Statistics
Dave
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
"Dave" <efia...@efialtis.com> wrote in message
news:a7th4f$php$1...@eskinews.eskimo.com...
R. L. Measures
<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
> 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
> 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
> 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.
!
"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?
> >
>
> > 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 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
> 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
> 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
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
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
<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
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
> > ? 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
<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
€ 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
>>> 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
> 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
<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
>
> 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
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
"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
>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
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
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
<comic...@csinet.net> wrote:
€ It seems to me that Mormonites were taken by a joke,
R. L. Measures
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
I've never heard anyone say that.