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.
Duwayne Anderson
My. You certainly seem able to read minds. Did you get this bit of
revelation from the holy ghost?
Efialtis
> 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
>
> In article <R%Rq8.66$Fp2....@monger.newsread.com>, "Ozzie"
> <comic...@csinet.net> wrote:
>
> > And people say MORMONS can't take 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
>
> 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.
>
>
> 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
> 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
<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
> >
> > 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
> 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
>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
>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
<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
Tell us about mormon involvement in polygamy in 1833 or earlier. With
documentation.
Cheap Suit
I did get a good chuckle out of the "force-recruiting", when it was BY who sold
them down the river.
I don't know where they dig up this stuff. Seminary, I guess.
Aloha!
TheJordan6
>Date: 4/5/2002 7:13 PM Eastern Standard Time
>Message-id: <3154b26e.02040...@posting.google.com>
>
><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)
Anti-bigamy laws were enacted in many states as a matter of course. The 1833
Illinois law read:
Sec 121. Bigamy consists in the having of two wives or two husbands at one and
the same time, knowing that the former husband or wife is still alive. If any
person or persons within this State, being married, or who shall hereafter
marry, do at any time marry any person or persons, the former husband or wife
being alive, the person so offending shall, on conviction thereof, be punished
by a fine, not exceeding one thousand dollars, and imprisoned in the
penitentiary, not exceeding two years. It shall not be necessary to prove
either of the said marriages by the register or certificate thereof, or other
record evidence; but the same may be proved by such evidence as is admissible
to prove a marriage in other cases, and when such second marriage shall have
taken place without this state, cohabitation in this state after such second
marriage shall be deemed the commission of the crime of bigamy, and the trial
in such case may take place in the county where such cohabitation shall have
occurred. (Revised Laws of Illinois, 1833, p.198-99)
Joseph Smith was indicted on charges of unlawful cohabitation at Carthage,
Illinois, in May of 1844.
>> 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.
Verily, your ignorance of things Mormon apparently knows no bounds. In 1833,
the Mormons had no intention of going to Illinois. They were ensconced in
Kirtland, Ohio, and Joseph Smith had sent missionaries to western Missouri with
the intent of making that region the Mormons' "New Jerusalem." Smith got run
out of Ohio in early 1838; he fled to Missouri, and all of the Mormons were
evicted from Missouri in early 1839. They were forced to seek temporary
shelter in Illinois. The 1833 Illinois anti-bigamy law was not enacted because
of Mormon polygamy in the least. In fact, Joseph Smith denied teaching or
practicing polygamy before the Mormons ever moved there, and he continued to
deny it until his 1844 death. Also, the LDS Church's 1835 edition of the
Doctrine and Covenants specifically prohibited having more than one living wife
or husband. So your opinion that the Illinois anti-bigamy law was enacted as a
measure against the Mormons has no basis in fact.
Efialtis, maybe you ought to spend more time studying stuff, and less time
trying to comment on it.
Randy J.
Cheap Suit
> 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?
LOL
Roy Stogner
> <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)
I'm afraid I don't have the information in detail, just the results of a
quick web search. Most of the references to the Virginia law are
indirect, quoting it's mention in the text of Reynolds v. United States
(an 1878 Utah polygamy case that came before the Supreme Court, AFAIK) or
quoting it doubly indirectly in McGowan v. Maryland (1960) or Davis v.
Beason (1890).
There's one person online who claimed to have a library reference which
should have the exact text of the law:
" My Virginia law came from Hening's Statutes at Large (a standard legal
reference, though most of the laws are now outdated). I have given my
source for Murphey v. Ramsey. I also used a standard legal reference
collection called *American Jurisprudence, Second Edition: A Modern
Comprehensive Text Statement of American Law* Vol. 10, "Banks" to
"Bigamy". "
I hope that helps.
This same person (Marie Jones <tmsj...@csi.com>, if that email address
is still valid) claims that bigamy was an ecclesiastical offense until
1604, when it was moved to English common law:
" By statute 1 James 1, Chapter 11, enacted in 1604, "it was provided that if
any person, being married, shall afterward marry again, the former husband
or wife being alive, 'such offense shall be felony, and the person and
persons so offending shall suffer death as in the case of felony.' " As I
mentioned earlier, during the reign of George I the punishment was reduced
to a minimum of two years imprisonment with hard labor. "
>> 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.
In February 1833? Their only move at that time had been a voluntary one
west, from Kirtland, Ohio to Independence, Missouri, which was supposed to
be the site of Zion. They didn't reach Illinois until 1838. What
indications of that move were there in February, 1833? What indications
were there that the move would be (after several intermediate steps in
Missouri) to Illinois, rather than, say, further westward?
---
Roy Stogner
Duwayne Anderson
<snip>
> Interesting, but not doctrine [the stuff Efialtis snipped, that
> Brigham Young said about imortal bodies not having blood].
You didn't say doctrine. You said TEACHING. Here, I'll quote you for
yourself:
Efialtis said: "I know of no teaching in the LDS Church that says
there is "spirit material" in the veins of the resurrected."
So what did I do? Why, I quoted a prophet, seer and revelator in the
LDS Church who said just that. Here is another LDS prophet, seer, and
revelator who had some wacky things to say about blood:
"As concerning the resurrection, ... all will be raised by the power
of God, having spirit in their bodies, and not blood." [Teachings of
the Prophet Joseph Smith, compiled by Joseph Fielding Smith, Deseret
Book Company, 199-200].
But, hey, this is ARM. Right? We are use to seeing LDS members deny
the teachings of their prophets, seers, and revelators here. I cannot
say that I blame them. After all, these ARE wacky ideas. No wonder
Efialtis pretends he knows of no such teachings.
> Notice the style of writing.
Notice the denial.
> BY had a
> very strong writing style when teaching Doctrine.
And how do you go about denying what Joseph Smith said?
> This style is not similar.
Are you greater than Brigham Young? Should YOUR opinion on the matter
out weigh his? How about Joseph Smith? Do you consider yourself
greater than him?
> The style exhibited here is very "speculative"...
> Compare and see for yourself.
What seems obvious, Efialtis, is you are rather embarassed by the
teachings of LDS Church leaders. I cannot say that I blame you. They
are wacky teachings, after all.
>
> <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.
Yeah. In the figures the LDS Church publishes.
> For one, the numbers the Church publishes are not broken down very
> fine.
Fine enough to have caught them lying about their membership.
> In order to have an accurate statistical report, you would have
> to have the exact breakdown of members, added or subtracted.
All that's needed are numbers that don't add up. The LDS Church
reported increases in membership that were greater than the number of
baptisms. They got caught lying.
> Until then, it is only speculation as to why the numbers don't add up.
The numbers don't add up because the LDS Church lies about its
membership.
>
> >> 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"?
Because they don't add up.
> 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!
And this, folks, is the sort of denial that's needed to be a Mormon.
The Church reports a greater increase than the total number of
baptisms for one year. And this happens -- how? And there really
were no deaths in the Church that year?
And even with the numbers smacking him right between the eyes,
Efialtis simply says he does not have enough information.
Jackie Chan
Polygamy was made illegal in Illinois in Febuary 1833, years before the
Mormons settled there.
Efialtis ===
However, the Mormons were on their way in that direction.
JC comments ===
then you must believe Mormons were rightly being "reproached with the
crime of fornication, and polygamy," as early as 1833, and were lying as
a Church in 1835, with their unanimous official denial of polygamy:
"All legal contracts of marriage made before a person is baptized
into this church, should be held sacred and fulfilled. Inasmuch as this
church of Christ has been reproached with the crime of fornication, and
polygamy: we declare that we believe, that one man should have one wife;
and one woman, but one husband, except in case of death, when either is
at liberty to marry again. It is not right to persuade a woman to be
baptized contrary to the will of her husband, neither is it lawful to
influence her to leave her husband. (Section 101:4, Doctrine and
Covenants of the Church of the Latter Day Saints, 1835 edition)
while you're at it, Mormon, care to confess any other dishonest
activities the early Mormons were rightly being "reproached with" by
outsiders?
Ozzie
1833
> Illinois law read:
>
> Sec 121. Bigamy consists in the having of two wives or two husbands at one
and
> the same time, knowing that the former husband or wife is still alive.
A loophole! Joseph Smith practiced POLYgamy not BIgamy. He had more than
two wives! (For those with an arrested sense of humor, that was a joke.)
>be punished by a fine, not exceeding one thousand dollars, and imprisoned
in the
> penitentiary, not exceeding two years.
Don't see where this includes being gunned down while in jail.
Ozzie
TheJordan6
>Date: 4/6/2002 5:03 AM Eastern Standard Time
>Message-id: <4Kzr8.66$rD4....@monger.newsread.com>
>
>> Anti-bigamy laws were enacted in many states as a matter of course. The
>1833
>> Illinois law read:
>>
>> Sec 121. Bigamy consists in the having of two wives or two husbands at one
>and
>> the same time, knowing that the former husband or wife is still alive.
>
>A loophole! Joseph Smith practiced POLYgamy not BIgamy. He had more than
>two wives! (For those with an arrested sense of humor, that was a joke.)
Ha ha. The fact is that if Smith's polygamy practice had not been illegal, he
needn't have practiced it in secret, or denied practicing it, and he wouldn't
have been indicted on charges concerning it.
>>be punished by a fine, not exceeding one thousand dollars, and imprisoned
>in the
>> penitentiary, not exceeding two years.
>Don't see where this includes being gunned down while in jail.
>
>Ozzie
Smith wasn't killed because he practiced polygamy. He was killed because he
ordered the destruction, without due process, of a printing press which
published a newspaper that exposed his secret polygamy practice. Smith had
already evaded justice on several charges, including conspiracy to commit
murder. He planned to escape justice for the press destruction by fleeing to
the west. His wife and friends called him a coward for leaving, so he returned
and was arrested. He was killed by members of a "vigilante" group who had had
enough of Smith's flaunting of the law. They viewed Smith's destruction of the
press as the last straw, and they were determined not to let him talk or buy
his way out of punishment again.
Randy J.
TheJordan6
>> >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.
>>
>
>I did get a good chuckle out of the "force-recruiting", when it was BY who
>sold
>them down the river.
You can read all about Brigham's lies at
http://www.concordance.com/cgi-bin/2wrdr.pl
>I don't know where they dig up this stuff. Seminary, I guess.
Seminary=Brainwashing center.
Randy J.
>Aloha!
>
>dangerous 1
>
>
>0------------------------------------------------------------------------
Efialtis
> > Interesting, but not doctrine [the stuff Efialtis snipped, that
> > Brigham Young said about imortal bodies not having blood].
>
> You didn't say doctrine. You said TEACHING. Here, I'll quote you for
> yourself:
Yes, excuse me, you are correct, I did say Teaching, not Doctrine, my
mistake.
> "As concerning the resurrection, ... all will be raised by the power
> of God, having spirit in their bodies, and not blood." [Teachings of
> the Prophet Joseph Smith, compiled by Joseph Fielding Smith, Deseret
> Book Company, 199-200].
