Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss

Statistics

6 views
Skip to first unread message

Dave

unread,
Mar 27, 2002, 5:29:32 PM3/27/02
to
Scenario:
1 Jar
1000 beans
250 = red
250 = orange
250 = green
250 = yellow
Random selection of 7 beans...

What are the odds that all 7 will be Orange?

What does this have to do with anything?
Not sure, just having a slow day...

And I am not seeing any of the names in this group over at
alt.religion.jehovahs-witn and wondering WHY attacking Mormons is more
important that attacking the annoying JWs?

--


--David Mamanakis
"100% of all mass murders in Schools and Workplaces happen in 'Gun Free
Zones'!"


Jim Scott

unread,
Mar 27, 2002, 7:47:54 PM3/27/02
to
0.00140%

"Dave" <efia...@efialtis.com> wrote in message
news:a7th4f$php$1...@eskinews.eskimo.com...

R. L. Measures

unread,
Mar 27, 2002, 10:47:05 PM3/27/02
to
In article <a7th4f$php$1...@eskinews.eskimo.com>, "Dave"
<efia...@efialtis.com> wrote:

> Scenario:
> 1 Jar
> 1000 beans
> 250 = red
> 250 = orange
> 250 = green
> 250 = yellow
> Random selection of 7 beans...
>
> What are the odds that all 7 will be Orange?
>

€ 1/(4^7) ?

> What does this have to do with anything?
> Not sure, just having a slow day...
>
> And I am not seeing any of the names in this group over at
> alt.religion.jehovahs-witn and wondering WHY attacking Mormons is more
> important that attacking the annoying JWs?
>

€ JWs number only about a third as many members.
JWs have way less mammon.
JWs have a less bizarre history -- i. e., they were not founded by a
prolific lecher.
Up until the OK City truck-bombing, Mormons held the record for the most
folks ever massacred on U. S. soil. [September 11, 1857, 120 cold-blooded
murders].

--
Rich, 805-386-3734, www.vcnet.com/measures (radio)
www.vcnet.com/measures/library.html (org. religion)

Cheap Suit

unread,
Mar 28, 2002, 12:12:15 AM3/28/02
to
Dave wrote:

> Scenario:
> 1 Jar
> 1000 beans
> 250 = red
> 250 = orange
> 250 = green
> 250 = yellow
> Random selection of 7 beans...
>
> What are the odds that all 7 will be Orange?
>
> What does this have to do with anything?
> Not sure, just having a slow day...
>
> And I am not seeing any of the names in this group over at
> alt.religion.jehovahs-witn and wondering WHY attacking Mormons is more
> important that attacking the annoying JWs?

>
>

Knock yourself out.

dangerous 1

0----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------0

Think Global, Act Loco
http://www.dangerous1.com
chea...@dangerous1.com
don marchant
0----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------0

Agkistrodon

unread,
Mar 28, 2002, 5:33:12 AM3/28/02
to
"Dave" <efia...@efialtis.com> wrote in message news:<a7th4f$php$1...@eskinews.eskimo.com>...
> Scenario:
> 1 Jar
> 1000 beans
> 250 = red
> 250 = orange
> 250 = green
> 250 = yellow
> Random selection of 7 beans...
>
> What are the odds that all 7 will be Orange?

(1/4)^7


>
> What does this have to do with anything?

According to Art Bullashitta, it means that life could not have arisen
spontaneously and required divine intervention.

Agkistrodon

Duwayne Anderson

unread,
Mar 28, 2002, 10:23:33 AM3/28/02
to
"Dave" <efia...@efialtis.com> wrote in message news:<a7th4f$php$1...@eskinews.eskimo.com>...
> Scenario:
> 1 Jar
> 1000 beans
> 250 = red
> 250 = orange
> 250 = green
> 250 = yellow
> Random selection of 7 beans...
>
> What are the odds that all 7 will be Orange?

The probability of pulling the first orange bean out is 250/1000. The
probability of pulling the second orange bean out is 249/999 (I'm
assuming that when you pull out a bean you don't put it back in, and
shake the jar again). The probability of pulling the third orange
bean out is 248/998, and so on. The probability of pulling out 7
orange beans in a row is thus:

(250/1000)*(249/999)*(248/998)*(247/997)*(246/996)*(245/995)*(244/994)

Which is roughly equal to 1/17,461 or about 0.00573%.

Of course, if you ask a famous LDS apologist, like Woody, how to
calculate the probability, he might tell you to first make vectors out
of the beans, calculate their cosines and sines, square them, and then
take the square root, to find their "centroids."

> What does this have to do with anything?
> Not sure, just having a slow day...

Hmmm. Perhaps you should read the Book of Mormon again?

> And I am not seeing any of the names in this group over at
> alt.religion.jehovahs-witn

That's probably because the folks here are interested in discussing
Mormonism and the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (LDS),
while the folks at alt.religion.jehovahs-witn are probably more
interested in discussing the JWs.

Of course, it's possible, I suppose, that there is a grand conspiracy
that explains it. Something involving Satan and aliens from outer
space. Were you thinking more along those lines?

> and wondering WHY attacking Mormons is more
> important that attacking the annoying JWs?

Oh, my! Are you under attack? Silly me, and I thought you were just
posting trivial problems in probability.

Seriously, though. The JWs are obnoxious and say some pretty lame
things, but I don't know of any religion that carries more
intellectual and doctrinal baggage than the LDS Church. I mean, you
guys have such absurd things as the Book of Mormon and the Book of
Abraham. Then, there are historical things like polygamy, blood
atonement, and the Church's racist teachings about blacks. Did the
JWs ever attack the US army? Did they ever massacre women and
children emigrants crossing the Western United States, the way LDS
members did? These probably would not be such lightning rods for
criticism if not for the boastful manner in which the LDS Church
denies/lies about so much of its dirty history, and then claims to be
the only true and living Church, and that all other churches (that are
not the true Church) are the Church of the Devil.

Do you think, possibly, that these absurd/obnoxious teachings might
have something to do with it? Perhaps it's the way the LDS Church
takes money from its members under threat of not allowing them to
attend the temple? Do you think ex-Mormons might look back at that
experience (of extortion) with resentment? Could it have something to
do with the way the LDS Church deals with people who want to leave?
Or, possibly, branding ex-Mormons as heretics and apostates and
telling relatives to shun family members who have left the Church and
publicly criticize it? Personally, I think all these are
possibilities that might explain some bitter feelings against the LDS
Church, and what you call the "attacks" that you see.

Or, are you still thinking about something along the lines of the
great Satan, and possibly aliens from outer space?

Duwayne Anderson

American Quarter Horse: The ultimate all-terrain vehicle.

!

unread,
Mar 28, 2002, 1:24:54 PM3/28/02
to

"R. L. Measures" <2...@vc.net> wrote in message
news:2-2703021...@port63.dial.vcnet.com...

> In article <a7th4f$php$1...@eskinews.eskimo.com>, "Dave"
> <efia...@efialtis.com> wrote:
>
> > Scenario:
> > 1 Jar
> > 1000 beans
> > 250 = red
> > 250 = orange
> > 250 = green
> > 250 = yellow
> > Random selection of 7 beans...
> >
> > What are the odds that all 7 will be Orange?
> >
> ? 1/(4^7) ?

>
> > What does this have to do with anything?
> > Not sure, just having a slow day...
> >
> > And I am not seeing any of the names in this group over at
> > alt.religion.jehovahs-witn and wondering WHY attacking Mormons is more
> > important that attacking the annoying JWs?
> >
> ? JWs number only about a third as many members.

> JWs have way less mammon.
> JWs have a less bizarre history -- i. e., they were not founded by a
> prolific lecher.
> Up until the OK City truck-bombing, Mormons held the record for the most
> folks ever massacred on U. S. soil. [September 11, 1857, 120 cold-blooded
> murders].

