
ARM.
>> For the record: I did not see anything like this.
>>
>> Moderation by committee can be a messy and cumbersome business, and even
>> when conscientiously applied it is bound to piss some folks off.
>
> Initially the reasons that people give for censorship seem simple and
> reasonable, but it seems that as soon as this camel sticks his nose
> under the tent he just can't be satisfied until he's all the way in.
>
> At the start Mormons said they needed a moderated newsgroup so they
> wouldn't be offended by seeing postings of the temple rituals
> (apparently after they start reading a post they can't stop, and have
> to read -- and be offended by -- the whole damned thing. Oh, hell,
> there I go being vulgar again). Then, somewhere along the way,
> someone decided that calling Joseph Smith "clueless" about relativity
> was good enough reason to censor a post, too.
It's not for me, but I don't have a problem with some folks who prefer to
post in a moderated environment as long as there are always unmoderated
alternatives.
Now that I think about it, there is one moderated group I sometimes read
that I sometimes wish had more stringent moderation policies: talk.origins.
Way too much stuff there to keep up with!
> I think our founding fathers understood the insidious creeping nature
> of censorship, and that's why they put freedom of speech into the
> Constitution. We ought to keep it in usenet, too.
>
> Anyway -- my $0.02 worth.
Appreciated, as usual.
I would hate it if most or all of usenet was moderated, but I can
understand why some folks would prefer that some filtering take place. But
all things considered, I prefer to do my own filtering.
>> I never
>> cared for (and still don't care for) posting to moderated groups, so it was
>> a weird but quite educational experience to see things from the other side.
>
> Here's a thought.
>
> Whenever there's a moderated newsgroup there could be a mirror site
> where the rejected posts are put. That way the folks that only wanted
> to read the censored stuff could be assured their delicate
> sensibilities were not going to be offended, and the rest of us could
> see what the moderators were throwing out with the trash.
>
> What do you think?
I would have no problems with that (heck, I'd be fine with no moderated
groups in the first place). As it is, folks can and did post their rejected
stuff to other groups as you did in the link you provided earlier. Most of
the stuff that I saw get rejected from SRM wasn't nearly as interesting as
yours, but I think there is real value in the sort of transparency you
propose.
Bret
�R.L.Measures
<fc3d1579-5b56-48a0...@c3g2000yqd.googlegroups.com>,
rasqual <scott.m...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Dec 31, 6:57=A0am, r...@somis.org (=95R.L.Measures) wrote:
>
> > ** =A0whatever happens, discussion groups should not be moderated (censor=
> ed)
> > because in my experiences the majority of censors want the job because
> > they either have a hidden agenda to protect someone or something from
> > legitimate criticism, or they get off on bossing others around. .
>
> I agree with you in general about moderation. But you and I will have
> to continue agreeing to disagree about whether, in the instance of
> SRM, moderation significantly hampered critics. It hampered me rarely,
> and I don't think anyone's going to claim I was a milquetoast critic
> in SRM's heyday.
>
> One thing I haven't seen acknowledged here at ARM -- where complaints
> of SRM moderation have generally issued from critics -- is the extent
> to which moderation frustrated even LDS at SRM. There was a long
> period where the moderators were sincerely trying to just keep things
> civil. Sure, they'd go overboard at times -- but during that golden
> era I saw no evidence of suppression of critical posts, and LDS
> "suffered" as much as anyone else.
>
> Looking back over a few threads, I'm impressed with how well the forum
> worked for distilling truth from an accounting of facts via reasonable
> discourse.
** So why did it lay an egg?
>That works well at ARM too -- or used to before noise drove
> off, I'd suppose, folks more willing to engage the signal. Some folks
> just have a low tolerance for noise, and to the extent that ARM has
> been politicized, I suspect a good number of otherwise valuable
> interlocutors are just going to roll their eyes and move along.
> Americans, especially, are often weary of polarization of late.
>
** good point. I wonder if any TBMs fanned the fires of politization of
ARM to hopefully divert attention from Smith's one true church? OTOH, up
until his thoroughly nauseating Smith/abortion post. Manning was clearly
part of the politicization problem, although we could be running out of
material on Smith.