This, Duwayne, is NOT a teaching or doctrine about resurrected bodies
having spirit material in their veins, only that the body houses the
spirit and there is no blood when resurrected.
Maybe you missed that, or you are intentionally trying to mislead the
readers?
Similarly, I cannot find the quoted portions of your reference in the
JoD, nor in any of my library. Are you mistaken?
From where did you pull this reference #31?
J.D. 1:238; Delivered in the Tabernacle, SLC; President Brigham Young;
July 24, 1853.
If you are quite sure your reference is good, then we should take a
deeper look at the JoD.
If we go back to page 237, we read the following,
"Suppose we now notice that part of the world called Christians, that
profess to believe the Old and New Testament, King James's
translation. They say they believe this Bible … the moment you make it
known that you have embraced the Book of Mormon, and that you believe
Joseph Smith is a Prophet, they will at once accuse you of throwing
away the Bible … Now, we ARE believers in the Bible, and in
consequence of our unshaken faith in its precepts, doctrine, and
prophecy, may be attributed "the strangeness of our course," and the
unwarrantable conduct of many towards this people."
He then starts an hypothetical discussion with:
"Come, my brother Presbyterian … Methodist … Baptist"
And calls them:
"brother B"
And he begins on the top of page 238:
"Let us take up a point of Scripture, and we will try to agree with
Mr. B … I believe the Father came down in His tabernacle and begat
Jesus Christ. Mr. B. believes He has no tabernacle … So I disagree
with you, Mr. B., in the first point we have noticed, for you believe
that God is without body and parts, while the Bible declares He has a
corporeal body; that in His likeness, precisely, He created Adam … The
God that his "brother Mormon" believes in, is described in the Bible
as being a personage of tabernacle, having eyes to see, for he that
made the eye shall he not see? Having ears to hear, for his ear are
open to hear the prayers of the righteous. He has limbs that he can
walk, for the Lord God walked in the garden in the cool of the day. He
conversed with His children, as in the case of Moses at the fiery
bush, and with Abraham on the plains of Mamre. He also ate and drank
with Abraham and others. That is the God the "Mormons" believe in, but
their very religious Christian brethren do not believe in the God of
Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, which is the God the Bible sets forth, as
an organized corporeal being"
We can understand one thing from this conversation, BY is trying to
compare God to Man, in all aspects.
In his line of reasoning, he is saying that we eat, so God eats, we
have blood, so God has some kind of Fluid…
Also you can clearly see that BY is speaking hypothetically, and he
says "I believe", not "thus sayeth the Lord" or anything similar.
This is BY explaining things as he sees them.
Teaching? Maybe. Doctrine? No. Right or Wrong? We do not know,
and can only speculate, as BY did.
Nothing embarrassing, nothing to be ashamed of.
> > 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"?
>
> Because they don't add up.
They "don't add up" because you don't have all the facts.
Unless you do have all the facts, like how many members left and came
back, whether they count re-baptisms as new baptisms, etc…
Do you have these facts?
<snip>
> And this, folks, is the sort of denial that's needed to be a Mormon.
> The Church reports a greater increase than the total number of
> baptisms for one year. And this happens -- how? And there really
> were no deaths in the Church that year?
And this, folks, is the sort of "denial" that's needed to be an
anti/ex-mormon.
Duwayne does not have the exact breakdown of numbers being published
by the Church, he has only a few of the categories, and because the
addition and subtraction he performs upon these numbers "don't add up"
he claims the Church is falsifying numbers.
Even though he cannot provide all the numbers to make this claim…
> And even with the numbers smacking him right between the eyes,
> Efialtis simply says he does not have enough information.
What numbers, Duwayne?
The 2 or 3 the Church publishes out of a total of a dozen or more?
I didn't see several categories...
Member deaths, re-baptisms, etc.
Can you tell me for a fact that these numbers were counted in the few
published by the Church?
Efialtis
> Smith wasn't killed because he practiced polygamy. He was killed because he
> ordered the destruction, without due process, of a printing press which
> published a newspaper that exposed his secret polygamy practice.
Wasn't it found in a previous discussion on this topic that the Courts
upheld his destruction of the printing press?
> Smith had
> already evaded justice on several charges, including conspiracy to commit
> murder.
Evading justice == acquitted?
> He planned to escape justice for the press destruction by fleeing to
> the west. His wife and friends called him a coward for leaving, so he returned
> and was arrested. He was killed by members of a "vigilante" group who had had
> enough of Smith's flaunting of the law. They viewed Smith's destruction of the
> press as the last straw, and they were determined not to let him talk or buy
> his way out of punishment again.
They took the law into their own hands. Sounds like fun! I should
find the lot of the anti/ex-mormons guilty of slander and form a
"vigilante group" and kill them all before they can be tried just in
case they might get out of it...be found not guilty...get acquittal
from the Courts...
We all know how that kind of thing is "real justice" not what the
Courts find...
Efialtis
> >Please post the information in detail...I would like to take a look at
> >Virginia's law.(thanks)
>
> Anti-bigamy laws were enacted in many states as a matter of course. The 1833
> Illinois law read:
<snip>
I asked for Virginia's law, I know Illinoise' law on this
subject...did you not understand?
> >However, the Mormons were on their way in that direction.
> Verily, your ignorance of things Mormon apparently knows no bounds.
<snip>
> Efialtis, maybe you ought to spend more time studying stuff, and less time
> trying to comment on it.
Can you tell me where Illinoise is in reference to Ohio?
Can you tell me where Missouri is in reference to Ohio and Illinoise?
Can you tell me how many choices the Mormons had on their constant
push West?
Can you tell me that Illimoise new the Mormons WEREN'T going to end up
within their borders in the very near future? (knowing the location of
Missouri from the second question above)
Ignorance? It apears that you don't think things through. The
Mormons were on their way west, from Ohio, this means they had to go
through Indianna and Illinoise BEFORE they got to Missouri...and with
a habit of making each location their home and leaving small
settlements behind, I would say each state feared they would have
Mormons living within their borders.
Because of the timeline, this "fear" would have developed early in the
1830s...
Efialtis
> Polygamy was made illegal in Illinois in Febuary 1833, years before the
> Mormons settled there.
>
> Efialtis ===
> However, the Mormons were on their way in that direction.
>
> JC comments ===
> then you must believe Mormons were rightly being "reproached with the
> crime of fornication, and polygamy," as early as 1833, and were lying as
> a Church in 1835, with their unanimous official denial of polygamy:
So how was he "reproached with the ceime of fornication, and polygamy"
when the earliest law referenced was 1833 in Illinoise, if they
weren't in Illinoise yet?
Go back and read the discussions on Polygamy from 2000, you will find
them enlightening...
Efialtis
> > For your information, polygamy *WAS* legal when it started.
>
> And when, exactly, did it start?
From the 2000 discussion on Polygamy, we found that Polygamy was
mentioned within the Church as early as 1831.
> Why did Joseph Smith lie about the
> practice, if it was legal?
From the 2000 discussion on Polygamy, we discussed how it was very
possible, considering many factors, how Polygamy was not to be
procticed by the body of the Church at that date, so it was not a
"Church Doctrine"...
No Lies.
> But that's exactly the way it looks -- like the LDS Church was bending
> to political power.
According to the Scriptures, and the 2000 Discussion on this topic,
the Lord can start and stop practices for a variety of reasons, one of
these reasons is nost likely to occur when commandments come into
conflict.
> There was no "thus saith the Lord" when polygamy was stopped. Have
> you read the "revelation?"
Doesn't need to be. Polygamy is still Church Doctrine, but it is not
practiced at this time.
> I think so. It was also immoral for him to try and kill his son.
So just because you think so, that makes it so...hmmmmm
Duwayne Anderson
<snip>
> Yes, excuse me, you are correct, I did say Teaching, not Doctrine, my
> mistake.
And what wacky teachings they are. Far sillier than the stuff taught
by the JWs. For anyone who missed it, here are examples of teachings
of LDS prophets, seers, and revelators on the subject of blood:
"As concerning the resurrection, ... all will be raised by the power
of God, having spirit in their bodies, and not blood." [Teachings of
the Prophet Joseph Smith, compiled by Joseph Fielding Smith, Deseret
Book Company, 199-200].
> This, Duwayne, is NOT a teaching or doctrine about resurrected bodies
> having spirit material in their veins, only that the body houses the
> spirit and there is no blood when resurrected.
And this is how Mormons deny what their prophets teach. Here is what
Brigham Young taught about blood:
"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
> Maybe you missed that, or you are intentionally trying to mislead the
> readers?
I'll let the readers decide who the liar is.
<snip rest of denials>
Cheap Suit
>
> Can you tell me where Illinoise is in reference to Ohio?
> Can you tell me where Missouri is in reference to Ohio and Illinoise?
> Can you tell me how many choices the Mormons had on their constant
> push West?
> Can you tell me that Illimoise new the Mormons WEREN'T going to end up
> within their borders in the very near future? (knowing the location of
> Missouri from the second question above)
>
> Ignorance?
Yeah.
Illinois.
Indiana.
knew.
dangerous 1
0------------------------------------------------0
Think Global, Act Loco
http://www.dangerous1.com
chea...@dangerous1.com
don marchant
0------------------------------------------------0
Cheap Suit
> <snip>
>
> > > For your information, polygamy *WAS* legal when it started.
> >
> > And when, exactly, did it start?
>
> From the 2000 discussion on Polygamy, we found that Polygamy was
> mentioned within the Church as early as 1831.
>
> > Why did Joseph Smith lie about the
> > practice, if it was legal?
>
> From the 2000 discussion on Polygamy, we discussed how it was very
> possible, considering many factors, how Polygamy was not to be
> procticed by the body of the Church at that date, so it was not a
> "Church Doctrine"...
> No Lies.
>
> > But that's exactly the way it looks -- like the LDS Church was bending
> > to political power.
>
> According to the Scriptures, and the 2000 Discussion on this topic,
> the Lord can start and stop practices for a variety of reasons, one of
> these reasons is nost likely to occur when commandments come into
> conflict.
>
> > There was no "thus saith the Lord" when polygamy was stopped. Have
> > you read the "revelation?"
>
> Doesn't need to be. Polygamy is still Church Doctrine, but it is not
> practiced at this time.
>
Hinckley says it is not doctrinal.
Larry King Live
Gordon Hinckley: Distinguished Religious Leader of the
Mormons
Aired September 8, 1998 - 9:00 p.m. ET
KING: I'm giving you an idea.
HINCKLEY: Yes.
KING: Would you look better if you were...
HINCKLEY: I don't know that we would or not. As far as I'm
concerned, I have nothing to do with it. It belongs to the civil
officers of the state.
KING: You condemn it.
HINCKLEY: I condemn it, yes, as a practice, because I think it is
not doctrinal. It is not legal. And this church takes the position
that we will abide by the law. We believe in being subject to
kings, presidents, rulers, magistrates in honoring, obeying and
sustaining the law.
DONM: yeah, right.
Duwayne Anderson
<snip>
> They "don't add up" because you don't have all the facts.
Efialtis is squirming here, folks, as he tries to explain how the
increase in Church membership -- using the CHURCH's OWN FIGURES -- is
MORE than what the number of baptisms.