That's a crock. Over a million were killed during the Civil War (i.e.
Americans massacring other Americans). White settlers (Mormons excluded)
killed many more "injuns" in a single day on a routine basis. Besides,
there is a dispute over who actually killed the travelers during MMM (and a
renegade acting alone is not a representative of any particular race, creed
or color).


Efialtis

unread,
Mar 28, 2002, 5:29:47 PM3/28/02
to
Ah. Mr. Duwayne Anderson...

> That's probably because the folks here are interested in discussing
> Mormonism and the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (LDS),
> while the folks at alt.religion.jehovahs-witn are probably more
> interested in discussing the JWs.
>
> Of course, it's possible, I suppose, that there is a grand conspiracy
> that explains it. Something involving Satan and aliens from outer
> space. Were you thinking more along those lines?

Really? And what conspiracy would that be? Truly, you do come up
with some of the most "out there" things I have ever heard of...

> Seriously, though. The JWs are obnoxious and say some pretty lame
> things, but I don't know of any religion that carries more
> intellectual and doctrinal baggage than the LDS Church. I mean, you
> guys have such absurd things as the Book of Mormon and the Book of
> Abraham. Then, there are historical things like polygamy, blood
> atonement, and the Church's racist teachings about blacks. Did the
> JWs ever attack the US army? Did they ever massacre women and
> children emigrants crossing the Western United States, the way LDS
> members did? These probably would not be such lightning rods for
> criticism if not for the boastful manner in which the LDS Church
> denies/lies about so much of its dirty history, and then claims to be
> the only true and living Church, and that all other churches (that are
> not the true Church) are the Church of the Devil.

So, the JWs believe that Christ was going to come to earth in the
1940s (due to their carefully calculated readings of the Scriptures)
is not a bit of "doctrinal baggage"? And, of course, that only
happened 3 times, before they came up with the story that Christ HAS
returned, we just cannot see him. He is "invisible".
Or how about claiming that a transfusion is the same a digestion when
it comes to blood...never mind that digestion breaks down the portions
in the Blood, but you do not "digest" blood when injected into the
body via an artery or vein.
How about all the many volumes of literature they have to explain the
problems encountered in the Bible?
Or maybe the JWs total disregard for the laws of any country?
Nah, no doctrinal baggage there.
It seems that the group of people that attack the Church for any
Doctrinal reason are overlooking other fun playgrounds, and my
question is "why?".

> Do you think, possibly, that these absurd/obnoxious teachings might
> have something to do with it? Perhaps it's the way the LDS Church
> takes money from its members under threat of not allowing them to
> attend the temple? Do you think ex-Mormons might look back at that
> experience (of extortion) with resentment? Could it have something to
> do with the way the LDS Church deals with people who want to leave?
> Or, possibly, branding ex-Mormons as heretics and apostates and
> telling relatives to shun family members who have left the Church and
> publicly criticize it? Personally, I think all these are
> possibilities that might explain some bitter feelings against the LDS
> Church, and what you call the "attacks" that you see.

Lets see, how many people "re-join" the Church after having "fallen
away" or being "exed"?
5% Growth in the Church every year, less than 1% leave, how many of
that "less than 1%" re-join...?
How many of that "less than 1%" leave because of Doctrinal problems
they perceive within the teachings of the Church?
How many of that "less than 1%" leave because of perceived problems
with interpersonal relations between members in their ward or stake?
How many of that "less than 1%" leave because they have a problem with
keeping a commandment?
Once someone leaves the Church due to one of these reasons, and
realizing they are CLEARLY in the minority, how do you think they
would make their decision "ok"? How do they justify their behavior?
They don't, by chance, attack the Church, its members or the teachings
of the Church, do they?

> Or, are you still thinking about something along the lines of the
> great Satan, and possibly aliens from outer space?

I wasn't thinking along these lines, you were, you brought it up in
the paragraph above...not me. I think you are confused.

Duwayne Anderson

unread,
Mar 28, 2002, 9:09:39 PM3/28/02
to
Efia...@WinISP.net (Efialtis) wrote in message news:<3154b26e.02032...@posting.google.com>...

> Ah. Mr. Duwayne Anderson...
>
> > That's probably because the folks here are interested in discussing
> > Mormonism and the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (LDS),
> > while the folks at alt.religion.jehovahs-witn are probably more
> > interested in discussing the JWs.
> >
> > Of course, it's possible, I suppose, that there is a grand conspiracy
> > that explains it. Something involving Satan and aliens from outer
> > space. Were you thinking more along those lines?
>
> Really? And what conspiracy would that be?

I haven't the faintest idea. Didn't you notice that what I said was a
*question*?

> Truly, you do come up
> with some of the most "out there" things I have ever heard of...

Read it again, and pay attention this time.

>
> > Seriously, though. The JWs are obnoxious and say some pretty lame
> > things, but I don't know of any religion that carries more
> > intellectual and doctrinal baggage than the LDS Church. I mean, you
> > guys have such absurd things as the Book of Mormon and the Book of
> > Abraham. Then, there are historical things like polygamy, blood
> > atonement, and the Church's racist teachings about blacks. Did the
> > JWs ever attack the US army? Did they ever massacre women and
> > children emigrants crossing the Western United States, the way LDS
> > members did? These probably would not be such lightning rods for
> > criticism if not for the boastful manner in which the LDS Church
> > denies/lies about so much of its dirty history, and then claims to be
> > the only true and living Church, and that all other churches (that are
> > not the true Church) are the Church of the Devil.
>
> So, the JWs believe that Christ was going to come to earth in the
> 1940s (due to their carefully calculated readings of the Scriptures)
> is not a bit of "doctrinal baggage"?

Of course it is. It's absolutely absurd. Just as absurd, I might
add, as the Patriarch in one of my Wards who told several people they
would live to see the second coming of Jesus.

> And, of course, that only
> happened 3 times, before they came up with the story that Christ HAS
> returned, we just cannot see him. He is "invisible".

True. It's dumb, dumb, dumb. Almost as dumb as some of the excuses
cooked up by FARMS and promoted by people like Charles Dowis in trying
to explain away the expected evidence for all those phony baloney
claims of the Book of Mormon. Things like ancient Americans using
domesticated horses to pull chariots.

> Or how about claiming that a transfusion is the same a digestion when
> it comes to blood...never mind that digestion breaks down the portions
> in the Blood, but you do not "digest" blood when injected into the
> body via an artery or vein.

Now that is a truly bizarre doctrine. Right in line with some bizarre
LDS teachings like resurrected bodies having spirit material in their
veins, instead of blood.

> How about all the many volumes of literature they have to explain the
> problems encountered in the Bible?

Well the Bible is a hopeless mishmash of myth. You could easily write
volumes trying to explain away all its problems. It reminds me of
FARMS, and all the volumes they write trying to explain away the
problems with the Book of Mormon.

> Or maybe the JWs total disregard for the laws of any country?

Oh, I agree. I have no patience for religions that disregard the laws
of the country by doing things like murdering emigrants, practicing
plural marriage, etc. Terrible. Just terrible.

> Nah, no doctrinal baggage there.

Ooops. Is your persecution complex in overdrive?

> It seems that the group of people that attack the Church for any
> Doctrinal reason are overlooking other fun playgrounds, and my
> question is "why?".

Don't flatter yourself. Everyone loves the Mormons. Didn't you watch
the last Olympics?

>
> > Do you think, possibly, that these absurd/obnoxious teachings might
> > have something to do with it? Perhaps it's the way the LDS Church
> > takes money from its members under threat of not allowing them to
> > attend the temple? Do you think ex-Mormons might look back at that
> > experience (of extortion) with resentment? Could it have something to
> > do with the way the LDS Church deals with people who want to leave?
> > Or, possibly, branding ex-Mormons as heretics and apostates and
> > telling relatives to shun family members who have left the Church and
> > publicly criticize it? Personally, I think all these are
> > possibilities that might explain some bitter feelings against the LDS
> > Church, and what you call the "attacks" that you see.
>
> Lets see, how many people "re-join" the Church after having "fallen
> away" or being "exed"?