> But yeah, the other thing -- how does anyone even discover usenet
> nowadays? There's just so much other chum in the water...
** true Scott, but much of the chum has a string attatched in that it is
based on being allowed to comment and playing the mother may I game.
Facebook is a prime example since I see posts by people I know that are
clearly untruthful, but my hands are tied. OTOH, unmoderated Usenet is
totally open hardball. My take is that unmoderated Usenet precipitated
the arrival of the RCC's $2,100,000,000 Altar-boy Scandal of 2002.
cheers
�R.L.Measures
<61cea072-8ae3-45ab...@u41g2000yqe.googlegroups.com>,
rasqual <scott.m...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Dec 31, 3:05=A0pm, Bret Ripley <rip...@gotsky.com> wrote:
>
> > Moderation by committee can be a messy and cumbersome business, and even
> > when conscientiously applied it is bound to piss some folks off. I never
> > cared for (and still don't care for) posting to moderated groups, so it w=
> as
> > a weird but quite educational experience to see things from the other sid=
> e.
>
> My hopes for the group were pretty much realized: serious, creative,
> reasonable, and sometimes-unprecedented criticisms of Mormonism (read:
> stuff not on Mormon apologists' radar screens) were aired and
> frequently went unanswered. Also, Mormon misunderstandings of
> mainstream Christendom were aired and answered consistently. The
> extent to which Mormonism has consistently and historically
> misunderstood orthodox theology is an important part of critiquing it,
> from an orthodox Christian perspective, because the putative need of
> restoration rested on Smith's -- and his followers' -- utter confusion
> on numerous matters.
>
> On other fronts, Fanny Alger
** her name was Fannie ,and Emma saw Joseph pluged into Fannie's fanny.
rasqual
> On Thu, 31 Dec 2009 13:52:34 -0800 (PST), Duwaynea Anderson wrote:
> > At the start Mormons said they needed a moderated newsgroup so they
> > wouldn't be offended by seeing postings of the temple rituals
I'm going to have to differ with this characterization. This wasn't
the reason the group was formed, as far as I can tell.
http://groups.google.com/group/news.groups/browse_frm/thread/7e16ab5756946e9c/4c25e129d421ac0e
There's a difference between having the ceremony be off-limits as a
stipulation, and having it off limits as a raison d'etre.
> It's not for me, but I don't have a problem with some folks who prefer to
> post in a moderated environment as long as there are always unmoderated
> alternatives.
> > I think our founding fathers understood the insidious creeping nature
> > of censorship, and that's why they put freedom of speech into the
> > Constitution. We ought to keep it in usenet, too.
> > Whenever there's a moderated newsgroup there could be a mirror site
> > where the rejected posts are put.
Hashed out in a major way before group creation.
For me, gents, while valuable people were off getting indignant about
censorship, some of the rest of us figured that being civil was a
small price to pay to ensure that the moderated environment had a
serious critic presence. The absence of great critics on grounds of
offense taken with moderation was a lot like saying "I won't vote
because they won't let me do cartwheels and handsprings in the polling
place." What's essential? What's accidental? "I can't cuss!" Well
that's a dandy concern if the principal objective is to be a
libertarian in everything you do.
Question for Duwayne: did you cuss in your book? What was the
essential purpose of the book, and would cussing be an important
prerogative to preserve in order to achieve that purpose, or
contribute to it? I'd think not.
For me, purist arguments about censorship are very far down below my
more important concern, which left me free to participate vigorously
with very little frustration: the instrumental importance of not
letting SRM be a critic-free zone. One other thing: participating in a
moderated environment involved engaging with people who never did
participate at ARM. These were folks who never would have engaged
critics had participation by critics at SRM succumbed to a purist
libertarian boycott, or had no such moderated forum existed to attract
their own participation. Some of these folks proved valuable
interlocutors -- valuable, as this critic uses the word, in the sense
that they gave Mormon ideas a good representation and faithfully tried
to defend them. That these defenses frequently fell to the dust in the
moderated forum was a mark of success from the critics point of view.
Analogy: libertarians generally loathe "protest zones" at
controversial events (WTO conferences and so forth). But what if they
were invited into the very venue, to converse at will with all the
core participants, on just one condition: be civil and don't talk
about the hazing ritual conducted by Harvard economists? What would we
make of a protester with a history of hollering about being denied
access if he were to refuse the invitation on the grounds that he
should be allowed to cuss and raise a stir? We'd begin to question the
sincerity of his engagement.
The analogy doesn't hold on that last point with you, Duwayne, of
course, because your sincerity is obvious. But what you're hearing now
is the perspective of someone who often wished that despite the
presence of several capable critics, well, I often wished SRM would
have been better populated by same. What frustrated me was, to my
mind, the picayune libertarian purist idealism that resulted in SRM
being less influenced by valuable critics than it could have been.
In this case, it wasn't so much that misery would have preferred
company as that the joy of critical engagement would have liked to see
it escalate to a civil feeding frenzy. ;-)
Best to ye, gents.
Duwaynea Anderson
> On Dec 31 2009, 5:10 pm, Bret Ripley <rip...@gotsky.com> wrote:
>
---
> > On Thu, 31 Dec 2009 13:52:34 -0800 (PST), Duwaynea Anderson wrote:
> > > At the start Mormons said they needed a moderated newsgroup so they
> > > wouldn't be offended by seeing postings of the temple rituals
>
> I'm going to have to differ with this characterization. This wasn't
> the reason the group was formed, as far as I can tell.
>
> http://groups.google.com/group/news.groups/browse_frm/thread/7e16ab57...
Thanks for providing that link. From the link:
[P3] Inappropriate topics:
Topics unrelated to mormonism and/or restoration theology.
Issues of only regional interest. For example, the impact of
LDS voters on Utah politics does involve the church, but is
not of interest to Usenet readers worldwide.
Posts containing significant quotations from, or other
detailed discussion of LDS temple ceremonies. Such
postings are an egregious violation of LDS beliefs, and will
be seen as inherently disrespectful by significant portions
of the target audience, thus destroying the atmosphere of
open, considerate discussion which is the goal of this forum
> There's a difference between having the ceremony be off-limits as a
> stipulation, and having it off limits as a raison d'etre.
There were three reasons. The first two were non issues. In fact, I
wouldn't even consider them "censorship" at all since every group has
a charter that describes the subject matter at hand.
That leaves reason #3 glaring as the only one that limited discussion
of the topic at hand. SRM was a group about Mormonism with a
stipulation that one particular aspect of Mormonism couldn't be
discussed. Worse, this particular aspect of Mormonism is arguably the
*most* important part of Mormonism.
Imagine having a group called alt.religion.gravity where it's against
the rules to discuss the motion of falling objects.
As I said, the Mormons claimed they needed a moderated newsgroup so
they wouldn't be offended by seeing postings of the temple rituals.
And the SRM guidelines said that posting the temple ceremony is "an
egregious violation of LDS beliefs and will be seen as inherently
disrespectful by significant portions of the target audience ..."
So it seems that I correctly described the situation after all.
> > It's not for me, but I don't have a problem with some folks who prefer to
> > post in a moderated environment as long as there are always unmoderated
> > alternatives.
> > > I think our founding fathers understood the insidious creeping nature
> > > of censorship, and that's why they put freedom of speech into the
> > > Constitution. We ought to keep it in usenet, too.
> > > Whenever there's a moderated newsgroup there could be a mirror site
> > > where the rejected posts are put.
>
> Hashed out in a major way before group creation.
>
----
> For me, gents, while valuable people were off getting indignant about
> censorship,
You say that as if being indignant about censorship is a bad thing.
> some of the rest of us figured that being civil was a
> small price to pay to ensure that the moderated environment had a
> serious critic presence.
You say that as if calling Joseph Smith "clueless about relativity"
isn't being "civil."
Mormons tend to be self righteous and self absorbed. They see nothing
wrong when they characterize atheists as evil, or the servants of the
devil. They didn't think they were lacking civility when they
portrayed a Protestant minister as the servant of the Devil in their
temple ceremony. Nor do they think they did anything uncivil when
they tore apart Gay marriages, or when they tell a non-Mormon fathers
he is not "worthy" to see his daughter married in the temple.
In short, Mormons *never* see themselves as uncivil. No matter what
horrible things they say and do to other people.
But when it comes to what others say/do to Mormons there are
hypersensitive. In fact they are *so* hypersensitive that if you
criticize the horrible things they do to other people the Mormons will
say you are persecuting *them.*
> The absence of great critics on grounds of
> offense taken with moderation was a lot like saying "I won't vote
> because they won't let me do cartwheels and handsprings in the polling
> place." What's essential? What's accidental? "I can't cuss!" Well
> that's a dandy concern if the principal objective is to be a
> libertarian in everything you do.
SRM is not so great that one can claim the critic were absent simply
because they were not on SRM.
The world is far greater than SRM, or ARM for that matter.
> Question for Duwayne: did you cuss in your book?
I honestly don't remember.
> What was the
> essential purpose of the book,
To make it a little less difficult for Mormon apologists to lie about
the conflicts between Mormonism and science.
> and would cussing be an important
> prerogative to preserve in order to achieve that purpose, or
> contribute to it? I'd think not.
You are certainly entitled to your opinion. But I fail to see the
relevance of any of that to the topic of censorship.
> For me, purist arguments about censorship are very far down below my
> more important concern,
Thankfully "purist arguments about censorship" held a more elevated
status among the founding fathers of our country.
>which left me free to participate vigorously
> with very little frustration:
Really? How many discussions on SRM compared specific details of the
LDS temple ceremony with the Masonic ceremonies?
> the instrumental importance of not
> letting SRM be a critic-free zone. One other thing: participating in a
> moderated environment involved engaging with people who never did
> participate at ARM. These were folks who never would have engaged
> critics had participation by critics at SRM succumbed to a purist
> libertarian boycott, or had no such moderated forum existed to attract
> their own participation. Some of these folks proved valuable
> interlocutors -- valuable, as this critic uses the word, in the sense
> that they gave Mormon ideas a good representation and faithfully tried
> to defend them. That these defenses frequently fell to the dust in the
> moderated forum was a mark of success from the critics point of view.
>
> Analogy: libertarians generally loathe "protest zones" at
> controversial events (WTO conferences and so forth). But what if they
> were invited into the very venue, to converse at will with all the
> core participants, on just one condition: be civil and don't talk
> about the hazing ritual conducted by Harvard economists?
As I said above, Mormons will consider any disagreement with their
religion "uncivil." Look at the way the Mormons trash their critics.
Look what they did to Simon Southerton and other scientists that dared
be so disrespectful as to say the Book of Mormon isn't an authentic
book of ancient America.
The problem lies in the word "civil" and the Mormon mindset that they
are the only true church and god's chosen people. From their point of
view any criticism of the chosen people and the only true church is
ipso facto uncivil.
They will start out saying they only want you to be civil enough to
not discuss the temple ceremony and end up telling you that
suggestions that Smith was a con man are disrespectful and uncivil.
> What would we
> make of a protester with a history of hollering about being denied
> access if he were to refuse the invitation on the grounds that he
> should be allowed to cuss
Just to clarify -- my post wasn't rejected for "cussing," but for
claiming a 19th century prophet was clueless about relativity.
Not that cussing is a bad thing. Dropping napalm on kids and burning
them alive is a bad thing -- and Mormons voted en mass to elect a
President that did just that. But there's nothing wrong with cuss
words.
> and raise a stir?
You say that as if raising a stir is a bad thing.
What's that saying? Oh, yeah. "Well behaved women seldom made
history." You could similarly say "Well behaved men seldom made
history." I can't think of a single person that influence history
(for better or worse) that didn't "raise a stir."
I wouldn't be so presumptuous as to say I've changed history. I doubt
very much that anyone will recognize my name 50 years after I'm dead.
Still, just the same, I don't think I want to live my life afraid of
"raising a stir."
> We'd begin to question the
> sincerity of his engagement.
You might. But you and I obviously see the issue of censorship
differently.
> The analogy doesn't hold on that last point with you, Duwayne, of
> course, because your sincerity is obvious.
Thanks --
> But what you're hearing now
> is the perspective of someone who often wished that despite the
> presence of several capable critics, well, I often wished SRM would
> have been better populated by same. What frustrated me was, to my
> mind, the picayune libertarian purist idealism that resulted in SRM
> being less influenced by valuable critics than it could have been.
>
> In this case, it wasn't so much that misery would have preferred
> company as that the joy of critical engagement would have liked to see
> it escalate to a civil feeding frenzy. ;-)
Nobody likes critical engagement more than I do -- the problem with
SRM was that the moderators were an obstacle to critical engagement;
at least that's my POV.
>
> Best to ye, gents.
And to you.
Just James
> There are currently few discussions here about the history of the LdS
> Church. Are we seeing the end?
>
Its the mode of delivery. Newgroups are quickly loosing ground to
social networks. Also, I'm pretty sure most people understand religion
is a myth, but are too afraid to acknowledge it.
--
Just James
"Not everyone requires a rational explanation before they can believe
something. It's called faith." ~ Zootal (ARM 10/20/2009)
Priceless
Just James
> On Sat, 26 Dec 2009 03:37:18 -0800, r...@somis.org (�R.L.Measures) wrote:
>
>> There are currently few discussions here about the history of the LdS
>> Church. Are we seeing the end?
>
> thought this group was about discussing beliefs of LDS vs. other
> churches because there is no shortages of fools who think they have
> the right to do damage if they can.
>
>
Churches are their own worst enemies.
Just James
> On Dec 28, 8:27 pm, sully <s...@slac.stanford.edu> wrote:
>> On Dec 28, 9:03 am, Duwaynea Anderson <duwayneander...@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>> On Dec 28, 8:53 am, Gerald Bostock <gbost...@excite.com> wrote:> On Dec 26, 4:37 am, r...@somis.org (�R.L.Measures) wrote:
>>>>> There are currently few discussions here about the history of the LdS
>>>>> Church. Are we seeing the end?
>>>>> R.L. Measures. 805-386-3734,www.somis.org
>>>> Usenet in general is in huge decline in favor of blogs. Some people
>>>> just can't cope with unmoderated discussion. A lot of ISPs refuse to
>>>> provide and support usenet servers.
>>> ----
>>>> I'd also speculate that people like Kerry Shirts, Russ McGregor,
>>>> Charles Dowis and Woody Brison just got worn down.
>>> Defending the wrong point of an argument can do that to a person.
>>>> If they didn't lose
>>>> their testimony, the mental upkeep probably just got to be too much.
>
> ----
>
>>> I doubt they have "testimonies." I don't think any educated, informed
>>> Mormons do.
>> That's a bit simplistic and unfair. I suspect you were very well
>> educated and informed when you were a Mormon, Duwayne.
>
> A degree in physics doesn't mean a person is "informed" about
> archeology and the fraudulent nature of the Book of Mormon, or the way
> the LDS Church lies about its history.
>
> Like many Mormons I was educated, but I wasn't informed. Like most
> members of the cult I trusted the prophet. I was content to learn
> what I knew about ancient America and church history from the cult's
> academic spokes organizations, like FARMS and FAIR.
>
> When I began studying outside church-sanctioned venues my testimony
> melted like butter on a hot August day.
>
My wife's family won't even discuss the matter with me anymore, I think
for just that reason. The GAs warn about doubt so much because it is
easy to come by and hard to overcome. Once you start thinking, it just
does not take long. The main reason so many stay is the social
pressure, but I think that is the same with any major change. The pain
of leaving has to be less than the pain of staying.
Just James
> On Dec 26, 3:37 am, r...@somis.org (�R.L.Measures) wrote:
>> There are currently few discussions here about the history of the LdS
>> Church. Are we seeing the end?
>>
>> --
>> R.L. Measures. 805-386-3734,www.somis.org
>
>
> You have been on ARM for as long as I remember, and I've been here for
> many many years. I can't remember very many original contributions
> of yours, where you would begin a topic. Ironic that this would be
> one of the few.
>
> Usenet is dying, and I shall miss it if it does. The social
> networking sites are not very forgiving of strong opinions and a back
> and forth of the sort I appreciate on ARM.
>
> Even some of my more "social" usenet sites, I enjoy a harsh flame war
> that goes over badly on facebook, but fits in well there.
>
> My guess is that if we hang in there, the next gen of youngsters will
> rediscover usenet as some sort of "retro cool", then we'll be back in
> business.
>
> In the meantime, thanks for the question, Manning's response was
> really interesting. Abortion!!!
>
> regards
> Mike
Sorry for flaming you so much Mike! :-)
�R.L.Measures
<post_...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> �R.L.Measures wrote:
> > There are currently few discussions here about the history of the LdS
> > Church. Are we seeing the end?
> >
>
> Its the mode of delivery. Newgroups are quickly loosing ground to
> social networks. Also, I'm pretty sure most people understand religion
> is a myth, but are too afraid to acknowledge it.
� ___
<'}}><
R.L.M: In my opinion, Saul-Paul succeeded in fooling the Chistian
community,
EG: But what matters to God is the faithfulness Paul showed for Jesus
Christ. Paul was a student of one of my kinfolk, Gamaliel, who was a
cousin of Jesus Christ. Therefore, Paul had to struggle with his
thoughts about Jesus Christ being or not being a rightful heir to the
Throne of David. All of Jesus cousins were believers in the coming
Messiah that would inherit the Throne of David. However, the Latin
name Paul is first mentioned at the beginning of his gentile ministry,
and he was known in his early life as Saul. I believe that Saul was
deeply effected by martyrdom of Stephen, there is no doubt that Saul
saw a inner strength in Stephen which he found hard to understand. How
one can be wrong and have inner strength must have puzzled Saul as he
watch Stephen die. I don�t know of a story of Paul having fooled the
Christian community, perhaps you care to elaborate a little for me?
R.L.M: The LdS missionaries that used to come to my house knew
exceedingly little about the history of Joseph Smith, Junior.
EG: That doesn�t surprise me one bit, they are not perfect by any
means; we had to house one missionary who only went on a mission
because it was a change to get away, he fell out of grace, and was
caught sneaking out at night to visit his girlfriend. While the church
shun him, we as Christians could not turn him away, but gave him a
place to stay until he found an apartment.
R.L.M: Which LdS prophet has prophecied something that came true?
EG: The Prophet Joseph Smith prophesized about me, and I came true. He
gave a prophecy about "56" years, `even 56 years should wind up the
scene�, but it was misunderstood, because we only have third party
accounts of what was said. Nothing in his own hand writing I am told.
Now, the fact remains, that the Lord said the as the days of Noah so
shall the end be, and I like Noah were born on the "56" year, Noah
1056, and I was born on December 1956, now if you add 56 years to the
year I was born, you have December 2012, the same as the Mayan
calendar ends. Bingo!
R.L.M: The only source of destruction I see for the LdS church is
unmoderated discussion about the history of Joseph Smith, Jr. on the
Internet.
EG: That not going to happen, because in 2012 I�m going to surpass the
works of Joseph Smith, Jr.; and at my side with be Joseph Smith in the
flesh. Yes, on December 23, 2012 when the Mayan calendar ends, I will
have Joseph brought back to life, and then all calendars will come to
an end, for death will have been overcome. Didn�t you know this?
Joseph Smith birthday is December 23.
R.L.M: It went on under the table by LdS church liars n SLC until at
least 1906.
"I have many a time, in this stand, dared the world to produce as mean
devils as we can; we can beat them at anything. We have the greatest
and smoothest liars in the world, the cunningest and most adroit
thieves, and any other shade of character that you can mention."
--- Brigham Young
EG: I�m a bit confused, what do you mean, "under the table" - I don�t
get the meaning, do you mean that you had a drinking party with a
group of hypocrite members of the LdS church? If that is what you
mean it doesn�t surprise me one bit, even that Senator Orrin Hatch
goes out to dinner with a close friend in SLC who has never been a
member of the LDS; I know this because that man told me, he comes from
a rich family, and he in charge of his family�s Foundation which gives
away money each year. He also hang out at bars, and he would brag to
me that he grew up with the higher ups in the church, he went to
school, and people would be shock to know how human they were! I
guess, it not all white and black, there is going to be shades of
gray, until we chose to lay down our lukewarm ways for Christ.
R.L.M: I will be dead meat before that happens.
EG: Why? You�re not gay, I know that your not, so why should it
trouble you if this nation starts to allow plural marriages? Not that
I for it, but I don�t see why people can�t practice their religion,
and if God tells them it�s okay, why should anyone want to stop it?
But, if it has to do with taken women rights away, then I am not for
it, for everything must be according to freedom, not duress.
R.L.M: I've been to Utah and there is no such thing.
EG: Perhaps your right, I see you point, it would lead to conflicts
among the Mormons. They have a hard time accepting what they now have,
and they are not ready for a change. Funny, don�t you think? This
last election was all about "change", and the people voted yes for
change.
R.L.M: J. Smith, Jr. invented plural marriage to cover his
philandering ass.
EG: Okay, I�m perhaps the first to admit he had a weakness for women,
but he never live long enough to fight that urge, I think had he lived
one more year, he would have figure it out, that it was only a test
from God to see if you would make the right decision and ask God for
twins, instead of having plural marriages. But because he was too
happy to leave it as plural marriages, he never asked God if there was
another way to increase his family quickly, like having more than one
child at a time, twins.
R.L.M: I'm not into fiction.
EG: Then you should get ready for 2012, because it not fiction what
the scientists are dishing out about the coming solar flares. They
think that fresh water will become contaminated when the power grid
goes down because of X flares, leading to death of 90 percent of the
U.S. population within a year. And no telling how the oxygen supply
will be affected, man can only live four minutes without air. And that
is not coming from science fiction, but science fact. I wonder how
John who wrote The Revelation knew this would happen in the future?
--
R.L. Measures. 805-386-3734, www.somis.org
EG = Erick Gemmell
�R.L.Measures
<endt...@non.net> wrote:
> On Mon, 28 Dec 2009 14:08:48 -0800, r...@somis.org (�R.L.Measures) wrote:
>
> R.L.M: In my opinion, Saul-Paul succeeded in fooling the Chistian
> community,
� I agree. Christian brains auto-switch to sleep mode when one plays the
Persecution Card.
>
> EG: But what matters to God is the faithfulness Paul showed for Jesus
> Christ.
� Jesus taught that God does not want sacrifice. Saul-Paul taught that
He does.
> Paul was a student of one of my kinfolk,
� guffaw
end
<'}}><
>� Jesus taught that God does not want sacrifice. Saul-Paul taught that
>He does.
If that were true, then God would not have wanted Jesus to give his
lfe for us.
(John 5:19) "Then answered Jesus and said unto them, Verily, verily, I
say unto you, The Son can do nothing of himself, but what he seeth the
Father do: for what things soever he doeth, these also doeth the Son
likewise."
Meaning that if Jesus lay down his life for us, then it was because
Jesus once saw the Father lay down his life for us.
(John 8:28) "Then said Jesus unto them, When ye have lifted up the Son
of man, then shall ye know that I am he, and that I do nothing of
myself; but as my Father hath taught me, I speak these things."
Clearly, our Heavenly Father (Adam) became mortal to give us our
bodies, yes, it was a big sacrifice for him to leave his son the Holy
Ghost in charge of heaven; and Jesus learned to do the same and lay
down his life for us. That is why Jesus is called the "Only Begotten"
of the father after the great flood. Now, the question arises
concerning who the heaven really is, if he was Adam, then he need to
be translated in order to father Jesus. However, the biblical record
says that Adam died, and that Jesus had to be the first to rise from
the dead. Therefore, it reaffirms the virgin birth of Christ, for
nether our Heavenly Father, or Mary had sex, but child was
artificially inseminated.
- Erick Gemmell a.k.a. Joshua
<'}}><
correction:
Clearly, our Heavenly Father (Adam) became mortal to give us our
bodies, yes, it was a big sacrifice for him to leave his son the Holy
Ghost in charge of heaven; and Jesus learned to do the same and lay
down his life for us. That is why Jesus is called the "Only Begotten"
of the father after the great flood. Now, the question arises
concerning who the heaven [father] really is, if he was Adam, then he
need to be translated in order to father Jesus. However, the biblical
record says that Adam died, and that Jesus had to be the first to rise
from the dead. Therefore, it reaffirms the virgin birth of Christ,
for [neither] our Heavenly Father, or Mary had sex, but child was
�R.L.Measures
<endt...@non.net> wrote:
> On Thu, 07 Jan 2010 14:02:08 -0800, r...@somis.org (�R.L.Measures) wrote:
>
> >� Jesus taught that God does not want sacrifice. Saul-Paul taught that
> >He does.
>
> If that were true, then God would not have wanted Jesus to give his
> life for us.
� give for what? - forgiveness of sin?
end
>
> (John 5:19) "Then answered Jesus and said unto them, Verily, verily, I
> say unto you, The Son can do nothing of himself, but what he seeth the
> Father do: for what things soever he doeth, these also doeth the Son
> likewise."
>
> Meaning that if Jesus lay down his life for us, then it was because
> Jesus once saw the Father lay down his life for us.
>
> (John 8:28) "Then said Jesus unto them, When ye have lifted up the Son
> of man, then shall ye know that I am he, and that I do nothing of
> myself; but as my Father hath taught me, I speak these things."
>
> Clearly, our Heavenly Father (Adam) became mortal to give us our
> bodies, yes, it was a big sacrifice for him to leave his son the Holy
> Ghost in charge of heaven; and Jesus learned to do the same and lay
> down his life for us. That is why Jesus is called the "Only Begotten"
> of the father after the great flood. Now, the question arises
> concerning who the heaven really is, if he was Adam, then he need to
> be translated in order to father Jesus. However, the biblical record
> says that Adam died, and that Jesus had to be the first to rise from
> the dead. Therefore, it reaffirms the virgin birth of Christ, for
> nether our Heavenly Father, or Mary had sex, but child was
> artificially inseminated.
>
> - Erick Gemmell a.k.a. Joshua
--
R.L. Measures. 805-386-3734, www.somis.org
Woody Brison
> On Mon, 28 Dec 2009 08:53:59 -0800 (PST), Gerald Bostock wrote:
> > On Dec 26, 4:37 am, r...@somis.org (•R.L.Measures) wrote:
> >> There are currently few discussions here about the history of the LdS
> >> Church. Are we seeing the end?
>
> >> R.L. Measures. 805-386-3734,www.somis.org
>
> > Usenet in general is in huge decline in favor of blogs. Some people
> > just can't cope with unmoderated discussion. A lot of ISPs refuse to
> > provide and support usenet servers.
>
> > their testimony, the mental upkeep probably just got to be too much.
>
>
> "... the Spanish Conquistadores burned all the
> native books they could find. Not much left to testify of
> the Nephites, but some of their books and art is gradually
> coming forth." --WoodyBrison
>
> Yeah, I did a double-take at that, too. (I can see the advertisements now:
> Don't miss this newly rediscovered book by best-selling Nephite author
> Abinadi the Lesser: "Oy Vey, But These Lamanites Are a Surly Bunch".)
>
> Anyway, RetroProphet asked him for a list of these Nephite books that are
> "coming forth", but it appears thatWoodyis probably too busy to post that
> information right now. What, with the holidays and all.
>
> Bret
I doubt that this will help anyone, but on the off chance...
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.religion.mormon.fellowship/msg/1c9d7b4b0cd8c880
Wood