You can see a summary of the membership figures at
http://www.connect-a.net/users/drshades/stats.htm
> Unless you do have all the facts, like how many members left and came
> back,
Are you saying that nobody in the LDS Church died? Normal mortality
rates are about 1% per year. That means the LDS Church should have
about 100,000 members die each year. So they must baptize about
100,000 people just to keep their membership stable.
Don't Mormons die?
> whether they count re-baptisms as new baptisms, etc…
> Do you have these facts?
For re-baptisms to account for the difference, the rate of re-baptism
would have to exceed the mortality rate.
> Duwayne does not have the exact breakdown of numbers being published
> by the Church,
Wiggle, wiggle, squirm, squirm. What else is there to do when the LDS
Church is caught lying red handed?
<snip>
> What numbers, Duwayne?
The numbers at http://www.connect-a.net/users/drshades/stats.htm.
They show the LDS Church claiming an increase in membership that is
larger than their reported baptisms. Apparently, the folks who cook
the numbers for the LDS Church forgot that people die, and that they
have to baptize about 100,000 people a year just to hold their
population stable.
<snip rest of denial>
Duwayne Anderson
>
> > > Interesting, but not doctrine [the stuff Efialtis snipped, that
> > > Brigham Young said about imortal bodies not having blood].
> >
> > You didn't say doctrine. You said TEACHING. Here, I'll quote you for
> > yourself:
>
> Yes, excuse me, you are correct, I did say Teaching, not Doctrine, my
> mistake.
>
> > "As concerning the resurrection, ... all will be raised by the power
> > of God, having spirit in their bodies, and not blood." [Teachings of
> > the Prophet Joseph Smith, compiled by Joseph Fielding Smith, Deseret
> > Book Company, 199-200].
>
> This, Duwayne, is NOT a teaching or doctrine about resurrected bodies
> having spirit material in their veins, only that the body houses the
> spirit and there is no blood when resurrected.
Here is another comment by Joseph Smith on the matter:
"When our flesh is quickened by the Spirit, there will be no blood in
this tabernacle." [Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, p. 367]
Talk about wacky teachings. Easily as wacky as anything the JWs
teach.
By the way. What's in those blood vessels, anyway? Are they just
empty -- without any use? Tell us, Efialtis, what's in those blood
vessels. Make the story even funnier by filling in the details.
Jackie Chan
So how was he "reproached with the ceime of fornication, and polygamy"
when the earliest law referenced was 1833 in Illinoise, if they weren't
in Illinoise yet?
JC comments ===
dunno & don't much care, because the Mormon Church itself unanimously
acknowledged and published the fact in 1835, in their Doctrine and
Covenants (Section 101:4)
you see, the common law provided that marriage while having a living
husband or wife was a felony, and the second marriage was void
(Blackstone, William. Commentaries on the Laws of England. 4 vols.
Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1765. 1:423-24). Most states had reinforced
common law with anti-bigamy statutes, but the felonious nature of bigamy
was a universally accepted legal principle in the United States
Efialtis
> Efialtis is squirming here, folks, as he tries to explain how the
> increase in Church membership -- using the CHURCH's OWN FIGURES -- is
> MORE than what the number of baptisms.
Yes, folks, I am squirming...that is why I only ask Duwayne 2
questions,
1) Does Duwayne have the exact Breakdown of the Church Membership
Records Numbers?
<snip>
> For re-baptisms to account for the difference, the rate of re-baptism
> would have to exceed the mortality rate.
Are you saying that you have the Churches Membership Records numbers
in detail?
If so, please, by all means post them in detail. If not, well, we all
know what happens when Duwayne gets caught without the facts...
<snip>
Efialtis
> > mistake.
>
> And what wacky teachings they are. Far sillier than the stuff taught
> by the JWs. For anyone who missed it, here are examples of teachings
> of LDS prophets, seers, and revelators on the subject of blood:
>
> "As concerning the resurrection, ... all will be raised by the power
> of God, having spirit in their bodies, and not blood." [Teachings of
> the Prophet Joseph Smith, compiled by Joseph Fielding Smith, Deseret
> Book Company, 199-200].
>
> > This, Duwayne, is NOT a teaching or doctrine about resurrected bodies
> > having spirit material in their veins, only that the body houses the
> > spirit and there is no blood when resurrected.
Ok, I guess we have exceeded Duwayne's capacity to deal with this
subject...
So I will break it down simply for the readers, and for Duwayne...
Above we have a quote by Joseph Fielding Smith on the Teachings of
Joseph Smith Jr., that quote is, "As concerning the resurrection, ...
all will be raised by the power of God, having spirit in their bodies,
and not blood."
No where in this quote does it say that the resurrected bodies have
spirit blood in their veins.
However, this does not stop Duwayne from claiming that id does, but I
believe it is plain to the readers.
> See it at http://www.lds-mormon.com/veilworker/ag3.shtml
Ok, then I couldn't figure out Duwayne's reference, seems he has a
hard time understand the format of some of the stuff he posts here.
He calims that the reference on the web page listed here, #31, (J.D.
1:238; Delivered in the Tabernacle, SLC; President Brigham Young; July
24, 1853), however, if he had paid attention, he would have seen how
it is really #30 that he is attempting to quote from, which changes
the whole thing, #30, 30. The Seer, I, 3; Orson Pratt, "The
Pre-Existence of Man", para. 23, 24, 25, p. 37; (Washington, D.C.:
March 1853)
So the quote was actually made by Orson Pratt, not Brigham Young, as
Quwayne claims, and his argument becomes MOOT.
If you do not believe me, look up the Journal of Discourses #1, Page
#238 and READ it. Duwayne has obviously NEVER read this passage he
posts in this argument. He simply repeats what he reads on the
web...and in this case, repeats it WRONG.
> > Maybe you missed that, or you are intentionally trying to mislead the
> > readers?
>
> I'll let the readers decide who the liar is.
Well, I guess that answers that...
Efialtis
> Hinckley says it is not doctrinal.
>
> Larry King Live
<snip>
> HINCKLEY: I condemn it, yes, as a practice, because I think it is
> not doctrinal. It is not legal. And this church takes the position
> that we will abide by the law. We believe in being subject to
> kings, presidents, rulers, magistrates in honoring, obeying and
> sustaining the law.
"because I think it is not doctrinal"
Don't let that escape your notice...
Scott Marquardt
>> HINCKLEY: I condemn it, yes, as a practice, because I think it is
>> not doctrinal. It is not legal. And this church takes the position
>> that we will abide by the law. We believe in being subject to
>> kings, presidents, rulers, magistrates in honoring, obeying and
>> sustaining the law.
>"because I think it is not doctrinal"
>Don't let that escape your notice...
Since when does "I think it is not doctrinal" imply doubt? In fact, it
seems to me that what the Prophet thinks should be of paramount
importance, more certain than what anyone else thinks.
But let's say that he's not *certain* that it's not doctrinal.
Notice that he's willing to *condemn*, in that case, what he's not
certain about.
- Scott
Cheap Suit
Some are unable to make the distinction between "I don't think it is
doctrinal", and "I think it is not doctrinal".
When the prophet, see-er, and revelator says what he thinks, everyone
else knows what they are supposed to think. Or whether or not they are
supposed to think at all.
At least he didn't say that he wasn't sure if it was still taught or not.
Scott Marquardt
>Duwayne does not have the exact breakdown of numbers being published
>by the Church, he has only a few of the categories, and because the
>addition and subtraction he performs upon these numbers "don't add up"
>he claims the Church is falsifying numbers.
I haven't been following this conversation too closely, but perhaps its
time to switch gears and wonder why the church doesn't provide these
numbers.
At any rate, I sure found this interesting:
http://www.lds-mormon.com/churchgrowthrates.shtml
- Scott
Scott Marquardt
>At least he didn't say that he wasn't sure if it was still taught or not.
Right. He's well rounded enough to have said that elswhere,though.
- Scott
Roy Stogner
>> > They "don't add up" because you don't have all the facts.
>
>> Efialtis is squirming here, folks, as he tries to explain how the
>> increase in Church membership -- using the CHURCH's OWN FIGURES -- is
>> MORE than what the number of baptisms.
>
> Yes, folks, I am squirming...that is why I only ask Duwayne 2 questions,
> 1) Does Duwayne have the exact Breakdown of the Church Membership
> Records Numbers?
Here's a few return questions:
1) Please examine the Church's Statistical Reports for 1973:
And for 2000:
(If those interminable URLs didn't paste right, you'll need to look up the
May 1974 and May 2001 Ensign issues yourself)
The 1973 report provides about three dozen pieces of data (including the
birth and death rates we're being forced to speculate about here), whereas
the 2000 report provides 9. So:
1a) Why do you think that is?
1b) Could you find the missing information anywhere else? I'm quite
curious as to how the ratio of priesthood holders to members has changed,
for instance, so please start with that.
2) Let's take a look at that birth rate. Notice that the number of
children blessed in 1973 is about 20.7 per 1000 members, a bit lower than
the given birthrate. Notice that the increase in children of record in
2000 is about 7.4 per 1000 members. This is about half of the birthrate
in the USA (and I doubt that Mormons fall on the low side of the USA
average) and a third of the birthrate in the world as a whole. Why the
drop?
3) How about the death rate? The 1973 report gives the Mormon death rate
per thousand as 4.91. Today, the Utah death rate is still an
astonishingly low 5.5. By that measurement (which is surely an
underestimate for Mormons as a whole, if half of them are now overseas),
we would have expected 60,800+ Mormons to die in 2000. The reported
membership increase in 2000 falls short of the number of new converts and
new "children of record" by less than 40,000. Was 2000 just a really good
year for Mormon health?
4) The LDS Church used to provide numbers for both the "increase in
children of record" and "Baptisms of 8-year-olds". (the former of course
being the larger statistic). Why do you think they stopped providing the
second?
5) Was 1999 a really, really good year for Mormon health? That year, the
increase in membership *exceeded* the number of new converts or "children
of record" by 8,400. The only mechanism for such an increase you've
mentioned is re-baptisms. So, my questions:
5a) We've covered convert baptisms, increase in children of record, and
rebaptisms. Are there any other missing mechanisms for membership
increase that I've missed?
5b) Do you honestly believe the number of members lost to the records
(remember, we're talking excommunication or name removal, otherwise adding
them to the membership numbers again would be a duplication) rebaptized in
1999 exceeded the number of members (probably around 60,000) who died?
5c) How many LDS members have you known who have died? How many have you
known who have left the church, had their name removed from its records,
then returned to be rebaptized?
There will be more later, but that's a good start.
---
Roy Stogner
Roy Stogner
> At any rate, I sure found this interesting:
> http://www.lds-mormon.com/churchgrowthrates.shtml
What I just noticed is that the 2000 and 2001 membership estimates
actually overpredicted, so adding those new data will end up cutting the
carrying capacity prediction again. Duwayne, can we expect an update any
time soon?
---
Roy Stogner
Duwayne Anderson
> > > mistake.
> >
> > And what wacky teachings they are. Far sillier than the stuff taught
> > by the JWs. For anyone who missed it, here are examples of teachings
> > of LDS prophets, seers, and revelators on the subject of blood:
> >
> > "As concerning the resurrection, ... all will be raised by the power
> > of God, having spirit in their bodies, and not blood." [Teachings of
> > the Prophet Joseph Smith, compiled by Joseph Fielding Smith, Deseret
> > Book Company, 199-200].
> >
> > > This, Duwayne, is NOT a teaching or doctrine about resurrected bodies
> > > having spirit material in their veins, only that the body houses the
> > > spirit and there is no blood when resurrected.
>
> Ok, I guess we have exceeded Duwayne's capacity to deal with this
> subject...
Notice the typical behavior of the LDS apologist above. When they
find themselves unable to deal logically with an issue, they begin
making ad hominem arguments.
> So I will break it down simply for the readers, and for Duwayne...
> Above we have a quote by Joseph Fielding Smith on the Teachings of
> Joseph Smith Jr., that quote is, "As concerning the resurrection, ...
> all will be raised by the power of God, having spirit in their bodies,
> and not blood."
And remember, this thread began with Efialtis asserting that JW
doctrines about blood are silly. Efialtis said:
"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."
I fully agreed, but Efialtis seems unable to see the weirdness in LDS
doctrine about blood -- only to deny what LDS prophets have taught
about the subject.
> No where in this quote does it say that the resurrected bodies have
> spirit blood in their veins.
That was in the quote by Brigham Young. But BOTH quotes are easily as
weird as any JW doctrine on blood.
By the way, Efialtis, what's in those non-blood-carrying blood vessels
in the resurrected bodies?
<snip to end>
Duwayne Anderson
> > > They "don't add up" because you don't have all the facts.
>
> > Efialtis is squirming here, folks, as he tries to explain how the
> > increase in Church membership -- using the CHURCH's OWN FIGURES -- is
> > MORE than what the number of baptisms.
>
> Yes, folks, I am squirming...that is why I only ask Duwayne 2
> questions,
> 1) Does Duwayne have the exact Breakdown of the Church Membership
> Records Numbers?
We don't need the EXACT breakdown of the Church Membership to tell
that the Church is lying about what they DO publish. It's simple
math, Efialtis. The increase in Church membership cannot be greater
than the number of baptisms, because baptism is the ONLY way a person
can become a member.
So your harping about having the "EXACT" breakdown is a diversion.
You are right, though, about the squirming. Your comments in this
thread remind me of some of the excuses Calvin might have used when
caught with his hand stuck in the cookie jar.
>
> <snip>
>
> > For re-baptisms to account for the difference, the rate of re-baptism
> > would have to exceed the mortality rate.
>
> Are you saying that you have the Churches Membership Records numbers
> in detail?
I'm saying that the numbers the LDS CHURCH publishes for baptisms and
total Church membership don't add up -- and that your ad hoc excuses
don't solve the problem.
>
> If so, please, by all means post them in detail.
What details? What sort of detail would make 2+2=5? What sort of
detail would allow the Church membership to grow faster than the
number of baptisms?
> If not, well, we all
> know what happens when Duwayne gets caught without the facts...
Still squirming, I see.
Duwayne Anderson
I hope so, Roy, but notice that the site referenced above is not mine.
Duwayne Anderson
Just a guess: I'd say that it's because the number of baptisms for
children of record is a good indicator of the actual number of active
LDS families. The LDS Church does not want to give out too much
information. It makes it harder to cook the books.
>
> 5) Was 1999 a really, really good year for Mormon health? That year, the
> increase in membership *exceeded* the number of new converts or "children
> of record" by 8,400. The only mechanism for such an increase you've
> mentioned is re-baptisms. > So, my questions:
>
> 5a) We've covered convert baptisms, increase in children of record, and
> rebaptisms. Are there any other missing mechanisms for membership
> increase that I've missed?
Nope. The ONLY way to get into the LDS Church is through baptism.
There are no missing mechanisms.
>
> 5b) Do you honestly believe the number of members lost to the records
> (remember, we're talking excommunication or name removal, otherwise adding
> them to the membership numbers again would be a duplication) rebaptized in
> 1999 exceeded the number of members (probably around 60,000) who died?
Although rebaptisms might add in one year, they subtract from another
year. That is, they result in no net increase. So, even though a
given amount of people might be rebaptized in (for, example, the year
2000) one would expect an equal number to be excommunicated or leave.
There will, of course, be statistical fluctuations, but these must
average to zero over the long term.
<snip to end>
Good additional information.
Thanks for posting it.
Duwayne Anderson
> <snip>
>
> > > For your information, polygamy *WAS* legal when it started.
> >
> > And when, exactly, did it start?
>
> From the 2000 discussion on Polygamy, we found that Polygamy was
> mentioned within the Church as early as 1831.
Reference, please.
>
> > Why did Joseph Smith lie about the
> > practice, if it was legal?
>
> From the 2000 discussion on Polygamy, we discussed how it was very
> possible, considering many factors, how Polygamy was not to be
> procticed by the body of the Church at that date, so it was not a
> "Church Doctrine"...
> No Lies.
A lie is a statement intended to decieve. Please try to explain how
deception was not involved in any of the following situations (quoted
from an article by John Manning, which was posted to ARM on
2002-03-06):
JOSEPH SMITH DENIES & PRACTICES POLYGAMY
The major point that I will attempt to convey in this article is that
Joseph Smith and the other LDS Church leaders knowingly decieved its
members and the public at large regarding polygamy. Most Mormons and
non-Mormons now know that Joseph Smith practiced polygamy. This
historical fact is really only debated by the RLDS Church which has
claimed that Brigham Young invented polygamy after Joseph Smith's
death. However, there is substantial historical evidence that Joseph
Smith practiced and taught polygamy during his lifetime. This post
will start by showing the early LDS teachings against polygamy and the
denials of any member practicing the act. I have been very exhaustive
in my search and hope that the evidence I present will convince you of
the deception the LDS Church promulgated to its members and the world.
In this article I will use all Mormon sources, including the History
of the Church, two LDS publications, the Messenger and Advocate and
the Times and Seasons, and personal speeches and documents of faithful
Mormons.
EXAMPLES OF THE DENIAL AND PRACTICE OF POLYGAMY
DENIALS:
History of the Church, vol. 2, pg. 247 (August 1835) "The clerk of
every church should keep a record of all marriages solemnized in his
branch. All legal contracts of marriage made before a person is
baptized into this Church should be held sacred and fulfilled.
Inasmuch as this Church of Christ has been reproached with the crime
of fornication and polygamy, we declare that we believe that one man
should have one wife, and one woman but one husband, except in the
case of death, when either is at liberty to marry again.
(This was included in the first published Doctrine and Covenants and
accepted unanimously by the Twelve before being published. This
passage in *every* D&C edition until 1876 when D&C 132 was first
introduced to the Doctrine and Covenants).
Messenger and Advocate (Aug 1835) pg. 163
"All legal contracts of marriage made before a person is baptized into
this church should be held sacred and fulflled. Inasmuch as this
Church of Christ has been reproached with the crime of fornication,
and polygamy: we declare that we believe, that one man should have one
wife: one woman, but one husband, except in teh case of death, when
either is at liberty to marry again."
History of the Church, vol. 5, pg. 30 (May 1836)
"Inasmuch as this Church of Christ has been reproached with the crime
of fornication and polygamy, we declare that we believe that one man,
should have one wife, and one woman but one husband, except in case of
death,, when either is at liberty to marry again."
Messenger and Advocate (May 1837) Warren Cowdery editor, pg. 511
"1st. That we will have no fellowship whatever with any Elder
belonging to the quorums of the Seventies who is guilty of polygamy or
any offense of the kind, and who does not in all things conform to the
laws of the church contained in the Bible and in the Book of Doctrine
and Covenants."
PRACTICED:
Benjamin Johnson Letter to Gibbs, 1903 in E. Dale LeBaron (1967)
"And now to your question, 'How early did the Prophet Joseph practice
polygamy?' I hardly know how wisely to reply, for the truth at times
may be better withheld; but as what I am writing is to be published
only under strict scrutiny of the wisest, I will say, that the
revelation [D&C 132] to the
Church at Nauvoo, July 21, 1843, on the Eternity of the Marriage
Covenant and the Law of Plural Marriage, was not the first revelation
of the law received and practiced by the Prophet. In 1835, at
Kirtland, I learned from my sister's husband, Lyman R. Sherman, who
was close to the Prophet, and received it from him, "that the ancient
order of Plural Marriage was again to be practiced by the Church."
This at the time, did not impress my mind deeply, although there then
lived with his family a neighbor's daughter, Fannie Alger, a very nice
and comely young woman about my own age, toward whom not only myself,
but every one, seemed partial for the amiability of her."
(Date of marriage to Fannie Alger: prior to 1838, probably 1835 when
Fannie Alger lived with Joseph Smith)
DENIALS:
Times and Seasons, vol. 4, pg. 869 (August 1, 1842)
"The church afterwards publicly withdrew their fellowship from him
[John C. Bennett], and his character was published in the 17th number
of this paper; since that time he John C. Bennet] has published that
the conduct of the Saints was bad that Joseph Smith and many others
were adulterers, murderers, &c. -- that here was a secret band of men
that would kill people, &c. called Danites -- that he was in duress
when he gave his affidavit, and testified that Joseph Smith was a
virtuos man -- that we believed and practiced polygamy -- that we
believed in secret murders, and aimed to destroy the government &c."
Times and Seasons, vol. 4, pg. 909 (September 1, 1842)
"All legal contracts of marriage made before a person is baptized into
this church, should be held sacred and fulfilled. Inasmuch as this
church of Christ has been reproached with the crime of fornication,
and polygamy: we declare that we believe, that one man should have one
wife; and one woman, but one husband, except in the case of death,
when either is at liberty to marry again. It is not right to persuade
a woman to be baptized contrary to the will of her husband neither is
it lawful to influence her to leave her husband."
Times and Seasons, vol. 4, pg. 939 (October 1, 1842)
"All legal contracts of marriage made before a preson is baptized into
this church, should be held sacred and fulfilled. Inasmuch as this
church of Christ has been reproached with the crime of fornication,
and polygamy: we declare that we believe, that one man should have one
wife; and one woman, but one husband, except in the case of death,
when either is at liberty to marry again. It is not right to persuade
a woman to be baptized contrary to the will of her husband neither is
it lawful to influence her to leave her husband."
Times and Seasons, vol. 4, pg. 28 (December 1, 1842)
"He spoke of the various publications of Bennett and others, and of
the prejudices which they had necessarily excited-that the Mormons
were charged with sanctioning a community of wives and of goods, with
polygamy, and various other enormities, not one word of which is
true."
PRACTICED:
Orange Wight Autobiography, BYU, pg. 8-9 (1903)
"I now come to that part of my story that you will be most likely
interested in, which regard the doctrine taught by the Prophet Joseph
Smith in regard to the plural marriage system ....... After we got in
the house Sister Woodworth took me in another room and told me that
Flora was one of Joseph's wives. I was aware or believed that Eliza R.
Snow and two of Partridge girls were his wives
but was not informed about Flora. But now Sister Woodworth gave me all
the information necessary, so I knew Joseph believed and practiced
polygamy."
(Date of marriages: Prior to 1842)
Mary Lightner 1905 Address, typescript, BYU, pg. 2-3
"Two of his sisters were Joseph's wives. Emma took them by the hand
and gave them to Joseph...... I went forward and was sealed to him
[Joseph Smith]. Brigham Young performed the sealing, and Heber C.
Kimball the blessing. I know he had six wives and I have known some of
them from childhood up. I knew he had three children. They told me. I
think two are living today but they are not known as his children as
they go by other names."
(Date of marriage to Mary Lightner: February 1842)
Helen Whitney "Scenes in Nauvoo," WE 11 (1882), pg. 146
"It was not until the summer of after he had gone east that I learned
of the existence of the plural order of marriage, and that the spring
of 1842 had seen his sister Sarah Ann the wife of Joseph Smith."
(Date of marriage of Sarah Ann: July 27, 1842)
DENIALS:
History of the Church, vol. 6, pg. 405 (May 25, 1844)
"Saturday, 25 -- At home, keeping ou to fhte way of expected writs
from Carthage. Towards evening, Edward Hunter and William Marks, of
the grand jury returned from Carthage; also Marshal John P. Greene and
Almon W. Babbitt, who informed me there were two indictments found
against me, one chargine me false swearing on the testimony of Joseph
H. Jackson and Robert D. Foster, and one charging me of polygamy, or
something else, on the testimony of William Law, that I told him so!
The particulars of which I shall learn hearafter. There was much false
swearing before the grand jury."
History of the Church, vol. 6, pg. 411 (May 1844)
"It is not right for a man to bare down his neck to the oppressor
always. Be humble and patient in all circumstances of life; we shall
then triumph more gloriously. What a thing it is for a man to be
accused of committing adultery, and having seven wives, when I can
only find one."
Times and Seasons, vol. 5, pg. 423 (February 1, 1844)
"As we have lately been credibly informed, that an Elder of the Church
of Jesus Christ, of Latter day Saints, by the name of Hiram Brown, has
been preaching Polygamy, and other false and corrupt doctrines, in the
county of Lapeer, state of Michigan."
PRACTICED:
Benjamin Johnson My Life's Review (1947), pg. 93-95
"In talking with my mother after the revelation [D&C 132] on plural
marriage was given, he told her that when the Lord required him to
move in plural marriage, that his first thought was to come and ask
her for some of her daughters; and I can now understand that the
period alluded to was at
Kirtland, where she had three unmarried daughters at home, two of whom
died there, and Almira, the other, was sealed to him in Nauvoo; the
other two, Nancy M. and Susan E., being sealed to him by proxy since
his death...........Early on Sunday morning he [Joseph Smith] said,
"Come Brother Bennie, let us have a walk." I took his arm and he led
the way into a by-place in the edge of the
woods surrounded by tall brush and trees. Here, as we say down upon a
log he began to tell me that the Lord had revealed to him that plural
or patriarchal marriage was according to His law; and that the Lord
had not only revealed it to him but had commanded him to obey it; that
he was required to take other wives; and that he wanted my Sister
Almira for one of them, and wished me to see and talk to her upon the
subject."
(Date of marriage to Almera Johnson: Spring 1843)
Emily Young "Auto," Woman's Exponent 14 (1885), pg. 38
"The first intimation I had from Brother Joseph that there was a pure
and holy order of plural marriage, was in the spring of 1842, but I
was not married until 1843. I was married to him on the 11th of May,
1843, by Elder James Adams. Emma was present. She gave her free and
full consent. She had always up to this time, been very kind to me and
my sister Eliza, who was also married to
the Prophet Joseph Smith with Emma's consent; but ever after she was
our enemy."
(Date of marriage of Emily Dow Partridge: May 11, 1843)
Cordelia Cox Autobiography, BYU, pg. 4
"In the spring of forty-four [1844], plural marriage was introduced to
me by my parents from Joseph Smith, asking their consent and a request
to be his wife."
(Date of marriage of Cordelia Cox: None, Cordelia Cox refused)
DENIALS, DENIALS, & MORE DENIALS:
Times and Seasons, vol. 6, pg. 893-894 (May 1, 1845)
"Dear Sir: To condemn unheard, any man or set of men or their
principles, on the strength of popular rumor, or the testimony of
enemies, would be gross injustice. An impartial investigation should
always precede condemnation. The Latter-day Saints are charged by
their enemies, with the blackest crimes.
Treason, murder, theft, polygamy, and adultery, are among the many
crimes laid to their charge. -- The press reiterates and gives
publicity to these charges. Under these circumstances, it is but
right, that they should be heard in their defence. I shall, therefore,
in this communication, briefly examine and refute a few of the
charges, for it would need a legion of writers to answer (all) the
lies told about us."
Times and Seasons, vol 6., pg. 894 (May 1, 1845)
"Most of the stories against the Mormons have been propagated by
apostates and traitors, (who have been generally cut off from the
church for their crimes.) They publish their lies, and straightway
they are believed, and hawked about as awful disclosures, and received
by community with trembling and holy horror. Sidney Rigdon, I see by
the papers, has made an exposition of Mormonism, charging Joseph Smith
and the Mormons with polygamy, &c. it does not require a very
sagacious mind to fathom Mr. Rigdon's motive for doing."
----(I hope the reader takes a good look at this next reference,
knowing full well that Joseph Smith and other LDS Church leaders
practiced polygamy prior to May 1845.)----
Times and Seasons, vol. 6, pg. 894 (May 1, 1845)
"As to the charge of polygamy, I will quote from the Book of Doctrine
and Convenants, which is the subsrcibed faith of the church and is
strictly enforced. Article of Marriage, sec. 91, par. 4, says,
"Inasmuch as this church of Christ has been reproached with the crime
of fornication and polygamy,
we declare that we believe that one man should have but one wife
except in the case of death when either is at liberty to marry again."
Sec. 12, par. 7. "Thou shalt love thy wife with all thy heart and
shall cleave unto her and NONE ELSE."
In ancient (times) till (now) God cleanses the earth, and restores the
government of his ways, "know this that, in (the last days of perilous
times shall come), for men shall be TRAITORS, FALSE ACCUSSERS,
INCONTINENT, fierce despiser of those that are good." No wonder then
that apostates rage, or that the fulness of truth revealed again
should bring a storm of persecution."
A favorite defense of LDS Church leaders. All of this is now
historical fact.
> Joseph
> > But that's exactly the way it looks -- like the LDS Church was bending
> > to political power.
>
> According to the Scriptures, and the 2000 Discussion on this topic,
> the Lord can start and stop practices for a variety of reasons, one of
> these reasons is nost likely to occur when commandments come into
> conflict.
Show that the "lord" was ever involved, and that the whole thing was
not just a bunch of men running a man-made church.
>
> > There was no "thus saith the Lord" when polygamy was stopped. Have
> > you read the "revelation?"
>
> Doesn't need to be.
Oh? So doctrine can just be changed by the men in the Church?
> Polygamy is still Church Doctrine, but it is not
> practiced at this time.
Is the Church is STILL lying about polygamy?
>
> > I think so. It was also immoral for him to try and kill his son.
>
> So just because you think so, that makes it so...hmmmmm
So you would kill your kid if god told you to? Would you kill another
person's kid if god told you to?
Duwayne Anderson
It seems, Efialtis, you are having a heck of a time keeping your story
straight:
Efia...@WinISP.net (Efialtis) wrote in message news:<3154b26e.02040...@posting.google.com>...
<snip>
> Polygamy is still Church Doctrine, but it is not
> practiced at this time.
<snip>
Is Polygamy doctrine or not doctrine? Efialtis said that "Polygamy is
still Chruch Doctrine," yet he defends Hinkley, who says Polygamy is
NOT doctrine.
Which is it, Efialtis? Is it doctrine, or not doctrine? You say it's
doctrine. Hinkley says it's not doctrinal. It seems that, after more
than 100 years, the LDS are STILL tripping over their lies about
polygamy.
Roy Stogner
> Roy Stogner <royst...@SPAMiname.com> wrote in message
> news:<pan.2002.04.08.03....@SPAMiname.com>...
>> On Mon, 08 Apr 2002 03:12:02 -0500, Scott Marquardt wrote:
>>
>> > At any rate, I sure found this interesting:
>> > http://www.lds-mormon.com/churchgrowthrates.shtml
>>
>> What I just noticed is that the 2000 and 2001 membership estimates
>> actually overpredicted, so adding those new data will end up cutting
>> the carrying capacity prediction again. Duwayne, can we expect an
>> update any time soon?
>
> I hope so, Roy, but notice that the site referenced above is not mine.
Isn't that particular article yours? If the site is slow to make changes,
would you post an update to the newsgroup?
Thanks,
---
Roy Stogner
Scott Marquardt
>Which is it, Efialtis? Is it doctrine, or not doctrine? You say it's
>doctrine. Hinkley says it's not doctrinal. It seems that, after more
>than 100 years, the LDS are STILL tripping over their lies about
>polygamy.
Hey, you know how it is on a beach. If the sand is hot, you keep hopping
from one foot to the other. A 50% duty cycle keeps you cooler. LOL
How about that -- a "duty cycle" theory of coherence?
- Scott
Efialtis
> It seems, Efialtis, you are having a heck of a time keeping your story
> straight:
<snip>
It seems, Duwayne, you are having a heck of a time understanding the
English Language.
> Is Polygamy doctrine or not doctrine? Efialtis said that "Polygamy is
> still Chruch Doctrine," yet he defends Hinkley, who says Polygamy is
> NOT doctrine.
Polygamy is still Doctrine.
Read what Pres. Hinkely says again, he does NOT say it is NOT
doctrine, just that he does not THINK it is doctrine.
The man has every right to his personal opinions, right up to the time
that God tells him to change his mind.
Because Polygamy is not practiced in the LDS Church at this time, by
the will of the Lord, the PRACTICE of Polygamy is "not doctrine" at
this time. So there is no need for his opinion to be different than
it currently is.
<snip>
Efialtis
> > mentioned within the Church as early as 1831.
>
> Reference, please.
Google search on Polygamy in 2000, you will find at least 3 threads
that go through this in this very forum.
> > From the 2000 discussion on Polygamy, we discussed how it was very
> > possible, considering many factors, how Polygamy was not to be
> > procticed by the body of the Church at that date, so it was not a
> > "Church Doctrine"...
> > No Lies.
> A lie is a statement intended to decieve. Please try to explain how
> deception was not involved in any of the following situations (quoted
> from an article by John Manning, which was posted to ARM on
> 2002-03-06):
Also from that discussion:
Spiritual Wifery != LDS Doctrine of Polygamy
Community of Wives != LDS Doctrine of Polygamy
Spiritual Wifery != Community of Wives
Also, most all the quoted portions were delt with back in 2000, that
Google Search might help you there...I don't have time to recreate
it...
> > According to the Scriptures, and the 2000 Discussion on this topic,
> > the Lord can start and stop practices for a variety of reasons, one of
> > these reasons is nost likely to occur when commandments come into
> > conflict.
> Show that the "lord" was ever involved, and that the whole thing was
> not just a bunch of men running a man-made church.
Show how the "Lord" was not involved, and the whole thing isn't run by
a bunch of Inspired Men leading a Restored Church.
> > > There was no "thus saith the Lord" when polygamy was stopped. Have
> > > you read the "revelation?"
> >
> > Doesn't need to be.
>
> Oh? So doctrine can just be changed by the men in the Church?
Again, back to the 2000 discussion, Because it is still Doctrine,
Polygamy has only been "postponed", the Lord only needed to let the
Leaders of the Church put a hold on it.
The "Thus sayeth the Lord" would only come in if the Doctrine was to
be removed from the Church.
> > Polygamy is still Church Doctrine, but it is not
> > practiced at this time.
>
> Is the Church is STILL lying about polygamy?
Are you still deceiving people about Polygamy?
> > > I think so. It was also immoral for him to try and kill his son.
> >
> > So just because you think so, that makes it so...hmmmmm
>
> So you would kill your kid if god told you to? Would you kill another
> person's kid if god told you to?
If I were in Abraham's shoes, or Nephi's shoes, I would do exactly as
I was told by God.
Duwayne Anderson
> On Mon, 08 Apr 2002 09:08:32 -0500, Duwayne Anderson wrote:
>
> > Roy Stogner <royst...@SPAMiname.com> wrote in message
> > news:<pan.2002.04.08.03....@SPAMiname.com>...
> >> On Mon, 08 Apr 2002 03:12:02 -0500, Scott Marquardt wrote:
> >>
> >> > At any rate, I sure found this interesting:
> >> > http://www.lds-mormon.com/churchgrowthrates.shtml
> >>
> >> What I just noticed is that the 2000 and 2001 membership estimates
> >> actually overpredicted, so adding those new data will end up cutting
> >> the carrying capacity prediction again. Duwayne, can we expect an
> >> update any time soon?
> >
> > I hope so, Roy, but notice that the site referenced above is not mine.
>
> Isn't that particular article yours?
Ooops. Yes it is. Sorry. I thought you were talking about the OTHER
site, the one at http://www.connect-a.net/users/drshades/stats.htm
> If the site is slow to make changes,
> would you post an update to the newsgroup?
Well, I might. I wrote that article several years ago, and haven't
found the time to go back and do more with it.
Efialtis
> find themselves unable to deal logically with an issue, they begin
> making ad hominem arguments.
No Ad Hominem argument, a very accurate observation.
NOTE TO READERS:
Notice how Duwayne neatly skirts the issue that the quote from Joseph
Smith contains no mention about fluid of any kind in the veins of the
Ressurected.
> And remember, this thread began with Efialtis asserting that JW
> doctrines about blood are silly. Efialtis said:
>
> "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."
Then Duwayne completely ignores the fact that Brigham Young did NOT
say the things Duwayne quoted, because Duwayne quoted the WRONG
reference...it was actually Orson Pratt, just see my previous message,
it is all there.
Duwayne's argument has no validity, no Prophet of the Church ever
taught that there is "fluid" in the veins of the Resurrected.
> That was in the quote by Brigham Young. But BOTH quotes are easily as
> weird as any JW doctrine on blood.
<snip>
Scott Marquardt
>> Is Polygamy doctrine or not doctrine? Efialtis said that "Polygamy is
>> still Chruch Doctrine," yet he defends Hinkley, who says Polygamy is
>> NOT doctrine.
>Polygamy is still Doctrine.
>Read what Pres. Hinkely says again, he does NOT say it is NOT
>doctrine, just that he does not THINK it is doctrine.
That's not what he says at all.
He says "I condemn it, yes, as a practice, because I think it is
not doctrinal."
Do we need to clarify this? Consider:
A) It is doctrinal
~A) It is not doctrinal
Which of the above does Hinckley think?
In short, he condemns the practice because it's not according to
doctrine.
>The man has every right to his personal opinions, right up to the time
>that God tells him to change his mind.
Why couldn't anyone say the same thing about what you're saying on this
matter?
Do Mormons want non-LdS to listen to the prophet only when they happen
to agree with him?
- Scott
Scott Marquardt
>Show how the "Lord" was not involved, and the whole thing isn't run by
>a bunch of Inspired Men leading a Restored Church.
Well then, set forth your criteria for such a proof. What would count as
evidence, and why?
- Scott
Efialtis
>
> 1) Please examine the Church's Statistical Reports for 1973:
>
> http://library.lds.org/library/lpext.dll/ArchMagazines/Ensign/1974.htm/ensign%20may%201974.htm/statistical%20report%201973.htm?f=templates&fn=document-frame.htm&2.0
>
> And for 2000:
>
> http://library.lds.org/library/lpext.dll/ArchMagazines/Ensign/2001.htm/ensign%20may%202001.htm/statistical%20report%202000.htm?fn=document-frame.htm&f=templates&2.0
>
> (If those interminable URLs didn't paste right, you'll need to look up the
> May 1974 and May 2001 Ensign issues yourself)
>
> The 1973 report provides about three dozen pieces of data (including the
> birth and death rates we're being forced to speculate about here), whereas
> the 2000 report provides 9. So:
>
> 1a) Why do you think that is?
It is too much trouble to post all statistical information, and most
people only care about the few that are published.
> 1b) Could you find the missing information anywhere else? I'm quite
> curious as to how the ratio of priesthood holders to members has changed,
> for instance, so please start with that.
I did not see any information about the ratio of priesthood holders to
members in the 2000 report.
> 2) Let's take a look at that birth rate. Notice that the number of
> children blessed in 1973 is about 20.7 per 1000 members, a bit lower than
> the given birthrate. Notice that the increase in children of record in
> 2000 is about 7.4 per 1000 members. This is about half of the birthrate
> in the USA (and I doubt that Mormons fall on the low side of the USA
> average) and a third of the birthrate in the world as a whole. Why the
> drop?
Good Question. We obviously do not have all the facts.
> 3) How about the death rate? The 1973 report gives the Mormon death rate
> per thousand as 4.91. Today, the Utah death rate is still an
> astonishingly low 5.5. By that measurement (which is surely an
> underestimate for Mormons as a whole, if half of them are now overseas),
> we would have expected 60,800+ Mormons to die in 2000. The reported
> membership increase in 2000 falls short of the number of new converts and
> new "children of record" by less than 40,000. Was 2000 just a really good
> year for Mormon health?
Again, not enough data.
> 4) The LDS Church used to provide numbers for both the "increase in
> children of record" and "Baptisms of 8-year-olds". (the former of course
> being the larger statistic). Why do you think they stopped providing the
> second?
See above
<snip more of the same>
Not enough information, not enough data, we don't have all the
facts...etc
Great post, thanks for making my point so vividly!
Efialtis
Ya gotta hear this to believe it...
> We don't need the EXACT breakdown of the Church Membership to tell
> that the Church is lying about what they DO publish. It's simple
> math, Efialtis. The increase in Church membership cannot be greater
> than the number of baptisms, because baptism is the ONLY way a person
> can become a member.
So, Duwayne, if I run a business, and I have 50 different types of
income and 25 types of expenditures, and I publish the most important
10 types of income and 5 expenditures as well as the total $ amount of
income and the total $ amount of expenditure, could you make those
numbers add up?
If you can, you are a far better accountant than the Professional Firm
that runs the accounting for the people I work for...
> So your harping about having the "EXACT" breakdown is a diversion.
No, you harping about NOT needing the Exact Breakdown is a deception.
<snip>
Efialtis
> >> > http://www.lds-mormon.com/churchgrowthrates.shtml
> >> What I just noticed is that the 2000 and 2001 membership estimates
> >> actually overpredicted, so adding those new data will end up cutting
> >> the carrying capacity prediction again. Duwayne, can we expect an
> >> update any time soon?
"Statistics lie" and "lies, damn lies and statistics"
two of my favorite quotes...
Why?
That web site referenced above shows how Statistics works (more or
less) and shows how it is an "educated guess"...
I took a less scientific poke at it, and simply took all the numbers
from the Church for a 10 year period, and averaged out the % growth
per year.
It came to about 5%.
Then I took the negative number, deaths, etc, and that number came to
about 1%.
Then I made a prediction to the membership numbers for the next 50
years...
I did this back in 1999.
My 2000 number was too low.
My 2001 number was too low.
Don't you just love Statistics?
Scott Marquardt
>> The 1973 report provides about three dozen pieces of data (including the
>> birth and death rates we're being forced to speculate about here), whereas
>> the 2000 report provides 9. So:
>> 1a) Why do you think that is?
>It is too much trouble to post all statistical information, and most
>people only care about the few that are published.
LOL!
In 1973, before you had databases on the back ends of entire server
farms dedicated to dishing up content -- long before the CoJCoLdS
decided to publish all her documents -- curriculum, back-issues of the
Ensign, the standard works -- everything! -- on the web, they were
capable of providing three dozen pieces of data.
Now, in 2002, with incredible publishing technology in place and the LdS
church ambitiously publishing tons of stuff to the Web via a well
engineered back-end, you're saying it's too much trouble?
Most people don't care about ancient editions of the Ensign, either --
yet the church posted 'em.
- Scott
TheJordan6
>Date: 4/7/2002 8:12 PM Eastern Standard Time
>Message-id: <3154b26e.02040...@posting.google.com>
>
>> Roy Stogner ===
>> Polygamy was made illegal in Illinois in Febuary 1833, years before the
>> Mormons settled there.
>>
>> Efialtis ===
>> However, the Mormons were on their way in that direction.
>>
>> JC comments ===
>> then you must believe Mormons were rightly being "reproached with the
>> crime of fornication, and polygamy," as early as 1833, and were lying as
>> a Church in 1835, with their unanimous official denial of polygamy:
>So how was he "reproached with the crime of fornication, and polygamy"
>when the earliest law referenced was 1833 in Illinois, if they
>weren't in Illinois yet?
Joseph Smith began screwing around with the 16-year-old housemade, Fannie
Alger, about 1833. His wife Emma caught them in the act. Distraught, she
complained to Oliver Cowdery and apostle Warren Parrish. They decided to hold
a church court to try Smith for adultery. They housed Fannie in the unfinished
Kirtland Temple while they planned the court, but Smith had his loyal friend
Mosiah Hancock snatch Fannie from the temple and spirit her out of town so she
couldn't testify to their affair.
Meanwhile, Smith had concocted an early version of his "plural marriage"
system, and he confided it to a few others (including Hancock). Smith didn't
inform his "second elder" Cowdery or his "counselor" Sidney Rigdon about it,
because he knew they would have opposed it outright.
By 1835, when the new D&C was being published, Smith sought to cover his
"secret wife" practice by having an "Article on Marriage" included in the D&C.
(Typical TBM apologists claim that Smith didn't approve its inclusion, but that
is soundly refuted by the facts that
a) Smith headed the committee which prepared the publication
b) Smith himself quoted the "Article on Marriage" several times afterwards,
indicating his endorsement of its inclusion and
c) All later editions of the D&C continued to include the article until 1876,
when it was removed and the "revelation on celestial marriage" replaced it.)
Since Smith's affair with Fannie had become known by some people by 1835, that
was undoubtedly the "crime of fornication and polygamy" the article referred
to. But the inclusion of the article had nothing to do with the state of
Illinois, since Kirtland was Smith's headquarters at the time, and he had no
intention of moving to Illinois.
>Go back and read the discussions on Polygamy from 2000, you will find
>them enlightening...
None of what you wrote was.
Randy J.
TheJordan6
>Date: 4/7/2002 8:19 PM Eastern Standard Time
>Message-id: <3154b26e.02040...@posting.google.com>
>
><snip>
>
>> > For your information, polygamy *WAS* legal when it started.
>>
>> And when, exactly, did it start?
>
>mentioned within the Church as early as 1831.
That was the first mention of an early version of Smith's "secret wife"
practice.
>> Why did Joseph Smith lie about the
>> practice, if it was legal?
>From the 2000 discussion on Polygamy, we discussed how it was very
>possible, considering many factors, how Polygamy was not to be
>practiced by the body of the Church at that date, so it was not a
>"Church Doctrine"...
>No Lies.
Smith and other polygamous Mormons most definitely lied about polygamy,
notwithstanding denials of dullards like you, Guy, and Woody.
On May 8, 1838, Joseph Smith answered the following question:
"Do the Mormons believe in having more wives than one?" "No, not at the same
time. But we believe that if their companion dies, they have a right to marry
again." (Teaching of the Prophet Joseph Smith, p. 119.)
Since Smith's response quoted from the "Article on Marriage," it is obvious
that he both endorsed the article, and he used it to "plausibly deny" his
"secret wife" practice.
As to your point about polygamy not being "church doctrine" at the time---The
"Article On Marriage" was the sustained, published church doctrine at the time,
and it specifically prohibited any marriage systems other than monogamy for the
entire church. There are no qualifiers or loopholes which allowed certain
leaders to have multiple wives. So polygamy was not only not "church doctrine"
at the time, but it also specifically contradicted established church doctrine.
>> But that's exactly the way it looks -- like the LDS Church was bending
>> to political power.
>According to the Scriptures, and the 2000 Discussion on this topic,
>the Lord can start and stop practices for a variety of reasons, one of
>these reasons is most likely to occur when commandments come into
>conflict.
But for nearly 40 years, Mormon leaders taught that the practice of polygamy
was to be permanent and "esential to salvation." It was only AFTER the
government forced them to end it that they began spinning the "only when the
Lord allows it" bullshit that you write above. Before 1890, LDS leaders taught
that monogamy was the product of the "pagan Romans."
As far as "commandments coming into conflict," one early "commandment" in
Mormonism was "he who keeps God's laws hath no need to break the laws of the
land." (D&C 58:21.) Since "Plural marriage" was against the laws of the states
the Mormon practiced polygamy in---and it violated other federal laws enacted
in 1862 and 1879---then polygamy "came into conflict" with other "commandments"
during the entire period the Mormons practiced it. Apparently, the thrust of
those "2000 discussions" was lost on you.
>> There was no "thus saith the Lord" when polygamy was stopped. Have
>> you read the "revelation?"
>Doesn't need to be. Polygamy is still Church Doctrine, but it is not
>practiced at this time.
Again, church apologists came up with that line only after the government
forced them to stop practicing it. And even then, Woodruff's "Manifesto" was
no "revelation from the Lord"; it was merely a press release designed to make
the government give the church its impounded properties back. Woodruff's
secret intention was for Utah to gain statehood, then have an all-Mormon state
legislature pass laws to once again allow polygamy. Woodruff himself took
another plural wife in 1897, which even the stupidest Mormon on ARM shoiuld
realize means that the "Manifesto" was no "revelation from the Lord." Church
leaders continued to sanction secret plural marriages until at least 1906, when
Joseph F. Smith had to issue a "second manifesto" for the Mormons to stop new
plural marriages "for real this time."
It was only after that that Mopologists began the "only when the Lord allows
it" crap that you are ignorant enough to swallow.
Randy J.
TheJordan6
>Date: 4/8/2002 12:28 PM Eastern Standard Time
>Message-id: <a42139e3.02040...@posting.google.com>
We can draw three conclusions from this:
1. Polygamy is still doctrinal, because Section 132 is still in the D&C.
2. Polygamy is not currently practiced by the SLC church.
3. Hinckley is a liar. Polygamy will only become "not doctrinal" if Section
132 is removed from the D&C, and church leaders disavow the doctrine.
Randy J.
TheJordan6
>Date: 4/7/2002 7:24 PM Eastern Standard Time
>Message-id: <3154b26e.02040...@posting.google.com>
>
><snip>
>
>> >Please post the information in detail...I would like to take a look at
>> >Virginia's law.(thanks)
>>
>> Anti-bigamy laws were enacted in many states as a matter of course. The
>1833
>> Illinois law read:
>
><snip>
>
>I asked for Virginia's law, I know Illinois' law on this
>subject...did you not understand?
Yes, I understood, but it's irrelevant, because the Mormons never lived in
Virginia nor practiced polygamy there. If you want to look up Virginia's
bigamy law, I daresay you'll find that it was similar to Illinois', since early
state constitutions were based on English common law.
>> >However, the Mormons were on their way in that direction.
>> Verily, your ignorance of things Mormon apparently knows no bounds.
>> Efialtis, maybe you ought to spend more time studying stuff, and less time
>> trying to comment on it.
>Can you tell me where Illinois is in reference to Ohio?
I know where the states are. I also know where the Mormons were, and when, and
why. You snipped out my remarks stating that in 1833, the Mormons were
ensconced in Ohio, and had no motive nor intent on moving to Illinois.
>Can you tell me where Missouri is in reference to Ohio and Illinois?
Yup.
>Can you tell me how many choices the Mormons had on their constant
>push West?
in 1833, the Mormons' "choice" was western Missouri. Joseph Smith said that
was to be the "center place of Zion," or the "New Jerusalem." There is not a
single statement from Smith or any other Mormons suggesting Illinois as a
habitat until they were were forced to move there after the 1838 Missouri
debacle.
In addition, the state of Illinois took the Mormons in in 1839 out of sympathy,
after the Mormons told them a made-up sob story about why they were evicted
from Missouri. In 1838, the Mormons were accused of practicing polygamy by a
few dissenters and outsiders, but Smith and other leaders steadfastly denied
that they practiced any such thing. Thus, your silly assertions about
Illinois' anti-bigamy law being enacted because of the Mormons is utterly
without foundation. You're just spouting verbal diarrhea.
>Can you tell me that Illinois knew the Mormons WEREN'T going to end up
>within their borders in the very near future? (knowing the location of
>Missouri from the second question above)
Yes, I can, and you can too, if you will simply study some basic history,
instead of doing the cyber-equivalent of foaming at the mouth. In 1833, no one
in Illinois even knew that any Mormons even had a secret polygamy doctrine or
practice. It was only in the early stages in Smith's mind, and only a few of
his loyal followers knew about it. The state of Illinois didn't enact their
anti-bigamy law because of the Mormons, but rather because anti-bigamy laws
were a basic feature of new state constitutions.
>Ignorance? It apears that you don't think things through. The
>Mormons were on their way west, from Ohio, this means they had to go
>through Indiana and Illinois BEFORE they got to Missouri...and with
>a habit of making each location their home and leaving small
>settlements behind, I would say each state feared they would have
>Mormons living within their borders.
And you'd be wrong, because Illinoisians didn't even know about Mormon polygamy
in 1833. In 1833, Mormonism was a small sect of only a few thousand members,
with nearly all of them situated in or near Kirtland, and a few hundred in
Jackson County, Missouri.
>Because of the timeline, this "fear" would have developed early in the
>1830s...
It must feel awful to stumble through life in utter cluelessness.
Randy J.
Jackie Chan
Duwayne's argument has no validity, no Prophet of the Church ever taught
that there is "fluid" in the veins of the Resurrected.
JC comments ===
the LDS Twelve Apostles, and Orson Pratt was one, are sustained by
Mormons as Prophets, Seers, and Revelators
here is some related weirdness taught by another LDS Apostle - I want
you notice not only his doctrine about blood forming in Adam and Eve as
a result of their Fall, but also his clear declaration that spirit is
material, which you seem to deny:
---
"death passed upon our first parents, Adam and Eve, through their
partaking of the fruits of the earth, their systems become infected by
it, and the blood formed in their veins, and composed of the elements of
the earth, which they partook, and these contain the seeds of
dissolution and decay. And this blood, circulating in their veins,
which was made up of the fruits of the earth -- those things of which
they partook -- that formed their flesh, and made the deposits that
constituted their muscle, and their bones, arteries and nerves, and
every part of the body, became mortal and this circulating fluid in
their systems produced friction which ultimately wore out the machinery
of their organism, and brought it to decay, that it became no longer
tenable for their spirits to inhabit, and death ensued; . . . The
spirit is also an element. It is not an immaterial nothing as some
imagine. We read about material and immaterial things, and such terms
are used by men for the want of more suitable language to correctly
represent ideas; but in truth there is no such thing as immaterial
substance." (Journal of Discourses, Vol.19, pp.272-273, Erastus Snow,
March 3, 1878)
---
TheJordan6
>Date: 4/7/2002 7:06 PM Eastern Standard Time
>Message-id: <3154b26e.02040...@posting.google.com>
>
><snip>
>
>> Smith wasn't killed because he practiced polygamy. He was killed because
>he
>> ordered the destruction, without due process, of a printing press which
>> published a newspaper that exposed his secret polygamy practice.
>Wasn't it found in a previous discussion on this topic that the Courts
>upheld his destruction of the printing press?
Nope. Smith's rubber-stamp Nauvoo City Council destroyed the press without a
hearing or due process, thereby acting as judge, jury, and executioner.
Illinois state law guaranteed freedom of the press, and that is why Smith was
charged with riot for ordering the destruction.
>> Smith had
>> already evaded justice on several charges, including conspiracy to commit
>> murder.
>Evading justice == acquitted?
No, evading justice==evading justice. He paid lawyer Cyrus Walker $10,000 and
promised him the Mormon vote in Walker's political campaign for getting him off
on a technicality in the Boggs shooting, and his Nauvoo kangaroo-court judge
Daniel H. Wells, (a member of Smith's secret "Council of Fifty," sworn to
loyalty to Smith), found him "not guilty" on the riot charge. That event is
what outraged local non-Mormons, who rightly cried that Smith was "above the
law," and that the only way to bring him to justice was "with powder and ball."
>> He planned to escape justice for the press destruction by fleeing to
>> the west. His wife and friends called him a coward for leaving, so he
>returned
>> and was arrested. He was killed by members of a "vigilante" group who had
>had
>> enough of Smith's flaunting of the law. They viewed Smith's destruction of
>the
>> press as the last straw, and they were determined not to let him talk or
>buy
>> his way out of punishment again.
>They took the law into their own hands.
Yes, just as Smith did with the press destruction. "Just desserts?"
And let's not forget that while Smith was in Carthage Jail, he sent a message
for the Nauvoo Legion (some 4000 men) to come bust him out. Legion commander
Jonathan Dunham refused to follow the order. If he had followed Smith's
wishes, dozens of people could have been killed on that day. As it panned out,
the vigilantes killed Joseph and Hyrum, and Joseph killed two vigilantes.
Sounds like a draw to me.
>Sounds like fun! I should
>find the lot of the anti/ex-mormons guilty of slander and form a
>"vigilante group" and kill them all before they can be tried just in
>case they might get out of it...be found not guilty...get acquittal
>from the Courts...
>We all know how that kind of thing is "real justice" not what the
>Courts find...
No one said that the vigilantes' action was appropriate. Many people think it
would have been better had Smith been brought to trial, so that his "secret
wife" system, shady financial deals, his "Council of Fifty," and his political
shenanigans could be exposed. He would undoubtedly gone to prison if he had
survived, and then Mormonism wouldn't have its "martyr" to worship.
Randy J.
Duwayne Anderson
<snip>
> It is too much trouble to post all statistical information, and most
> people only care about the few that are published.
<snip>
> I did not see any information about the ratio of priesthood holders to
> members in the 2000 report.
<snip>
> Good Question. We obviously do not have all the facts.
<snip>
> Again, not enough data.
<snip>
> Not enough information, not enough data, we don't have all the
> facts...etc
What we have here is another example of how LDS attempt to obfuscate
the evidence.
The problem at hand is a simple exercise in flux: The increase equals
what goes in minus what goes out. That's a simple, fundamental
principle that is the basis of some of the most useful equations in
physics, including such venerable tools as the Navier-Stokes equations
and many useful equations in Electrodynamics.
In this case we have the LDS Church posting figures for the number of
baptisms (both convert and children of record) and church membership.
The same flux equation holds:
Increase in Church membership = number of people baptized - number of
people who leave or die.
The problem is, the LDS Church lies about its figures: The numbers
DON'T ADD UP!
In some years the LDS Church actually shows an increase in Church
membership that is GREATER than the number of baptisms. In other
years, the difference is only a few thousand -- not NEAR enough to
account for expected deaths using the Church's own figures for yearly
death rates. (See the membership data at
http://www.connect-a.net/users/drshades/stats.htm).
So what is a good LDS apologist to do? Well, obfuscate, obfuscate,
obfuscate. Elfialtis is now telling us that we don't have enough
information. Not enough data, says Elfialtis.
But this is where the mathematical illiteracy of LDS apologetics comes
shining through. There IS enough information to tell that the Church
is lying. That's the beuty of flux equations -- they don't depend on
the details. We can determine the flow of a fluid through jet
turbines or over the wings of airplanes using equations based on the
simple concepts of flux. And, similarly, we can see that the LDS
Church has lied about its membership because the numbers, quite
simply, do not add up.
Obfuscation and mathematical illiteracy aside, it really is true that
a Church's membership increases by the difference between the number
of people who join and the number of people who leave. Unfortunately
for the LDS public relations department, the folks who cook the
numbers in SLC don't know enough about grade-school mathematics to lie
properly. And now all they can do is deny that there is enough
information to hang them.
I think it's only fitting that this should have happened in the same
decade when Enron gave us the new rules for accounting.
Roy Stogner
> And let's not forget that while Smith was in Carthage Jail, he sent a
> message for the Nauvoo Legion (some 4000 men) to come bust him out.
> Legion commander Jonathan Dunham refused to follow the order.
Reference, please?
---
Roy Stogner
Duwayne Anderson
> > find themselves unable to deal logically with an issue, they begin
> > making ad hominem arguments.
>
> No Ad Hominem argument, a very accurate observation.
>
> NOTE TO READERS:
> Notice how Duwayne neatly skirts the issue that the quote from Joseph
> Smith contains no mention about fluid of any kind in the veins of the
> Ressurected.
The above statement by Efialtis (apologist for the Church of Jesus
Christ of Latter-day Saints) is false, and a complete fabrication. In
fact, I provided the reference for Efialtis. Here it is again:
"As concerning the resurrection, ... all will be raised by the power
of God, having spirit in their bodies, and not blood." [Teachings of
the Prophet Joseph Smith, compiled by Joseph Fielding Smith, Deseret
Book Company, 199-200].
By the way, Efialtis, are you ever going to tell us what is in those
empty veins? I notice you continue to ignore that question. Please
answer it.
And here is what Orson Pratt said in, "The Pre-Existence of Man",
para. 23, 24, 25, p. 37; (Washington, D.C.: March 1853). You can read
it at http://www.lds-mormon.com/veilworker/ag3.shtml)
"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."
<snip>
> Then Duwayne completely ignores the fact that Brigham Young did NOT
> say the things Duwayne quoted, because Duwayne quoted the WRONG
> reference...it was actually Orson Pratt, just see my previous message,
> it is all there.
Actually, I quoted the correct reference, but mistakenly attributed it
to Young. You are right on this on. It was apostle Orson Pratt, not
Young. How does that make it any less silly?
> Duwayne's argument has no validity, no Prophet of the Church ever
> taught that there is "fluid" in the veins of the Resurrected.
The above statement by Efialtis is false. It is a total fabrication.
ALL APOSTLES are sustained as prophets, seers, and revelators.
But Efialtis, you still have not answered the million-dollar question.
Since Smith, himself, said there was no blood in the veins, what's in
there?
But technicalities aside, it should be clear that LDS doctrine about
blood is every bit as silly as what the JWs teach.
Roy Stogner
> But technicalities aside, it should be clear that LDS doctrine about
> blood is every bit as silly as what the JWs teach.
You haven't really scratched the surface, yet:
"the effect of the Holy Ghost upon a Gentile, is to purge out the old
blood, and make him actually of the seed of Abraham. That man that has
none of the blood of Abraham (naturally) must have a new creation by the
Holy Ghost." (Joseph Smith, "The Prophet's Instruction on Various
Doctrines", History of the Church vol. 3)
"Again, if a pure Gentile firmly believes the Gospel of Jesus Christ, and
yields obedience to it, in such a case I will give you the words of the
Prophet Joseph-"When the Lord pours out the Holy Ghost upon that
individual he will have spasms, and you would think that he was going
into fits."
Joseph said that the Gentile blood was actually cleansed out of their
veins, and the blood of Jacob made to circulate in them; and the
revolution and change in the system were so great that it caused the
beholder to think they were going into fits." (Brigham Young, Journal of
Discourses, vol. 2, p. 268-9)
Does anyone know if there have been any studies to see if Mormon blood
cells acquire the "Abraham" Y chromosome lineage that most Jews and Arabs
share?
This is an amusing answer to the burning question (pardon my pun) of "Did
I have a real testimony from the Holy Ghost?": just take a blood test!
---
Roy Stogner
Duwayne Anderson
<snip>
> no Prophet of the Church ever
> taught that there is "fluid" in the veins of the Resurrected.
<snip>
Actually, Efialtis, this is what I said:
duwa...@hotmail.com (Duwayne Anderson) wrote in message news:<a42139e3.02032...@posting.google.com>...
<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.
<snip>
And this is what the founder of Mormonism -- Joseph Smith -- said:
"All will be raised by the power of God, having spirit in their bodies
and not blood."
I've quoted that for Efialtis before. His twisting of what I said,
and denials of what LDS prophets say, says loads about the
intellectual honesty of LDS apologists.
The question we should all be asking ourselves is why LDS apologists
like Efialtis seem so determined to deny and misrepresnt LDS
teachings.
What is it they are ashamed of?
TheJordan6
>Date: Mon, Apr 8, 2002 22:45 EDT
>Message-id: <pan.2002.04.08.21....@SPAMiname.com>
"Willard saw Joseph writing quickly at the table, in the emergency not
waiting for his scribe. Joseph folded the letter, sealed it with a daub of
red wax, then wrote on the front of it the name of General Jonathan Dunham."
(Nightfall at Nauvoo, Samuel Taylor, p. 254.)
"As Dunham opened the letter and stared at the page, his face frozen, Wheelock
asked what it was that was upsetting. Then Dunham looked up, and quickly
ascertained that Wheelock didn't know the contents, except that Brother Joseph
had said that it was important.....Dunham stood in the street, trembling with
the enormity of his decision. With shaking hands he took Joseph's letter from
his pocket and unfolded it. The letter directed him to bring the Legion to
Carthage, immediately and with utmost speed, in sufficient force to protect the
lives of the men in jail from mob action. Yet for the Legion to ride out in
defense of the prophet--taking the law into
its own hands, challenging the authority of the county and the state---would,
Dunham was sure, precipitate war. Such an act would bring upon the Saints a
repetition of the horrors of the Missouri war and expulsion. General Jonathan
Dunham simply could not obey this order from his commander in chief. With
hands shaking, it was difficult to fold the letter again, and as he was doing
so he dropped the new rifle into the dust. He poked the crumpled letter into a
pocket and picked up the gun, then brought out a handkerchief to wipe off the
dust. The letter came out of the pocket, unnoticed, with the handkerchief, and
the wind caught it and blew it into the weeds beside the roadway as he walked
along wiping off the gun." (Nightfall at Nauvoo, p. 257.)
"Dunham's act came to light after the martyrdom when Joseph's order was found
in a Nauvoo street and read." ("Orrin Porter Rockwell: Man of God, Son
Thunder," Harold Schindler, p. 130.)
"Joseph smuggled out a note by Willard Richards, the only Mormon still able to
go out of the jail, asking Jonathan Dunham to bring the Legion. If Dunham had
acted on the prophet's order, and brought the Legion galloping the fifteen
miles to Carthage, history would have had to record a battle, and perhaps the
beginning of a civil war. But Dunham for some reason never brought the Legion,
and instead of a battle there was a martyrdom. The noises that Willard
Richards, John Taylor and the two Smiths heard at the door---the shouts and
shots and calls to surrender---were not the Legion
thundering to the rescue, but the Warsaw militia."
("The Gathering of Zion", Wallace Stegner, pp. 29-30.)
Duwayne Anderson
> Ya gotta hear this to believe it...
>
> > We don't need the EXACT breakdown of the Church Membership to tell
> > that the Church is lying about what they DO publish. It's simple
> > math, Efialtis. The increase in Church membership cannot be greater
> > than the number of baptisms, because baptism is the ONLY way a person
> > can become a member.
>
> So, Duwayne, if I run a business, and I have 50 different types of
> income and 25 types of expenditures,
Efialtis, stop with the comical analogies. There are not 50 ways to
join the LDS Church. There is only one way. By baptism.
The simple fact is, you cannot argue with the basic equation that the
increase in Church membership (or population of a country) equals the
number that come in minus the number that go out.
Wiggle, wiggle, squirm, squirm. Obfuscate with irrelevant phony
analogies. Try to change the subject. None of it will help you here,
Efialtis. The increase equals the amount that comes in minus the
amount that goes out.
The problem is, USING THE FIGURES PUBLISHED BY THE LDS CHURCH ITSELF,
the increase in the LDS Church is sometimes GREATER than the
difference between what comes in and what goes out.
This leads to the simple and uncontested conclusion that the LDS
Church lies about its membership.
<snip rest of attempt to obfuscate with stupid analogy>