Who knows?

> 5% Growth in the Church every year, less than 1% leave, how many of
> that "less than 1%" re-join...?

Now, where did you make up these numbers?

> How many of that "less than 1%" leave because of Doctrinal problems
> they perceive within the teachings of the Church?

I see you subscribe to The Journal of Invented Facts?

> How many of that "less than 1%" leave because of perceived problems
> with interpersonal relations between members in their ward or stake?
> How many of that "less than 1%" leave because they have a problem with
> keeping a commandment?

And you quote from it liberally, too.

> Once someone leaves the Church due to one of these reasons, and
> realizing they are CLEARLY in the minority,

And everyone knows it's okay to do nasty things to minorities. Right?

> how do you think they
> would make their decision "ok"? How do they justify their behavior?

You are rambling. I can't figure out what your point is.

> They don't, by chance, attack the Church, its members or the teachings
> of the Church, do they?

There's that persecution complex again.

>
> > Or, are you still thinking about something along the lines of the
> > great Satan, and possibly aliens from outer space?
>
> I wasn't thinking along these lines, you were, you brought it up in
> the paragraph above...not me.

It was a question. All you had to do was just answer it. No need to
get all worked up.

> I think you are confused.

Someone here is confused, all right.

R. L. Measures

unread,
Mar 29, 2002, 9:34:07 AM3/29/02
to
In article <3154b26e.02032...@posting.google.com>,
Efia...@WinISP.net (Efialtis) wrote:

€ 1914, 1915, 1918, 1925, 1942 and 1975 were Watchtower Armageddon
prediction fizzles. In the early 1940s, a mansion was constructed in San
Diego, California to provide Earthly lodging for Moses, Abraham, Isaiah,
Joshua, Ezekiel and other returning Bible VIPs.

>... ... ...

Jackie Chan

unread,
Mar 29, 2002, 11:05:11 AM3/29/02
to
Efialtis ===

So, the JWs believe that Christ was going to come to earth in the 1940s
(due to their carefully calculated readings of the Scriptures) is not a
bit of "doctrinal baggage"? And, of course, that only happened 3 times,
before they came up with the story that Christ HAS returned, we just
cannot see him.

R. L. Measures ===


1914, 1915, 1918, 1925, 1942 and 1975 were Watchtower Armageddon
prediction fizzles.

JC comments ===
Mormon prognosticators have also struck out on more than one occasion

R. L. Measures ===


In the early 1940s, a mansion was constructed in San Diego, California
to provide Earthly lodging for Moses, Abraham, Isaiah, Joshua, Ezekiel
and other returning Bible VIPs.

JC comments ===
believing Mormons expect a horde of "Lost Tribes" to walk from hiding
in the Polar regions, through a parted North Sea, perhaps with a 2,000
year-old Elder named John the Revelator leading their way

Mormons were also taught that the city of Enoch has became a planet -
ripped from the earth less than 5,000 years ago - thus creating the Gulf
of Mexico; soon afterward all the continents moved away from each other,
having been joined ever since the world was finished, less than 6,000
years ago

and Enoch's city will very soon return to the Earth, while the
continents rejoin - all this and more was supposed to happen around
1891, after the Mormons had taken control of America

hummm, is Earth truly hollow, or is it just the heads of believers?

Duwayne Anderson

unread,
Mar 29, 2002, 2:13:40 PM3/29/02
to
Efia...@WinISP.net (Efialtis) wrote in message news:<3154b26e.02032...@posting.google.com>...

<snip>
> Or how about [the JWs] claiming that a transfusion is the same

> a digestion when
> it comes to blood...never mind that digestion breaks down the portions
> in the Blood, but you do not "digest" blood when injected into the
> body via an artery or vein.

<snip>

That's pretty weird doctrine, all right. But when it comes to
doctrines about blood, nobody beats the LDS for weird. Consider the
following doctrine from a Prophet, Seer, and revelator in the Church
of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (Mormons or LDS):

"The celestial beings who dwell in the Heaven from which we came,
having been raised from the grave, in a former world, and having been
filled with all the fulness of these eternal attributes, are called
Gods, because the fulness of God dwells in each. Both the males and
the females enjoy this fulness. The celestial vegetables and fruits
which grow out of the soil of this re-deemed Heaven, constitute the
food of the Gods. This food differs from the food derived from the
vegetables of a fallen world: the latter are converted into blood,
which circulating in the veins and arteries, produces flesh and bones
of a mortal nature, having a constant tendency to decay: while the
former, or celestial vegetables, are, when digested in the stomach,
converted into a fluid, which, in its nature, is spiritual, and which,
circulating in the veins and arteries of the celestial male and
female, preserves their tabernacles from decay and death. Earthly
vegetables form blood, and blood forms flesh and bones; celestial
vegetables, when digested, form a spiritual fluid which gives
immortality and eternal life to the organization in which it flows.
Fallen beings beget children whose bodies are constituted of flesh and
bones, being formed out of the blood circulating in the veins of the
parents. Celestial beings beget children, composed of the fluid which
circulates in their veins, which is spiritual, therefore, their
children must be spirits, and not flesh and bones. This is the origin
of our spiritual organization in heaven. The spirits of all mankind,
destined for this earth, were begotten by a father, and born of a
mother in Heaven long anterior to the formation of this world. The
personages of the father and mother of our spirits, had a beginning to
their organization, but the fulness of truth (which is God) that
dwells in them, had no beginning; being "from everlasting to
everlasting." (Psalm 90:2).
In the Heaven where our spirits were born, there are many Gods, each
one of whom has his own wife or wives which were given to him previous
to his redemption, while yet in his mortal state. Each God, through
his wife or wives, raises up a numerous family of sons and daughters;
indeed, there will be no end to the increase of his own children: for
each father and mother will be in a condition to multiply forever and
ever. As soon as each God has begotten many millions of male and
female spirits, and his Heavenly inheri-tance becomes too small, to
comfortably accommodate his great family, he, in connection with his
sons, organizes a new world, after a similar order to the one which we
now inhabit, where he sends both the male and female spirits to
inhabit tabernacles of flesh and bones. Thus each God forms a world
for the accommodation of his own sons and daughters who are sent forth
in their times and seasons, and generations to be born into the same.
The inhabitants of each world are required to reverence, adore, and
worship their own personal father who dwells in the Heaven which they
formerly inhabited."

31. J.D. 1:238; Delivered in the Tabernacle, SLC; President Brigham
Young; July 24, 1853.

See it at http://www.lds-mormon.com/veilworker/ag3.shtml

Susan

unread,
Mar 29, 2002, 5:08:49 PM3/29/02
to
What makes the JW's annoying to you? Is it that they knock at your
door? Is it that they believe they have the truth? Is it that they
want to study Scripture with you?
Do you think that maybe the mormons could be considered "annoying" as
well?


"Dave" <efia...@efialtis.com> wrote in message news:<a7th4f$php$1...@eskinews.eskimo.com>...

Fool Speck

unread,
Mar 29, 2002, 5:31:55 PM3/29/02
to
"!" <!@aol.com> wrote in message news:<a7vmpe$1jra$1...@news.aros.net>...

> "R. L. Measures" <2...@vc.net> wrote in message
> news:2-2703021...@port63.dial.vcnet.com...

> > ? JWs number only about a third as many members.


> > JWs have way less mammon.
> > JWs have a less bizarre history -- i. e., they were not founded by a
> > prolific lecher.
> > Up until the OK City truck-bombing, Mormons held the record for the most
> > folks ever massacred on U. S. soil. [September 11, 1857, 120 cold-blooded
> > murders].
>
> That's a crock. Over a million were killed during the Civil War (i.e.
> Americans massacring other Americans). White settlers (Mormons excluded)
> killed many more "injuns" in a single day on a routine basis. Besides,
> there is a dispute over who actually killed the travelers during MMM (and a
> renegade acting alone is not a representative of any particular race, creed
> or color).

The MMM should have been qualified a little more than it was. The MMM
was the largest non war-time massacre of American citizens by other
American citizens up until OK City.

You are obviously just guessing and hoping you are right. With the
exception of Indian casualties, you got every one of your statements
wrong.

Civil War mortality estimates range from 618,000 to 700,000.

Your assertion of there being a dispute of the perpetrators and a
renegade acting alone is in no way supportable. Both of these facts
are even refuted by plaques erected at the MMM site by the LDS.
Besides, the scapegoat the LDS executed for the offense, the
"renegade" John Doyle Lee, had his membership restored by the LDS in
1960 in part from facts uncovered by Juanita Brooks.

Steve Lowther

Duwayne Anderson

unread,
Mar 29, 2002, 6:45:01 PM3/29/02
to
Efia...@WinISP.net (Efialtis) wrote in message news:<3154b26e.02032...@posting.google.com>...

<snip>


> Or maybe the JWs total disregard for the laws of any country?
> Nah, no doctrinal baggage there.

<snip>

I'm opposed to disregard for the law, whether it be JW, Mormon, or
some other group or individuals.

But I disagree that the JWs have more doctrinal baggage in this area
than Mormons. Take, for example, the Mountain Meadows Massacre (see
http://www.mindspring.com/~engineer_my_dna/mormon/mountain.htm for
some details). Have the JWs ever been involved with something like
that?

Or, how about the illegal behavior of the LDS Church in the matter of
polygamy (see http://www.xmission.com/~country/chngwrld/chap9c.htm for
some details). Have the JWs ever been involved in such widespread
ethical/moral debauchery and illegality as the LDS experience with
polygamy?

Like I said. When it comes to religion, there is a bucket load of
weirdness. But the LDS Church seems to have a disproportionate
amount. It's this weirdness coupled with a self-righteous
condescension that, in my opinion, accounts for a fair amount of the
so-called Mormon bashing that goes on.

Would you like more examples? There are lots of them. We could
discuss knock-down silly LDS doctrines and teachings till the cows
come home.

R. L. Measures

unread,
Apr 2, 2002, 9:23:46 PM4/2/02
to

€ Cold-blooded slaughter is hardly the same as armed combat.

>White settlers (Mormons excluded)
> killed many more "injuns" in a single day on a routine basis. Besides,
> there is a dispute over who actually killed the travelers during MMM (and a
> renegade acting alone is not a representative of any particular race, creed
> or color).

€ The lifelong excursion on the wide river in the Land of the Pharoahs
continues.

Efialtis

unread,
Apr 3, 2002, 1:37:15 PM4/3/02
to
>> Ah. Mr. Duwayne Anderson...

>>> That's probably because the folks here are interested in
discussing
>>> Mormonism and the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints
(LDS),
>>> while the folks at alt.religion.jehovahs-witn are probably more
>>> interested in discussing the JWs.

>>> Of course, it's possible, I suppose, that there is a grand
conspiracy
>>> that explains it. Something involving Satan and aliens from outer
>>> space. Were you thinking more along those lines?

>> Really? And what conspiracy would that be?

> I haven't the faintest idea. Didn't you notice that what I said was a
> *question*?

A Question?

"Of course, it's possible, I suppose, that there is a grand conspiracy
that explains it."

No "Question", "Statement"...


"Something involving Satan and aliens from outer space."

No "Question", "Statement"...


"Were you thinking more along those lines?"

Oh, here is the question...you make several claims about how a
conspiracy of aliens or Satan might explain this and ask if I was
thinking along these lines...no I wasn't, but it appears you might
have been, or you wouldn't have introduced it into the discussion...

>> Truly, you do come up
>> with some of the most "out there" things I have ever heard of...

> Read it again, and pay attention this time.

Done.

<snip>

> Of course it is. It's absolutely absurd. Just as absurd, I might
> add, as the Patriarch in one of my Wards who told several people they
> would live to see the second coming of Jesus.

Oh, I see. So having one man in the Church make this kind of
statement is the same as an entire religion teaching that Jesus has
returned to the earth and is invisible...

>> And, of course, that only
>> happened 3 times, before they came up with the story that Christ
HAS
>> returned, we just cannot see him. He is "invisible".

<snip>

> Now that is a truly bizarre doctrine. Right in line with some bizarre
> LDS teachings like resurrected bodies having spirit material in their
> veins, instead of blood.

I know of no teaching in the LDS Church that says there is "spirit
material" in the veins of the resurrected. You must have gotten bad
information.

>> How about all the many volumes of literature they have to explain
the
>> problems encountered in the Bible?

<snip>

>> Or maybe the JWs total disregard for the laws of any country?

> Oh, I agree. I have no patience for religions that disregard the laws
> of the country by doing things like murdering emigrants, practicing
> plural marriage, etc. Terrible. Just terrible.

Oh, so it is ok for the State of Missouri to enact a Law, the "Mormon
Extermination Order" which made it legal for people to kill Mormons?
And the Mormons should just like it?
And it is ok for the Federal Government or any State Government to
make laws restricting religious practices, such as marriage (or plural
marriage) which is practiced by many religions around the world? And
the Mormons should just like it?

How about the same type of situation with the government restricting
the rights of individuals. How long until they use civil
disobedience, or flat out violate the law to get their rights back?

Do you kill to preserve life?

There are all kinds of situations where one might do many things that
are "against the law" AND justifiable, but it is first for us to
attempt to change the laws using the defined and approved channels.
The JWs do no such thing. However, the Mormons appealed to every
authority, including the President of the United States…where did that
get them? The JWs violate any law they feel is contradictory to their
interpretation of "God's Law", without regard for the safety and
well-being of their members.
Totally different thing.

<snip>

>>> Do you think, possibly, that these absurd/obnoxious teachings
might
>>> have something to do with it? Perhaps it's the way the LDS Church
>>> takes money from its members under threat of not allowing them to
>>> attend the temple? Do you think ex-Mormons might look back at
that
>>> experience (of extortion) with resentment? Could it have
something to
>>> do with the way the LDS Church deals with people who want to
leave?
>>> Or, possibly, branding ex-Mormons as heretics and apostates and
>>> telling relatives to shun family members who have left the Church
and
>>> publicly criticize it? Personally, I think all these are
>>> possibilities that might explain some bitter feelings against the
LDS
>>> Church, and what you call the "attacks" that you see.

>> Lets see, how many people "re-join" the Church after having "fallen
>> away" or being "exed"?

> Who knows?

But it is an important question.
Back in 1999, I posted a list of numbers and dates. The numbers were
estimates of the Church Membership based off the previous 10 years.
The Growth Rate of the Church sits at about 5% per year. The numbers
also show the membership that has left the Church, which averages at
less than 1% per year.

In 1999 the Church Membership should have been in the Low 10 Millions.
In fact, it was 10,759,414
In 2000 the Church Membership should have been in the High 10
Millions.
In fact, it was 11,068,861
In 2001 the Church Membership should be in the Low 11 Millions.
Next week we will see where we are at, but based on the past
performance with my calculations on this subject, I believe my number
is too Low.

>> 5% Growth in the Church every year, less than 1% leave, how many of
>> that "less than 1%" re-join...?

> Now, where did you make up these numbers?

Not made up, Fact. You can verify this yourself, if you care.

<snip Ad Hominem>

>> Once someone leaves the Church due to one of these reasons, and
>> realizing they are CLEARLY in the minority,

> And everyone knows it's okay to do nasty things to minorities. Right?

>> how do you think they
>> would make their decision "ok"? How do they justify their
behavior?

> You are rambling. I can't figure out what your point is.

Point is, when someone leaves the Church, they may understand at some
level that they have made the wrong choice, and to make themselves
feel better, they attack the Church. There is a psychological
condition around this behavior, but I cannot remember what it is
called.

<snip>

>>> Or, are you still thinking about something along the lines of the
>>> great Satan, and possibly aliens from outer space?

>> I wasn't thinking along these lines, you were, you brought it up in
>> the paragraph above...not me.

> It was a question. All you had to do was just answer it. No need to
> get all worked up.

No, no questions, other than you were wondering if I was thinking
along the lines of some weird ideas you introduced into the
discussion.

Ozzie

unread,
Apr 3, 2002, 2:33:49 PM4/3/02
to

> Point is, when someone leaves the Church, they may understand at some
> level that they have made the wrong choice, and to make themselves
> feel better, they attack the Church. There is a psychological
> condition around this behavior, but I cannot remember what it is
> called.
>

Sour Grapes


Duwayne Anderson

unread,
Apr 3, 2002, 5:42:59 PM4/3/02
to
Efia...@WinISP.net (Efialtis) wrote in message news:<3154b26e.02040...@posting.google.com>...

<snip>
> > Of course it is. It's absolutely absurd. Just as absurd, I might
> > add, as the Patriarch in one of my Wards who told several people they
> > would live to see the second coming of Jesus.
>
> Oh, I see. So having one man in the Church make this kind of
> statement is the same as an entire religion teaching that Jesus has
> returned to the earth and is invisible...

Oh, no. I did not say they were the same thing. Only that they were
equally absurd. And it was not just one man, either.

<snip>


> I know of no teaching in the LDS Church that says there is "spirit
> material" in the veins of the resurrected.

Here is the reference:

> You must have gotten bad
> information.

Can't argue with you there. Brigham Young was a bad source of
information for anything reliable.

<snip>


> > Oh, I agree. I have no patience for religions that disregard the laws
> > of the country by doing things like murdering emigrants, practicing
> > plural marriage, etc. Terrible. Just terrible.
>
> Oh, so it is ok for the State of Missouri to enact a Law, the "Mormon
> Extermination Order" which made it legal for people to kill Mormons?
> And the Mormons should just like it?

Efialtis, would you do us all a favor and read what I wrote just above
your last absurd remarks? Your comments, in light of my statement,
are very dishonest.

<snip>


> But it is an important question.
> Back in 1999, I posted a list of numbers and dates. The numbers were
> estimates of the Church Membership based off the previous 10 years.
> The Growth Rate of the Church sits at about 5% per year.

It's been apparent for some time, now,
that the LDS Church actually lies about it's membership records.
There is an excellent article about this at
http://www.connect-a.net/users/drshades/stats.htm. What this page
shows is that, if you add the numbers the church publishes for the
previous year + convert baptisms + baptisms of eight year olds, the
numbers sometimes add up to LESS than the increase in membership
quoted for the current year.

That's right. It's a numbers game, and the LDS Church has been lying
about their membership. They got caught with the problem in their OWN
statistical information. To use an old saying, the numbers just don't
add up.

The problem is only going to get worse. Figure this. The death rate
in any give population is about 1% per year. That means a Church with
12 million members has to baptize about 120,000 people just to hold
the population stable. And that does not include people who ask to
have their names removed.

Yet in the year 2000 the Church baptized only about 84,000 kids, and
claimed another 274,000 converts. Adding these two numbers and
subtracting 110,000 expected deaths you get a net increase of about
248,000 members. But the Church claimed an increase of 355,000. So
they are certainly cooking the numbers in a big way.

I think -- quite possibly -- one way they are cooking the numbers is
without even knowing it. When people leave the Church they keep the
records and loose track of the person. So, when a person grows old
and dies, the Church does not know about it. The name remains. It
would be nice to see how many dead ex-Mormons are part of their 12
million figure.

One thing is for sure. They cannot keep up the numbers game for long.
Eventually it will become so obvious it will be an embarassment.
Then the public relations group will get involved. I wonder how they
will try and blame it on the evil anti-Mormons.

> The numbers
> also show the membership that has left the Church, which averages at
> less than 1% per year.

I've never seen the Church publish any information about how many
people leave.

<snip to end>

Iosepa Hawai'i Loa

unread,
Apr 3, 2002, 6:28:43 PM4/3/02
to
Dave wrote:
>
> Scenario:
> 1 Jar
> 1000 beans
> 250 = red
> 250 = orange
> 250 = green
> 250 = yellow
> Random selection of 7 beans...
>
> What are the odds that all 7 will be Orange?

(250*249*248*247*246*245*244)/(1000*999*998*997*996*995*994)
= 134051099/2340730222371
which is roughly 0.000057

any more math / stats problems?

>
> And I am not seeing any of the names in this group over at
> alt.religion.jehovahs-witn and wondering WHY attacking Mormons is more
> important that attacking the annoying JWs?

I'm here defending my home turf. I don't attack other religions, no
matter how annoying they may be.

Iosepa Hawai'i Loa

Duwayne Anderson

unread,
Apr 3, 2002, 6:59:18 PM4/3/02
to
"Ozzie" <comic...@csinet.net> wrote in message news:<xOIq8.1085$md7.6...@newshog.newsread.com>...

The above comments by Efialtis and Ozzie represents the way many LDS
simply sweep away problems in the Church. They apply the ad hominem
argument to critics, labeling them as having "sour grapes," or a
"psychological
condition." This is yet another trait the LDS Church shares with the
JWs.

Ozzie

unread,
Apr 4, 2002, 1:02:25 AM4/4/02
to

"Duwayne Anderson" <duwa...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:a42139e3.02040...@posting.google.com...

And people say MORMONS can't take a joke!

Ozzie


CharlesBShield

unread,
Apr 4, 2002, 1:10:30 AM4/4/02
to

>Sour Grapes<

A number of ex-Mormons are in dire need of anger management classes. They are
angry and bitter that they spent so much money (tithing) and time (including
misssions) on and in the LDS faith. They have come to the conclusion the church
is false so they blame the church for the time and money *they voluntarily
gave* while they were believing members.

Others set themselves up against the church because they are afraid they will
go back to the faith if they don't actively oppose it.

Charles

don m

unread,
Apr 4, 2002, 1:53:56 AM4/4/02
to
CharlesBShield wrote:


Well, you've certainly shown that you still don't have a
clue. "Afraid they will go back to the faith if they don't
actively oppose it". LOL This is why I spend so much of my
"precious" time here Charles, it's funnier than anything
else around. You and Woody make the Three Stooges look like
serious drama.

Keep up the good work.

R. L. Measures

unread,
Apr 4, 2002, 4:07:22 AM4/4/02
to
In article <a42139e3.02040...@posting.google.com>,
duwa...@hotmail.com (Duwayne Anderson) wrote:

€ I see the same sweeping on the Catholic Newsgroup,
alt.religion.christian,roman-catholic. Joseph Smith, Junior could deal
with unsound criticism, but Wm Law's sound criticism proved to be his
undoing.

cheers, Duwayne

R. L. Measures

unread,
Apr 4, 2002, 4:09:36 AM4/4/02
to
In article <R%Rq8.66$Fp2....@monger.newsread.com>, "Ozzie"
<comic...@csinet.net> wrote:

€ It seems to me that Mormonites were taken by a joke,

R. L. Measures

unread,
Apr 4, 2002, 4:16:21 AM4/4/02
to
In article <20020404011030...@mb-cc.aol.com>,
charles...@aol.com (CharlesBShield) wrote:

> >> Point is, when someone leaves the Church, they may understand at some level
> that they have made the wrong choice, and to make themselves feel better, they
> attack the Church. There is a psychological condition around this behavior,
> but I cannot remember what it is called. <<
>
> >Sour Grapes<
>
> A number of ex-Mormons are in dire need of anger management classes. They are
> angry and bitter that they spent so much money (tithing)

€ Tithing is not a tenth part of spendable income in the one true church.
For me, it would be c. 40% extra.

>and time (including
> misssions) on and in the LDS faith. They have come to the conclusion the
church
> is false so they blame the church for the time and money *they voluntarily
> gave* while they were believing members.
>
> Others set themselves up against the church because they are afraid they will
> go back to the faith if they don't actively oppose it.
>

€ Some want to spread the word so that others can make an informed choice
before they join God's one true church.

Duwayne Anderson

unread,
Apr 4, 2002, 11:23:55 AM4/4/02
to
"Ozzie" <comic...@csinet.net> wrote in message news:<R%Rq8.66$Fp2....@monger.newsread.com>...

I've never heard anyone say that.

Duwayne Anderson

unread,
Apr 4, 2002, 11:25:06 AM4/4/02
to
charles...@aol.com (CharlesBShield) wrote in message news:<20020404011030...@mb-cc.aol.com>...

My. You certainly seem able to read minds. Did you get this bit of
revelation from the holy ghost?

Efialtis

unread,
Apr 4, 2002, 7:44:14 PM4/4/02
to
<snip>

> Here is the reference:
>
> "The celestial beings who dwell in the Heaven

<snip for brevity>

> form a spiritual fluid which gives
> immortality and eternal life to the organization in which it flows.

<snip for brevity>

> 31. J.D. 1:238; Delivered in the Tabernacle, SLC; President Brigham
> Young; July 24, 1853.

> Can't argue with you there. Brigham Young was a bad source of
> information for anything reliable.

Interesting, but not doctrine. Notice the style of writing. BY had a
very strong writing style when teaching Doctrine. This style is not
similar.
The style exhibited here is very "speculative"...
Compare and see for yourself.

<snip>

>> But it is an important question.
>> Back in 1999, I posted a list of numbers and dates. The numbers
were
>> estimates of the Church Membership based off the previous 10 years.
>> The Growth Rate of the Church sits at about 5% per year.

> It's been apparent for some time, now, that the LDS Church actually lies
> about it's membership records.

<snip>

I read that web site, and I found several errors.
For one, the numbers the Church publishes are not broken down very
fine. In order to have an accurate statistical report, you would have
to have the exact breakdown of members, added or subtracted.

Until then, it is only speculation as to why the numbers don't add up.

>> The numbers
>> also show the membership that has left the Church, which averages
at
>> less than 1% per year.

> I've never seen the Church publish any information about how many
> people leave.

Very good point. I got my numbers from a web site very similar to the
one you pointed out.
Question is, without exact breakdowns and actual numbers, how can you
say they are "cooked"?

This goes right back to just about every argument the anti/ex-mormons
make...they have 1/10th of the information needed, but they still try
to pull it off as 100% truth!

Iosepa Hawai'i Loa

unread,
Apr 5, 2002, 1:33:22 AM4/5/02
to
"R. L. Measures" wrote:
>
> In article <R%Rq8.66$Fp2....@monger.newsread.com>, "Ozzie"
> <comic...@csinet.net> wrote:
>
> > "Duwayne Anderson" <duwa...@hotmail.com> wrote in a message

> > And people say MORMONS can't take a joke!
> >
> ? It seems to me that Mormonites were taken by a joke,

And who are the Mormonites? Are they the ones that believe that
Mormon is the Lord of Hosts?

Funny I don't see you mentioning which of the myriad of Christian
denominations you claim. You know that every organization, be it
religious our political, has a skeleton or two hiding in a closet.
Most of the darker blunders of the Church of Jesus Christ are the
results of individual renegades. How can we judge your Church the
way you mock ours? Perhaps you are ashamed of the gospel of Christ
which you have?

As for the claim that the Mormons attacked the US military, so what
if they did? The early saints were driven from their homes into
Mexican territory. The US military was sent to destroy Salt Lake
City, arrest Brigham Young and all the apostles, and in short do
what the Missourians couldn't. And this was after force-recruiting
a bunch of men! Would you support the government who turned its
back on you? Would you peacefully allow soldiers to enter your city
and fulfill their mission? Maybe you are so loyal to your country
as to paint a bull's eye over your heart and stand in a straight line
as the bullets come flying toward you.

Who cares if the President of the United States of America claims that
those of your faith have zero rights? Who cares if you had to abandon
your home country (whom your grandfather fought to establish)? Who cares
if you lost a child or spouse during that cold long march through the
wilderness?

Despite everything that the US, its government, and its citizens have
done to you and yours, let them take your city in peace then kill its
inhabitants with zero complaints or rebellions.

Obviously, my commentary was dripping with sarcasm.

Surely you are man enough to defend your family, your home, and your
religion.

And do tell me of another Christian Church that has suffered more
persecutions than the LDS?

It is the 21st century and the Church has found favor in the eyes of
world governments. It is no longer legal to kill Mormons in Missouri
(that law was renounced in the 1970s). We are respected businessmen
and businesswomen. We have our own chaplains in the Armed Services.
We have a first-class university recognized around the globe.

We are prospering.

Iosepa Hawai'i Loa
Ua mau ke ea ka aina i ka pono
The life of the land is perpetuated through righteousness

Iosepa Hawai'i Loa

unread,
Apr 5, 2002, 1:55:14 AM4/5/02
to
Duwayne Anderson wrote:
>
> Efia...@WinISP.net (Efialtis) wrote in message news:<3154b26e.02032...@posting.google.com>...
>
> <snip>
> > Or maybe the JWs total disregard for the laws of any country?
> > Nah, no doctrinal baggage there.
> <snip>
>
> I'm opposed to disregard for the law, whether it be JW, Mormon, or
> some other group or individuals.
>
> <snip>

>
> how about the illegal behavior of the LDS Church in the matter of
> polygamy (see http://www.xmission.com/~country/chngwrld/chap9c.htm for
> some details). Have the JWs ever been involved in such widespread
> ethical/moral debauchery and illegality as the LDS experience with
> polygamy?

For your information, polygamy *WAS* legal when it started. Some anti's
got that law cooked up by Congress to stop the State of Deseret from
joining
the Union. If the Church had stopped practicing polygamy when the law
was first enacted, it would appear to be bending to the political powers
that be. Instead they waited for the Lord to sanction its abandonment.
Now it's accused of backing out due to political power.

Was it immoral for Abraham to have more than one wife? Didn't Israel
have
two wives and a few concubines to produce all 12 sons? And if polygamy
wasn't common in the days of the apostles, why would Paul point out that
a *BISHOP* should be the husband of *ONE* wife?

I use Abraham and Jacob to point out that polygamy was *NOT* part of the
Law of Moses. I make reference to Paul's teachings to __infer__ that
men
with more than one wife were allowed to be members of the early
Christian
Church.

Aloha,

Roy Stogner

unread,
Apr 5, 2002, 2:47:45 AM4/5/02
to
On Fri, 05 Apr 2002 00:55:14 -0600, Iosepa Hawai'i Loa wrote:


> For your information, polygamy *WAS* legal when it started. Some anti's
> got that law cooked up by Congress to stop the State of Deseret from
> joining the Union.

The link given previously quotes the November 15, 1844 _Times and Seasons_
as saying, "The law of the land and the rules of the church do not allow
one man to have more than one wife alive at once..."

The Federal law against polygamy came after the migration to Utah, but
state laws against polygamy preceded it by decades. Virginia's
antipolygamy law came in 1788, a bit too early to have been prompted by
anti-Mormons. Polygamy was made illegal in Illinois in Febuary 1833,
years before the Mormons settled there.

> And if polygamy wasn't common in the days of the apostles, why would
> Paul point out that a *BISHOP* should be the husband of *ONE* wife?

Because Paul thought that marriage was an acceptable concession to people
who couldn't handle celibacy, and marriage to more than one wife was
unacceptable?



> I make reference to Paul's teachings to __infer__ that men with more
> than one wife were allowed to be members of the early Christian Church.

Have you read the rest of those passages? Do you also infer that men who
were unvigilant, drunk, of bad behavior, not given to hospitality,
unwilling to teach, given to wine, strikers, greedy of filthy lucre,
impatient, brawlers, covetous, etc. were common in the early Christian
Church?
---
Roy Stogner

Duwayne Anderson

unread,
Apr 5, 2002, 10:01:49 AM4/5/02
to
Iosepa Hawai'i Loa <ios...@wingetsolutions.com> wrote in message news:<3CAD4A52...@wingetsolutions.com>...

<snip>


> For your information, polygamy *WAS* legal when it started.

And when, exactly, did it start? Why did Joseph Smith lie about the
practice, if it was legal?

> Some anti's
> got that law cooked up by Congress to stop the State of Deseret from
> joining
> the Union.
> If the Church had stopped practicing polygamy when the law
> was first enacted, it would appear to be bending to the political powers
> that be.

But that's exactly the way it looks -- like the LDS Church was bending
to political power.

> Instead they waited for the Lord to sanction its abandonment.

There was no "thus saith the Lord" when polygamy was stopped. Have
you read the "revelation?"

> Now it's accused of backing out due to political power.

So the strategy didn't work?

> Was it immoral for Abraham to have more than one wife?

I think so. It was also immoral for him to try and kill his son.

<snip rest of trying to justify by using the Bible>

Lee Paulson

unread,
Apr 5, 2002, 10:04:39 AM4/5/02
to
Iosepa Hawai'i Loa <ios...@wingetsolutions.com> wrote in message news:<3CAD4A52...@wingetsolutions.com>...
> Duwayne Anderson wrote:
> >
> > Efia...@WinISP.net (Efialtis) wrote in message news:<3154b26e.02032...@posting.google.com>...
> >
> > <snip>
> > > Or maybe the JWs total disregard for the laws of any country?
> > > Nah, no doctrinal baggage there.
> > <snip>
> >
> > I'm opposed to disregard for the law, whether it be JW, Mormon, or
> > some other group or individuals.
> >
> > <snip>
> >
> > how about the illegal behavior of the LDS Church in the matter of
> > polygamy (see http://www.xmission.com/~country/chngwrld/chap9c.htm for
> > some details). Have the JWs ever been involved in such widespread
> > ethical/moral debauchery and illegality as the LDS experience with
> > polygamy?
>
> For your information, polygamy *WAS* legal when it started

Is polygamy not bigamy?

> Was it immoral for Abraham to have more than one wife? Didn't Israel
> have
> two wives and a few concubines to produce all 12 sons?

Do you follow all of the OT customs?


And if polygamy
> wasn't common in the days of the apostles, why would Paul point out that
> a *BISHOP* should be the husband of *ONE* wife?
>

> I use Abraham and Jacob to point out that polygamy was *NOT* part of the
> Law of Moses. I make reference to Paul's teachings to __infer__ that
> men
> with more than one wife were allowed to be members of the early
> Christian
> Church.
>

But you have no evidence?

Efialtis

unread,
Apr 5, 2002, 7:13:55 PM4/5/02
to
<snip>

> The Federal law against polygamy came after the migration to Utah, but
> state laws against polygamy preceded it by decades.

> Virginia's antipolygamy law came in 1788, a bit too early to have been
> prompted by anti-Mormons.

Please post the information in detail...I would like to take a look at
Virginia's law.(thanks)

> Polygamy was made illegal in Illinois in Febuary 1833, years before the
> Mormons settled there.

However, the Mormons were on their way in that direction.

<snip>

TheJordan6

unread,
Apr 5, 2002, 10:14:17 PM4/5/02
to
>From: Iosepa Hawai'i Loa ios...@wingetsolutions.com
>Date: 4/5/2002 1:33 AM Eastern Standard Time
>Message-id: <3CAD4532...@wingetsolutions.com>

>
>"R. L. Measures" wrote:
>>
>> In article <R%Rq8.66$Fp2....@monger.newsread.com>, "Ozzie"
>> <comic...@csinet.net> wrote:
>>
>> > "Duwayne Anderson" <duwa...@hotmail.com> wrote in a message
>> > And people say MORMONS can't take a joke!
>> >
>> ? It seems to me that Mormonites were taken by a joke,
>
>And who are the Mormonites? Are they the ones that believe that
>Mormon is the Lord of Hosts?
>
>Funny I don't see you mentioning which of the myriad of Christian
>denominations you claim. You know that every organization, be it
>religious our political, has a skeleton or two hiding in a closet.
>Most of the darker blunders of the Church of Jesus Christ are the
>results of individual renegades.

"Individual renegades" like Joseph Smith, Sidney Rigdon, and Brigham Young?

> How can we judge your Church the
>way you mock ours? Perhaps you are ashamed of the gospel of Christ
>which you have?
>
>As for the claim that the Mormons attacked the US military, so what
>if they did?

That's called "treason."

>The early saints were driven from their homes into
>Mexican territory.

Bzzzzt. Wrong. The Mormons chose to go to Utah Territory so they could
establish a theocratic kingdom and practice polygamy, which was illegal in the
States. They were run out of Illinois because they stole from their neighbors
and were involved in counterfeiting money.

>The US military was sent to destroy Salt Lake
>City,

Bzzzzt. Wrong. If the military's intent was to destroy SLC, then why didn't
they do so?

>arrest Brigham Young and all the apostles,

Bzzzzt. Wrong. The military's misson was to escort a new territorial governor
to replace Young. Young and about 60 subordinates were arrested and indicted
for treason BECAUSE Young ordered the army to be attacked.

>and in short do
>what the Missourians couldn't.

If you mean 'kill all the Mormons,' then pray tell, then why didn't the army do
so?

>And this was after force-recruiting
>a bunch of men!

Bzzzt. Wrong again. While on the Iowa plains, Young sent James A. Little to
lobby Washington to ask if they would enlist Mormons as soldiers to guard
California lands. Washington consented to accepting 500 men, paying them in
advance, with the money intending to go to the soldiers' families to but
supplies to make the trek to Utah. Several Mormons accused Young of embezzling
some of the money, and many of the families never saw a dollar of it. Years
later, to cover his misappropriation, Young began spreading the lie that the
Battalion enlistment was a forced conscription that was designed to hurt the
Mormons. Brigham Young never was one for telling the truth.

> Would you support the government who turned its
>back on you?

The US government never turned its back on the Mormons. You have been
brainwashed with misinformation.

>Would you peacefully allow soldiers to enter your city
>and fulfill their mission?

Seeing as how Johnson's Army's mission was to escort Young's replacement as
governor, and they never fired a shot nor killed a single Mormon, well maybe
you can answer that question yourself.

>Maybe you are so loyal to your country
>as to paint a bull's eye over your heart and stand in a straight line
>as the bullets come flying toward you.

Maybe you ought to learn a little bit about a subject before you set out to
comment on it.

>Who cares if the President of the United States of America claims that
>those of your faith have zero rights?

What President ever said that?

>Who cares if you had to abandon
>your home country (whom your grandfather fought to establish)?

Many people who have been involved in organized crime have had to abandon their
homes. That's their fault, not the fault of the law.

>Who cares
>if you lost a child or spouse during that cold long march through the
>wilderness?

If the Mormons had obeyed the laws, that wouldn't have happened. But in actual
fact, lower percentages of Mormon pioneers died on the trek west than did
non-Mormon pioneers.

>Despite everything that the US, its government, and its citizens have
>done to you and yours, let them take your city in peace then kill its
>inhabitants with zero complaints or rebellions.

What city? What inhabitants did the government kill?

>Obviously, my commentary was dripping with sarcasm.

Not to mention fantasy.

>Surely you are man enough to defend your family, your home, and your
>religion.

Unless my religion calls on me to break laws of the land I live in, which was
the Mormons' problem.

>And do tell me of another Christian Church that has suffered more
>persecutions than the LDS?

The question here is, were Mormons "persecuted" because of their religious
beliefs, or because of their violations of the law and anti-social behavior?

>It is the 21st century and the Church has found favor in the eyes of
>world governments.

Yes, that happened when the LDS church decided to begin obeying the law.

> It is no longer legal to kill Mormons in Missouri
>(that law was renounced in the 1970s).

News flash, Sparky: It never was legal to kill Mormons in Missouri. Sounds
like you've spent too much time in seminary and none in history books. I'd
recommend Scott LeSeuer's "The 1838 Mormon War in Missouri."

>We are respected businessmen
>and businesswomen. We have our own chaplains in the Armed Services.
>We have a first-class university recognized around the globe.

Maybe, except for that recent academic censuring BYU received.

>We are prospering.

Maybe you'd prosper even more if you'd educate yourself.

Randy J.

TheJordan6

unread,
Apr 5, 2002, 10:34:02 PM4/5/02
to
>From: Iosepa Hawai'i Loa ios...@wingetsolutions.com
>Date: 4/5/2002 1:55 AM Eastern Standard Time
>Message-id: <3CAD4A52...@wingetsolutions.com>

>
>Duwayne Anderson wrote:
>>
>> Efia...@WinISP.net (Efialtis) wrote in message
>news:<3154b26e.02032...@posting.google.com>...
>>
>> <snip>
>> > Or maybe the JWs total disregard for the laws of any country?
>> > Nah, no doctrinal baggage there.
>> <snip>
>>
>> I'm opposed to disregard for the law, whether it be JW, Mormon, or
>> some other group or individuals.
>>
>> <snip>
>>
>> how about the illegal behavior of the LDS Church in the matter of
>> polygamy (see http://www.xmission.com/~country/chngwrld/chap9c.htm for
>> some details). Have the JWs ever been involved in such widespread
>> ethical/moral debauchery and illegality as the LDS experience with
>> polygamy?

>For your information, polygamy *WAS* legal when it started.

Bzzzzt. Wrong. Polygamy (aka bigamy) was not only illegal in Illinois, where
the Mormons began secretly practicing it, it was also specifically prohibited
by the original 1835 D&C, Section 109.

>Some anti's
>got that law cooked up by Congress to stop the State of Deseret from
>joining
>the Union.

Bzzzzt. Wrong. There was never any such entity as the "State of Deseret" or
the "Territory of Deseret." "Utah Territory" was created by Congress in 1850.
The Mormons did not even publicly admit that they practiced polygamy until
1852. Polygamy was hardly the only reason Utah was not admitted as a state;
the primary reason was that Brigham Young wanted Utah to be a theocratic
kingdom separate from the USA. In 1857, Young declared the Mormons'
"independence" from the US; that is the main reason he was deposed as governor.

The primary "anti" who wanted the "relic of barbarism" polygamy ended, was that
mean, nasty ol' guy named Abraham Lincoln.

> If the Church had stopped practicing polygamy when the law
>was first enacted, it would appear to be bending to the political powers
>that be.

But they'd have been a lot better off if they had.

> Instead they waited for the Lord to sanction its abandonment.

Perhaps you should read Richard van Wagoner's "Mormon Polygamy: A History," to
get the facts on the issue.

>Now it's accused of backing out due to political power.

Gee, just because the government disincorporated the church, impounded its
assets, and put a "For Rent" sign on the Tabernacle?

Woodruff issued his "Manifesto" to get the church's assets back and to tryt to
attain statehood. His goal was to gain statehood, then have an all-Mormon
legislature pass state laws that would allow polygamy. That demonstrates that
his Manifesto" was no "revelation from God," but was instead an attempt to
deceive the government. That is further demonstrated by the fact that Mormon
leaders continued to secretly sanction new plural marriages until at least
1904. Woodruff himself took another plural wife in 1897, and later president
Joseph F. Smith was convicted of unlawful cohabitation in 1906.

>Was it immoral for Abraham to have more than one wife?

I dunno. Did Abraham's civil and religious laws prohibit it, as the Mormons'
did?

> Didn't Israel
>have
>two wives and a few concubines to produce all 12 sons?

According to the legend, yes. But was it illegal? Did he lie about it, as the
Mormons did?

>And if polygamy
>wasn't common in the days of the apostles, why would Paul point out that
>a *BISHOP* should be the husband of *ONE* wife?

Perhaps polygamy was common among non-Christians of the day. Where in the NT
is polygamy sanctioned or spoken of favorably? Why would a "bishop" only be
allowed one wife, and other Christians more than one? If Christian "bishops"
were restricted to only one wife, then why did 19th-century Mormon bishops have
more than one wife?

>I use Abraham and Jacob to point out that polygamy was *NOT* part of the


>Law of Moses. I make reference to Paul's teachings to __infer__ that
>men
>with more than one wife were allowed to be members of the early
>Christian
>Church.

Sorry, I don't see that inference. I see Jesus' statement about marriage that
"the twain shall be one flesh."

Randy J.

R. L. Measures

unread,
Apr 5, 2002, 11:51:21 PM4/5/02
to
In article <3CAD4532...@wingetsolutions.com>, Iosepa Hawai'i Loa
<ios...@wingetsolutions.com> wrote:

> "R. L. Measures" wrote:
> >
> > In article <R%Rq8.66$Fp2....@monger.newsread.com>, "Ozzie"
> > <comic...@csinet.net> wrote:
> >
> > > "Duwayne Anderson" <duwa...@hotmail.com> wrote in a message
> > > And people say MORMONS can't take a joke!
> > >
> > ? It seems to me that Mormonites were taken by a joke,
>
> And who are the Mormonites? Are they the ones that believe that
> Mormon is the Lord of Hosts?
>

€ They believe that Emma's husband was a prophet even though he boinked
Emma's teenbabe maid, Fannie Alger, while Emma watched.

> Funny I don't see you mentioning which of the myriad of Christian
> denominations you claim.

€ want to take a wild and crazy guess why?

>You know that every organization, be it
> religious our political, has a skeleton or two hiding in a closet.

€ clearly an understatement

> Most of the darker blunders of the Church of Jesus Christ are the
> results of individual renegades.

€ Passing the buck.

>How can we judge your Church the
> way you mock ours? Perhaps you are ashamed of the gospel of Christ
> which you have?

€ I have some knowledge of what was wriiten at Qumran during an itinerant
rabbi's lecture-tour from c. 26 - 29 AD.


>
> As for the claim that the Mormons attacked the US military, so what
> if they did? The early saints were driven from their homes into
> Mexican territory.

€ They went to Mexico to escape the U.S. bigamy law of 1863.

>The US military was sent to destroy Salt Lake
> City, arrest Brigham Young and all the apostles, and in short do
> what the Missourians couldn't. And this was after force-recruiting
> a bunch of men! Would you support the government who turned its
> back on you? Would you peacefully allow soldiers to enter your city
> and fulfill their mission? Maybe you are so loyal to your country
> as to paint a bull's eye over your heart and stand in a straight line
> as the bullets come flying toward you.
>

€ not a sound wager.



> Who cares if the President of the United States of America claims that
> those of your faith have zero rights? Who cares if you had to abandon
> your home country (whom your grandfather fought to establish)? Who cares
> if you lost a child or spouse during that cold long march through the
> wilderness?
>
> Despite everything that the US, its government, and its citizens have
> done to you and yours, let them take your city in peace then kill its
> inhabitants with zero complaints or rebellions.
>
> Obviously, my commentary was dripping with sarcasm.
>

€ Zzzzzzz



> Surely you are man enough to defend your family, your home, and your
> religion.
>
> And do tell me of another Christian Church that has suffered more
> persecutions than the LDS?
>

€ How many Mormonites were used as lion fodder?

> It is the 21st century and the Church has found favor in the eyes of
> world governments. It is no longer legal to kill Mormons in Missouri
> (that law was renounced in the 1970s). We are respected businessmen
> and businesswomen. We have our own chaplains in the Armed Services.
> We have a first-class university recognized around the globe.
>
> We are prospering.

€ Mo' money is mo' betta?


>
> Iosepa Hawai'i Loa
> Ua mau ke ea ka aina i ka pono
> The life of the land is perpetuated through righteousness

--

Cheap Suit

unread,
Apr 5, 2002, 11:58:26 PM4/5/02
to
Efialtis wrote: