[ADMIN] Newsgroup Obscenities???
SRM Moderators
about an example of less-than-pristine humor that was allowed onto
the newsgroup. David Bowie posted an article titled "The latest to
come across my desk" on September 18th, which contained a reference
to bestiality. As moderators, we felt that this was not especially
offensive, since there were no graphic details mentioned and no
"dirty" words. Our correspondent insists that posting this article
was a flagrant violation of the SRM charter's stipulation that
"obscene and/or vulgar language" is not permitted on the newsgroup.
Currently, we interpret this to mean that we refuse articles
containing specific offensive words (you know which ones) and we would
probably refuse those that contained explicit descriptions of sexual
acts (such as the Starr report) even if the words used were not
particularly shocking ones. According to this standard David's
article was allowable, in our view. If a large number of newsgroup
participants feel otherwise, we are willing to be more strict about
what we allow.
As was evident in the threads about the Titanic and about artists
and nudity, we regard human sexuality within the context of the LDS
religion to be a legitimate topic for discussion on the newsgroup.
But where do we draw the line between what's acceptable, what's
tolerable if tasteless, and what's completely out of bounds? We'd
like some input from newsgroup participants: is the discussion here
too free-wheeling, so that it gets offensive at times to too many
people? Where should we be drawing the line, according to the
"community standards" of this community? Was the acceptance of this
particular article a minor slip-up? or a clear sign of down-to-the-
core corruption? or did you think it was kind of amusing?
Since we don't generally allow discussion of moderation policy, we'll
be limiting this thread to just a couple of weeks. We won't accept
articles for posting on this subject after October 16th. Meanwhile,
if you have strong feelings about this, you can reply to this thread,
or directly to the moderation team at srm-...@www.npl.com.
Regards,
SRM Moderators
Ann Porter
>too free-wheeling, so that it gets offensive at times to too many
>people? Where should we be drawing the line, according to the
If anything, the discussion here is too strait-laced :)
Best,
Ann
Raymond Bingham
Yew an' me both! Yew said it! Ah feel lahk a cussin' an a cursin'!
Dem non cursin' types, dey wanna stomp on mah constitudinal rites!
And dem's fightin' words!
Now I'm reely gonna get torked and cuss up a storm...
Heer goze...
"H H EEE CCC K K !"
HHH EE C KK !
H H EEE CCC K K ! ("Heck!" for those of you with TT fonts.)
Thar! Yew done gone and made me mad, and I done and gone said that
werd. The marmon cuss werd.
Best regards,
PS. I think this would be best left to the discretion of the moderators.
If a person feels unduly offended the moderators can take note and perhaps
place moderator notes atop any articles they think are questionable. And
even, perhaps a killfile word, which offended parties can key off of. That
way the rest of us can enjoy David's sophisticated (yet of questionable
moral value) east coast humor... :)
--
************************************************************************
* Raymond Bingham (aka. wReam...) * "The meek shall inherit the earth, *
*********************************** and the bank shall reposess it." *
* 100 % PURE Unabashed Opinion ***************** -- Sawyer Brown ***
*********************************** (from Cafe on the Corner)
Woody Brison
subject that is not fit for light-hearted discussion among decent
people. It might be fit for a medical/psychiatric discussion or
necessary in a church or criminal proceeding. It shouldn't require
a lot of head-scratching to see that, but we have descended a long
way in recent years and even months in this country.
My youngsters go to Primary and YM. They have some standards that
are pretty exhalted. I wouldn't care to have them find me reading
the contents of Bowie's post on the screen. I thought SRM was a
forum where LDS could discuss things without having to filter stuff,
that is the moderators' job. There is more to it than just certain
off-limits words. It has to include content, theme, situation.
Wood
Blain Nelson
>
> The post referred to contained an attempt at a joke on a disgusting
> subject that is not fit for light-hearted discussion among decent
> people. It might be fit for a medical/psychiatric discussion or
> necessary in a church or criminal proceeding. It shouldn't require
> a lot of head-scratching to see that, but we have descended a long
> way in recent years and even months in this country.
>
I've forgotten the post, so it must not have made much of an impression on me.
I don't know if that speaks well or ill of me.
> My youngsters go to Primary and YM. They have some standards that
> are pretty exhalted. I wouldn't care to have them find me reading
> the contents of Bowie's post on the screen. I thought SRM was a
> forum where LDS could discuss things without having to filter stuff,
> that is the moderators' job. There is more to it than just certain
> off-limits words. It has to include content, theme, situation.
>
I don't believe that that is the moderators' job. The moderation here is not to
eliminate things which might offend folks, at least, not as I recall the
charter. The things which are to be moderated out are spam things,
over-quoting, and direct quotations from temple ceremony -- stuff like that.
Personally, I'm not comfortable with the idea of my kids reading usenet. My
oldest is 11. I'm not sure when I'm going to be comfortable with him reading
usenet -- I don't think usenet's going to change much, so I'm looking for a
point at which he's going to be ready to filter through this stuff to get to the
points of value.
I'm pretty ambivalent on moderation to remove obscenities -- a good standard is
a very slippery thing, and I'd prefer it not be simply a matter of moderator
discretion. Something along the lines of the 7 words and a couple more, and a
general guideline about good taste might work.
> Wood
Take care,
Blain
--
----------------------------Blain Nelson------------------------------
http://home.att.net/~blainn/abuse
bla...@worldnet.att.net anon-...@anon.twwells.com
--------------------------Refuse to Abuse-----------------------------
Hedgehog
<william....@lmco.com> wrote:
> The post referred to contained an attempt at a joke on a disgusting
> subject that is not fit for light-hearted discussion among decent
> people.
This wasn't the way I read the post at all. I saw the post as a sort of
humorous commentary on the nature of philosophy/religion as opposed to
physical sciences & mathematics.
Peace,
Hedgehog
Craig Olson
>
> The post referred to contained an attempt at a joke on a disgusting
> subject that is not fit for light-hearted discussion among decent
> people.
I would disagree with two points in that statement. First, the
post contained a tangential comment about bestiality as part of
an over all humor piece. It was not a simple one-liner about sex.
I did not, personally, find it hilarious. I did not, personally,
find it offensive ... even for a Usenet group about religion. I
guess I was aware of where I was before I read the post. I would
be surprised if David read the same text from the pulpit in a ward
where I might be conducting the meeting [1].
> It might be fit for a medical/psychiatric discussion or
> necessary in a church or criminal proceeding.
Oh, I think not. In either case the post would be seriously lacking
in detail.
> It shouldn't require
> a lot of head-scratching to see that, but we have descended a long
> way in recent years and even months in this country.
This group is not in :this country:, last I checked.
> My youngsters go to Primary and YM.
My youngsters go to RS and YW and Primary.
> They have some standards that
> are pretty exhalted.
Mine have standards that are their own. Some exalted, some less
so. Free agency can be a ... oops. Never mind.
> I wouldn't care to have them find me reading
> the contents of Bowie's post on the screen.
If my young'uns found me reading the post, and *did not* get the
humor, we'd talk about it. Just because I did not find it particularly
humorous does not mean I can't see the humor in the piece. I thought
it just missed being truly funny.
> I thought SRM was a
> forum where LDS could discuss things without having to filter stuff,
> that is the moderators' job.
Not to be impolite, but you thought wrong.
As one of the very few people willing to stand up to public attack
and actually defend the creation of this group (the rest of you know
who you are. Thank you. It has worked out well, hasn't it?), I
would have to point out that this group is a compromise between those,
like Woody, who want a safe fellowship harbor and the others who
feared a domineering church-headquarters influence over the content
of the group. (Peggy, remember when we were considered shills for
the leadership of the Church? I am bot sure I gave ever been more
amused)
So now, what do we have? We have a group for the courteous
discussion of the church by member and non-member alike. Not too
bad, I would think.
> There is more to it than just certain
> off-limits words. It has to include content, theme, situation.
Not this group, not according to the charter that was carefully
hammered out in full view of the Usenet community. What it appears
you are looking for is a group for, of and by members of the church.
This would most likely be named something like
soc.religion.mormon.fellowship
In a group like this, the charter could be written very tightly
around church-centered principles. In such a group, the moderators
could exclude a number of the posts that would be acceptable in
this group, including those considered critical of the church,
harmful to readers, or obscene by the standards higher than the
seven deadly words.
I, for one, hereby volunteer to work with anyone with enough
guts and determination to try to propose such a group. I'll help
write the charter; I'll help propose it in news.groups; I'll
help defend it.
I don't think it will be accepted, but I am willing to become
\the patron saint of lost causes.
Wait, that's Saint Jude. I get so confused.
I do, however, think s.r.m is a great leap forward from a.r.m
Craig, who notes YMMV
Woody Brison
>
> Woody Brison wrote:
>
> > I thought SRM was a
> > forum where LDS could discuss things without having to filter stuff,
> > that is the moderators' job.
>
> Not to be impolite, but you thought wrong.
> like Woody, who want a safe fellowship harbor and the others who
> feared a domineering church-headquarters influence over the content
>
> So now, what do we have? We have a group for the courteous
> discussion of the church by member and non-member alike. Not too
> bad, I would think.
And if someone posts extremely discourteous things, set in elegant
language, it is in line with the charter and fine with everybody?
Suppose, just for discussion, it were to be said that your mental
capacities were too limited to carry on intelligent discussion,
showing that either your genetic heritage was a result of
interspeciated random encounters of the wierd kind or your diet
contains too much digestively recycled material.
Is that kind of thing going to be acceptable?
> > There is more to it than just certain
> > off-limits words. It has to include content, theme, situation.
>
> Not this group, not according to the charter that was carefully
> hammered out in full view of the Usenet community. What it appears
> you are looking for is a group for, of and by members of the church.
Would you kindly take my place here in the mud in front of these
bulldozers for a minute while I go get the charter, please? ....
OK, here we are:
>Articles which meet any of these criteria will be considered to be
>in violation of the charter.
>
> - Obscene and/or vulgar language"
and so on.
There being some apparently who didn't notice or remember what was
posted, I'll reluctantly quote it:
--------------------------------
> 2. Sven, a Catholic, is in a state of grace. He then has sex with sheep S.
>
> a. (8 pts.) What is Sven's atonement coefficient following the act if the
> sheep was not willing?
> b. (12 pts.) What if the sheep, while not technically being willing, could
> not be said to mind either?
--------------------------------
I don't think the fact that this is obscene and vulgar is debatable,
perhaps someone will surprise me there. Yet there are no blatantly
obscene words. Only if you consider phrases or higher is it obscene.
Aren't phrases part of language?
I think what's up for debate here is whether language equals just a
list of words, and frankly I don't think there's a school in the world
where such a definition would be accepted. It's gotta be more than
that. If you default to such a limited definition, then people can post
stuff here of the filthiest hue, couched in elegant words. As was done.
Wood
Aunt...@itoto.com
be posted. It is easy to refer people to the charter but it has the same twisted
logic as our current president at the white house.
--Emily
Hedgehog
<william....@lmco.com> wrote:
> And if someone posts extremely discourteous things, set in elegant
> language, it is in line with the charter and fine with everybody?
I can't say that we can catch every insult no matter how subtle. There
was one time when a person of Polynesian ancestry made a reference to the
head of an LDS person who had served as a missionary in Polynesia. I must
admit that I was not aware that simply mentioning the head of another
person was taboo in Polynesian society and so this person was making an
insulting remark.
> There being some apparently who didn't notice or remember what was
> posted, I'll reluctantly quote it:
Doesn't that mean you will have committed the very fault of which you
accuse David Bowie? How can one ever discuss beastiality without actually
mentioning it?
> --------------------------------
> > 2. Sven, a Catholic, is in a state of grace. He then has sex with sheep S.
> >
> > a. (8 pts.) What is Sven's atonement coefficient following the act if the
> > sheep was not willing?
> > b. (12 pts.) What if the sheep, while not technically being willing, could
> > not be said to mind either?
> --------------------------------
> I don't think the fact that this is obscene and vulgar is debatable,
> perhaps someone will surprise me there.
Given that the Bible mentions the same act (Exodus 22:19), I don't see how
the mere mention of "sex with sheep S" can be unduly immodest or indecent
or repulsive or lewd. What if the question quoted above had been written
as "Sven, a Catholic, is in a state of grace. He violates Exodus 22:19
with sheep S...."? What if the above quote rather than centering on a
sheep had been about sex with a prostitute? What if the above question
had been about sex with a next door neighbor? What if the question were
re-written so as to be about bank robbery with S as an accomplice?
> Yet there are no blatantly
> obscene words. Only if you consider phrases or higher is it obscene.
> Aren't phrases part of language?
Which phrases do you consider obscene?
Peace,
Hedgehog
Craig Olson
Inconsistency is a given in moderated groups. Even an individual
moderator will have differences in how they see borderline posts
at different times. In a group with team moderation, the chance
for perceived inconsistency is greater (unless, of course, the
charter requires unanimous approval from the panel, then the
chances are less).
I view everything about this newsgroup as a tradeoff between
alternatives. I find that, on balance, the tradeoff tips in the
favor of good. I would rather this group, with its inconsistencies,
that not.
As a guy named Ralph once noted, a foolish consistency is the hobgoblin
of little minds.
Craig, who is dressing up as a hobgoblin for Hallowe'en.
Rob Pannoni
wife and to a couple of other mormons I know who have an off-beat sense
of humor. What I don't find funny are intolerance and censorship.
Taste will always be subjective. But moderators are not censors. Their
purpose is to keep the tone of the discussion "moderate" so people can
have intelligent, thoughtful conversation here. They keep discussions of
very emotional issues from degrading into mindless ranting and name
calling (been to ARM lately?). I think a post should be presumed
innocent unless proven guilty--in other words, unless it clearly and
unequivocally threatens the quality of discussion in the group, free
apeech should prevail.
As near as I can tell, no actual sheep (or people) were injured by the
telling of that joke. Unless you're objecting on the grounds that
someone on the group might be offended because the joke insulted people
who commit bestiality, I'd say the joke had nothing to do with the
moderators' role. I personally think the current team of moderators
does an excellent job creating an appropriate tone for the group. I
hope they you continue to excercise a light touch when deciding what to
screen out.
--Rob Pannoni
Craig Olson
>
[major snip of the quote of the group charter *and* the
post in question to be offensive. Snip so we can get to ...]
> I don't think the fact that this is obscene and vulgar is debatable,
> perhaps someone will surprise me there.
Surprise!
Have you noticed we have now come full circle. This thread started
when the Moderators asked for ... well, ... a debate on whether
a particular post crossed the line into obscene or vulgar as
mentioned in the charter. We have arrived at the point that we
need to repost the article to effectively continue the debate
about whether it should have been posted and whether its acceptable
nature is debatable.
Craig, who thinks he'll withdraw from the field before we make our
next loop.
Hedgehog
> One of the greatest problems is inconsistency in screening what will or
will not
> be posted.
How long have you been reading SRM? Can you point out some of the
inconsistencies in more detail?
> It is easy to refer people to the charter but it has the same twisted
> logic as our current president at the white house.
I have to admit to disagreeing with you there. Perhaps you should expand
a bit on what twisted logic you find in the charter.
Peace,
Hedgehog
Raymond Bingham
[snip]
>I personally think the current team of moderators
>does an excellent job creating an appropriate tone for the group. I
>hope they you continue to excercise a light touch when deciding what to
>screen out.
Still, I would like the moderators to place a unique keyword in the top
of all posts of a questionable nature. I suggest the word "sexplicit".
Best regards,
PS. That way I can find these posts faster... I hate having to read all
the traffic just to get to a good[1] joke.
[1] good in this context is used as "evil".
Woody Brison
was and is a good one it's impractical, so let the moderation scheme
as it stands continue to operate. It does seem to screen out most
of the casual drive-by cussing.
I got an email from Aunt...@itoto.com, on an unrelated topic.
When I tried to respond, I discovered that itoto.com doesn't seem
to be a real host. Auntie-Em might want to look and see what she's
got as her return address.
Wood
Raymond Bingham
>Aunt...@itoto.com wrote:
>> One of the greatest problems is inconsistency in screening what will or will not
>> logic as our current president at the white house.
>Inconsistency is a given in moderated groups. Even an individual
>moderator will have differences in how they see borderline posts
>at different times. In a group with team moderation, the chance
>for perceived inconsistency is greater (unless, of course, the
>charter requires unanimous approval from the panel, then the
>chances are less).
Perhaps we need to have each user of this group register as LDS or nonLDS,
but even more specific than that. I suggest that we need to register some
of the LDS as Utah Mormon, Evil Eastern Mormons, Colorado Mormons, Australian
Mormons, Florida Mormon Women, etc. That way we can demand that the
moderators moderate based upon their regionality. It should be noted that
Evil Eastern Mormons have very little ability to post anything nonoffensive
to Utah Mormons, and as such, thus some leeway can be granted to those
EEMs who simply don't know how to live in a Zionistic way. Heck, we could
post the registry and offended parties could simply killfile those who
fall under the EEMs. I mean let's face it, if it doesn't come from Utah,
it's not worth hearing anyhow, right?
Best regards,
Peggy Rogers
> OK, as a result of this interplay I think that while my position
> was and is a good one it's impractical, so let the moderation scheme
> as it stands continue to operate. It does seem to screen out most
> of the casual drive-by cussing.
Yes, it does.
Woody, I think a lot of people would agree that your standards in this
matter would be appropriate in a lot of situations. Those of us
who got soc.religion.mormon started realized that the discussions here
would not always be up to "LDS standards." That's why we keep trying
to encourage someone to propose an s.r.m.fellowship group, for people
who want to talk about LDS issues from an LDS point of view. The rules
for moderation could be much stricter than those used for s.r.m. Some
of us would be glad to help and advise such an effort. But we're not
going to be the ones to spearhead it, because we already have the kind
of newsgroup that we wanted.
Peggy Rogers | a clarity shimmering
krogers?@xmission.com | just out of reach,
(Humans! Remove the ? | like blurred words;
to reply!) | --Durant Gullick
Ann Porter
1. Evil Eastern Mormons, Lifers
2. Evil Eastern Mormons, Converts
< note: both of these include several subcategories, such as feminists,
Democrats, and Zionists>
3. Intermountain West Mormons, local
4. Intermountain West Mormons, exports
5. Fundamentalists (I know, they don't exist...but don't tell them that,
they might get upset).
6. Traditionalists, non-IMW.
7. Mormons! who use! Lots!!! of Exclamation Points!!!
Some people might be hybrids. For example, there may be feminist
traditionalists out there (not all feminists are yearning to hold the
priesthood)
Any more ideas?
Best,
Ann (a 2)
j...@writeme.com
"Ann Porter" <a...@cprplus.com> wrote:
> Any more ideas?
Through in my self-categorization:
Tolerant Orthodox Abolutist Latter-day Saints
And here is one:
Pure in Heart Zion Latter-day Saints
(problem with that latter one, is I don't think we'll get any posts from those
folks, as they are busy doing other stuff)
Your brother,
Jason
j...@writeme.com
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own
PRNancy
Ann Porter wrote:
Any more ideas?
OOH, yes! This cracks me up. Doncha know that only a #2 wouldn't allow
California Converts their own category? Especially a California Convert who's
re-entering the church after a long time? Would that make such folks a FOOLISH
CALIFORNIA CONVERT (FCC) that Smarter Conservative Utah Lifers (SCUL) could
fwap on the side of their heads for obvious reasons?
And I think EVERY newsgroup, religious or otherwise, should have a separate
distinction for foaming-at-the-mouthers.
Respectfully submitted,
Nancy, now declining to categorize herself unless it means a scholarship ;)
Guy R. Briggs
| Ann Porter wrote:
|
|: Responding to Ray's idea of categorizing replies, here's a starter list:
<list snipped - gotta stay under the quoted lines restriction ;) >
|: Some people might be hybrids. For example, there may be feminist
|: traditionalists out there (not all feminists are yearning to hold the
|: priesthood)
|:
|: Any more ideas?
| OOH, yes! This cracks me up. Doncha know that only a #2 wouldn't allow |
California Converts their own category? Especially a California Convert
who's | re-entering the church after a long time? Would that make such folks
a | FOOLISH CALIFORNIA CONVERT (FCC) that Smarter Conservative Utah Lifers
(SCUL) | could fwap on the side of their heads for obvious reasons?
There's an easier way, Nancy. Back when Yeechang posted regularly, I cut a
little deal with him - 10 tactical, low-yield, nuclear e-mail devices and all
the guacamole he could eat in return for a position within EEMABNES. From
that time on, I called myself Commander-in-Chief, Pacific Theater of
Operations, EEMABNES (CincPac, EEMABNES). I think I even used it as an e-mail
address for a while.
My justification was that I had attended the prestigious University of
Florida at Orlando (Anaheim, CA Campus) regularly - especially during the
off-season (currently live about 5 minutes north of said campus, it's a small
world, after all!)
If *that's* not a Big-name Eastern School, what is?
| And I think EVERY newsgroup, religious or otherwise, should have a separate
| distinction for foaming-at-the-mouthers.
Agreed. And there seems to be at least one in every ward, usually teaching
Gospel Essentials and scaring off investigators.
bestRegards,
--
Guy R. "BrickWall" Briggs ----------- net...@earthlink.net
"All God's critters got a place in the choir,
Some sing low, some sing higher.
Some sing out loud on the telephone wire!
And some just clap their hands, or paws,
Or anything they got."
Eric Peterson
Responding to Ray's idea of categorizing replies, here's a starter list:
Ann> 1. Evil Eastern Mormons, Lifers
Ann> 2. Evil Eastern Mormons, Converts
Ann> < note: both of these include several subcategories, such as feminists,
Ann> Democrats, and Zionists>
[snip]
I thought that we Evil Eastern Mormons, Lifers's (EEML's) and EEMC's
were marked by charity toward all - including all our brothers (and
sisters) of the Middle East. Therefore we cannot be Zionist ;^) We
live and work with our Moslem friends and get very embarrassed when
Hatch gets on the air and talks up some special relationship he feels
that our church has with the Jews (we love the Jews too, we just don't
favor them over others).
We leave it up to God to keep his promises to Israel and question the
4 billion dollars per year of "steadying the ark" that our government
does with respect to Israel. We note that this "ark steadying" will
make Israel feel so well protected that they will never seriously seek
peace with their neighbors.
We note that it is prophesied that this Israel will end up fighting
the whole world. Yes, it sounds like our armament gifts will once
again be used against us.
We wonder how the gospel will go forth to our Moslem borthers when
they hate us (in the U.S.) so deeply because of our favoratism toward
Israel.
But mostly we try to never say anything over the pulpit (like
pro-Israely polotics) that would make Moslems investigating the church
feel anything but welcome.
-Eric
--
Eric L. Peterson; MITRE Corp.; Artificial Intelligence Technologies Center
1820 Dolley Madison Blvd.; McLean, VA 22102-3481
er...@ai.mitre.org http://www.cs.umd.edu/users/ericp
"I never meta-class I didn't like" -anon
Raymond Bingham
Eric Peterson (er...@grinder.starbase.mitre.org) quipped:
[snip]
>sisters) of the Middle East. Therefore we cannot be Zionist ;^) We
>live and work with our Moslem friends and get very embarrassed when
>Hatch gets on the air and talks up some special relationship he feels
>that our church has with the Jews (we love the Jews too, we just don't
>favor them over others).
[snip]
>We wonder how the gospel will go forth to our Moslem borthers when
>they hate us (in the U.S.) so deeply because of our favoratism toward
>Israel.
[snip]
So are you saying LDS should love Jews but just not tell anyone about
it? Kinda like what a lot of German citizens did... that whole brotherly
love thing...
If Moslems have a problem with Jews, they need to resolve that problem.
We should not apologize for being sympathetic to their concerns. They
are and were a people favored of the Lord and many great prophecies
still remain to be fulfilled in their regard. Sure, we have a responsibility
to share the Gospel with all people, but the church shouldn't adapt it's
love for all men, in such a way that it harbors racists. We've already
been down that path, have we learned nothing from that experience?
I submit that to alter our high opinion of the Jewish plight would require
a major re-edit of the Book of Mormon. Moslems who investigate the church
will run up against far more challenging things to their faith, such as
Christ being the literal Son of God, and God the Father with a body of
flesh and bone, than our treatment of an ill-treated often maligned people.
Eric Peterson
In article <6vb4no$73r$1...@supernews.com> "Ann Porter" <a...@cprplus.com> writes:
Responding to Ray's idea of categorizing replies, here's a starter list:
Ann> 1. Evil Eastern Mormons, Lifers
Ann> 2. Evil Eastern Mormons, Converts
Ann> < note: both of these include several subcategories, such as feminists,
Ann> Democrats, and Zionists>
[snip]
I thought that we Evil Eastern Mormons, Lifers's (EEML's) and EEMC's
were marked by charity toward all - including all our brothers (and
sisters) of the Middle East. Therefore we cannot be Zionist ;^) We
live and work with our Moslem friends and get very embarrassed when
Hatch gets on the air and talks up some special relationship he feels
that our church has with the Jews (we love the Jews too, we just don't
favor them over others).
We leave it up to God to keep his promises to Israel and question the
4 billion dollars per year of "steadying the ark" that our government
does with respect to Israel. We note that this "ark steadying" will
make Israel feel so well protected that they will never seriously seek
peace with their neighbors.
We note that it is prophesied that this Israel will end up fighting
the whole world. Yes, it sounds like our armament gifts will once
again be used against us.
We wonder how the gospel will go forth to our Moslem bothers when
they hate us (in the U.S.) so deeply because of our favoritism toward
Israel.
But mostly we try to never say anything over the pulpit (like
pro-Israely politics) that would make Moslems investigating the church
Hedgehog
> I thought that we Evil Eastern Mormons, Lifers's (EEML's) and EEMC's
> were marked by charity toward all - including all our brothers (and
> sisters) of the Middle East. Therefore we cannot be Zionist ;^)
I thought Zion was in Missouri rather than in the Levant and therefore
Zionists should have more to do with the Midwest than the Mideast. :)
Peace,
Hedgehog
Ann Porter
>Zionists should have more to do with the Midwest than the Mideast. :)
I was referring to "Zionist" as those looking forward to the creation of a
true Zion society on earth, which seems to be a subject LDS try to stay away
from (anti-capitalist, you know). Maybe it's the wrong word...
Best,
Ann
Eric Peterson
In article <6ve87a$3d5$1...@supernews.com> ra...@fc.hp.com (Raymond Bingham) writes:
Raymond> quipped: [snip]
Eric> sisters) of the Middle East. Therefore we cannot be
Eric> Zionist ;^) We live and work with our Moslem friends and
Eric> get very embarrassed when Hatch gets on the air and talks
Eric> up some special relationship he feels that our church has
Eric> with the Jews (we love the Jews too, we just don't favor
Eric> them over others).
Raymond> [snip]
Eric> We wonder how the gospel will go forth to our Moslem
Eric> borthers when they hate us (in the U.S.) so deeply
Eric> because of our favoratism toward Israel.
Raymond> [snip]
Raymond> So are you saying LDS should love Jews but just not tell
Raymond> anyone about it?
I'm saying that we shouldn't express preferential love. I'm saying
that we shouldn't celebrate our bond with the Jews without giving
conspicuous equal time to our bond with our other brothers. When
Jacob gave a coat of referentiality to one child, it helped to make
the others very angry - even murderous.
I think that it even comes down to the Church's stand on political
neutrality. Like it or not, if we are perceived as being more pro-Jew
that pro-world we get tangled up in that fact that you can't easily
separate Ethnic/Religious Jewishness from Political Zionism. Some dear
Jewish friends of mine invited me to something vaguely akin to our church's
baby blessing. We were received warmly and were made to feel quite at
home. Getting to the point, however, during the service there was an
oath they swore to support the state of Israel. They are a
mainstream moderate synogogue in a "nice" neighborhood.
Please tell your Jewish friends that you love them. I'm merely
suggesting that we don't postpone the day when our missionaries can go
into anti-Israel nations by publicly preferentially chumming up with
Jews.
Raymond> Kinda like what a lot of German
Raymond> citizens did... that whole brotherly love thing...
I'm happy to extend this discussion into the question of "What do we
do when one of our children in beating up on or killing another" (to
return to the earlier metaphor).
Thousands of Palestinians (the guys who are now less that second class
citizens in their own homeland) have been killed by the Israelies.
They have been killed in retaliation for the tens (around 50?) of
Israel deaths.
So, in my view, backing Israel to the degree we do without saying
anything is "Kinda like what a lot of German citizens did... that
whole brotherly love thing...".
Raymond> If Moslems have a problem with Jews, they need to resolve
Raymond> that problem.
They appear to me to be trying harder than the Israelies.
[text omitted]
Raymond> Sure, we
Raymond> have a responsibility to share the Gospel with all
Raymond> people, but the church shouldn't adapt it's love for all
Raymond> men, in such a way that it harbors racists.
Have you ever heard the phrase "Zionism is Racism". I didn't make it
up. It's chanted on may U.S. campuses. But I'm not willing to point
the racism finger at either group. I think both groups are just
deeply afraid of each other (and for good reason). The "racists" you
refer to are to me are just a bunch of folk who are terrified of
Israely F-16's and and Israely nuclear capability (not to mention the
balance of the 4 Billion we give them each year).
Raymond> We've
Raymond> already been down that path, have we learned nothing from
Raymond> that experience?
The lesson I've taken is to stop mass genocide - even when it is being
performed by the former victims.
Raymond> I submit that to alter our high opinion of the Jewish
Raymond> plight would require a major re-edit of the Book of
Raymond> Mormon.
I think that part of our disconnect her is that I wasn't addressing
the former jewish plight - just present day Israel. But, I found it,
surprising that Hatch would compare our suffering to that of the Jews
in WW2. It seems to me that our crown of martyrdom earned at Haun's
mill etc. fell completely off our head at Mountain Meadow.
Raymond> Moslems who investigate the church will run up
Raymond> against far more challenging things to their faith, such
Raymond> as Christ being the literal Son of God,
I think that Hatch was just trying to be a missionary to the Jews when
he said what he did. And don't the Jews have the same obstacles that
you just listed. Let's not add more obstacles to either group. The
Spirit will overcome the existing ones.
Raymond> and God the
Raymond> Father with a body of flesh and bone, than our treatment
Raymond> of an ill-treated often maligned people.
I'm just dense enough to not be sure who you mean here.
But it's my prayer that we will be known as a Church that also
treasures the people of the Middle East; that if one of us in Gospel
Essentials is insensitive enough to ask one of them where they are
from, they will still know of our love enough to say "I am from Iraq"
rather than "I am from Pursia".
Your brother;
-Eric Peterson
David Bowie
<snip>
: There's an easier way, Nancy. Back when Yeechang posted regularly, I cut
:a little deal with him - 10 tactical, low-yield, nuclear e-mail devices
:and all the guacamole he could eat in return for a position within
:EEMABNES. From that time on, I called myself Commander-in-Chief, Pacific
:Theater of Operations, EEMABNES (CincPac, EEMABNES). I think I even used
:it as an e-mail address for a while.
For those who have no idea what this is talking about, i attach below the
long-promised, still-incomplete EEMABNES FAQ.
>>>begin FAQ<<<
************************************************************************
* *
* The alt/soc.religion.mormon *
* EEMABNES Frequently Asked questions List *
* not-yet-official Version 0.1beta *
* *
************************************************************************
In the name of our most Noble and Photogenic Emperor Yeechang, most gracious
greetings to you all.
Table of contents:
0. Introduction
0.1. Why this FAQ?
0.2. What in the world is an EEMABNES?
0.2.1. What does the A* mean?
0.2.2. What is the purpose of EEMBANES?
0.2.3. How do you get to be a member of EEMABNES?
1. History
1.1. Seriously, how did the whole EEMABNES thing get started?
1.2. How was the leadership of EEMABNES chosen?
1.3. So who made the Emperor the Emperor?
2. Personalities
2.1. So what do members of EEMABNES do?
2.2. Who has what position, then?
2.3. These are all men--can't women hold office in EEMABNES?
3. Weak pretenders
3.1. Have any organizations ever challenged EEMABNES for dominance?
0. Introduction
0.1. Why this FAQ?
As certain members of the a/s.r.m. readership have shown a distressing lack
of understanding of the EEMABNES, its purposes, and its relation to our most
Beloved and Photogenic Emperor Yeechang, i have undertaken to fulfill my
role as EEMABNES Minister of Propoganda and present this FAQ sheet.
0.2. What in the world is an EEMABNES?
EEMABNES is an acronym for Evil Eastern Mormons A* Big-Name Eastern
Schools<tm>.
0.2.1. What does the A* mean?
The A* originally stood for "attending," but then some people noted that
non-students should be eligible, so "at" was used for a while. That didn't
work either, though, since alumni are eligible (although making the word in
question "alumni [of]" would be too restrictive). For a while some people
tried to advance "affiliated [with]," but it eventually became easier to
simply leave the A* underspecified.
Our most Astonishing and Photogenic Emperor Yeechang has explained that the
A in EEMABNES stands for "athwart," but his ways are so far beyond the rest
of us that we have been unable to overcome our awe of the word and use it as
he has decreed.
0.2.2. What is the purpose of EEMBANES?
Peace and love and harmony.
<pause>
Just kidding! Nearly got you there, didn't i?
Seriously, EEMABNES is all about world domination--why else would it exist?
Basically, enough people posted to alt.religion.mormon after watching
_The_godmakers_ or reading _The_maze_of_Mormonism_ and hearing about how the
Mormons are bent on world domination, that we started thinking that world
domination doesn't seem like such a bad idea. Therefore, since--as outlined
in the aforementioned sources--world domination by the Mormons is a fait
accompli, we figured we might as well have our positions secure for when it
happens.
0.2.3. How do you get to be a member of EEMABNES?
Easy--you simply have to be an Evil Eastern Mormon, and have some sort of
affiliation with a Big-Name Eastern School.
This sets up, admittedly, an elitist group--but then again, how good can a
group be if it's not elitist?
If you do not meet those criteria, you may still be admitted as an honorary
EEMABNES, provided you apply publicly on USENET and submit a copy of your
application in triplicate to the New York City chapter of the Yeechang Lee
Fan Club (hereafter abbreviated YLFC), who will meet under a full moon in
their secret chambers beneath the basement of the Rockefeller Building.
They will then proceed to give your application the consideration it
deserves, which basically means that they'll laugh at it in unison as they
reject it, particularly if you have done nothing to prove your loyalty to
the EEMBANES cause.
Should appropriate tasty foodstuffs and grovelling accompany your
application, the laughter will be diminished somewhat (mainly because most
of the members of the YLFC will likely have their mouths full). (Attach a
bit of money, preferably in small bills, and your application will be well
on its way to acceptance--but you didn't hear that from me.)
If your pitiful application is deemed worthy, we will contact you at home
regarding an interroga^H^H^H^Hview. No need to go through the trouble of
including your home address or phone number on the application, though--we
already know where you live. Just wait for the knock.
1. History.
1.1. Seriously, how did the whole EEMABNES thing get started?
Well, read section 0.2.2. As for the term EEMABNES itself, it originally
came out of an exchange of posts on alt.religion.mormon in January 1996
between Yeechang Lee (later to become our most Glorious and Photogenic
Emperor) and David "Yes, that's my real name" Bowie (later to become
EEMABNES Minister of Propoganda). The relevant parts of the exchange itself
follow:
===begin quoted post===
From: Yeechang Lee
David Bowie <dbo...@mail1.sas.upenn.edu> wrote:
|And of course, one has to remember that Yeechang and i are both Evil
|Eastern Mormons<tm>
I think it's actually Evil Eastern Mormons Attending Big-Name Eastern
Schools[TM].
|David Bowie, who wonders whether it would be profitable to market
|fully articulated Evil Eastern Mormons<tm> action figures
Heck, why do you think Mattel's offered to buy Hasbro? They're going to
need all the factory space they can get to produce our new line of a.r.m.
action figures. _SEE_ Yeechang munching on Taco Bell food! _POSE_ David
quietly snuggling with his fiancee! _WATCH_ certain a.r.m. participants buy
our figures just to gleefully jump up and down on top of them! _HEAR_
Yeechang and David counting up our royalties[1]!
[1] $2.67, not counting federal, state and local tax.
===end quoted post===
1.2. How was the leadership of EEMABNES chosen?
It all started, naturally enough, with a power struggle--after all, what's a
revolutionary movement without a power struggle?
In the beginning, two individuals claimed primacy within the movement--David
Bowie and Yeechang Lee. A long power struggle followed, with both of them
claiming primacy over both the administrative and military sides of the
organization. Eventually a truce was declared, with the terms being:
(1) Yeechang was awarded complete control over New York City. He also
given complete control over the administrative structure of New York
State, Connecticut (a wholly owned subsidiary of New York City) and
rest of New England (if he really wanted it), as well as the
provinces of Canada.
(2) David was awarded complete control over Maryland, as well as
Pennsylvania (until such time as a suitable governor for the state
be found). He also was given complete control over the
structure of Delaware, Washington DC, Virginia, and West Virginia.
(3) Nobody wanted New Jersey, so nobody got it.
(4) Administrative control over all other regions was to be held by
Yeechang, with input from David to be sought. As a result, Yeechang
awarded the coveted title of Emperor.
(5) Control of the military (and therefore the title of Commander-in-
was given to David. This included absolute control over the
black helicopter fleet.
The agreement was formalized in the Spring of 1996 with a symbolic exchange
of two cases of egg creams and a half dozen New York pizzas from Yeechang
and a dozen cheesesteaks (from Pat's, not Geno's!) and two dozen crabcakes
from David.
1.3. So who made the Emperor the Emperor?
Once, on alt.religion.mormon, someone dared to question our most Wondrous
and Photogenic Emperor Yeechang's right to be the Emperor. The following is
my response, acting in my official role as EEMABNES Minister of Propoganda:
===begin quoted post===
From: David Bowie
Is there any need to question the Mysteries? For there are seven great
mysteries of the EEMABNES, and among these is the method by which our most
Noble and Photogenic Emperor Yeechang Lee received his most Powerful and
Holy calling.
Let there be none who dares malign the great name of our most Fearsome and
Photogenic Emperor Yeechang, lest the CIC of the EEMABNES forces be required
to send the black helicopter fleet after the unbeliever and, to put it
bluntly, blast him to bits.
Amen.
===end quoted post===
2. Personalities
2.1. So what do members of EEMABNES do?
Plot what we'll do once we've taken over the world, of course, as well as
plot tactical movements to quash the terminally annoying and set up seat
reservations for the shuttle to the Secret Mormon Moonbase.
A great deal of our work within EEMABNES is administrative at the moment,
actually--a lot of work has gone into the distribution of titles and areas
of administration for the coming New Mormon World Order.
2.2. Who has what position, then?
Well, the greatest among us is of course the most Illustrious and Photogenic
Emperor Yeechang, He who needs no further titles but nonetheless holds the
titles of Earl of East Rutherford, Doctor of Detroit, Prince of Parsippany,
and Count de Money. Our most Wondrous and Photogenic Emperor is also the
Governor of New York City and Supreme Lord of New York State, New England,
and the Maritimes.
David Bowie, Honored Knight of the Empire, is the EEMABNES Minister of
Propoganda, Minister of Cheesesteaks, Commander-in-Chief, Supreme Commander
of the EEMABNES Black Helicopter Patrol, Governor of Maryland, Acting
Governor of Pennsylvania, Supreme Lord over the Mid-Atlantic Region of the
Eastern US, and Keeper of the Sacred Spelling Flame.
Unto Craig Harman has been granted the office of Daimyo of the Delmarva
Peninsular and New Jersey (with the status of Cecil County MD still awaiting
a conference committee). The Daimyo also recognizes his own control of
Southern Virginia, the ancestral home of the Daimyo, and laughs in the face
of any weak pretenders. These rights have been granted at the cost of seven
bushels of blue crabs offered to the Empire as a brib^H^H^H^Hdonation.
In recognition of his service to the forthcoming Empire, Jason Roberts has
at his request been awarded the positions of President of the Green Bay
Packers fan club, Duke of the south side of Milwaukee, and Earl of Sun
Prairie. He has also--once again at his request--been placed in charge of
the Geo Tracker/Harley Davidson Unit and all tailgate parties.
Guy Briggs has been granted dominion over California, Oregon, and Washington
state as well as the title of Commander-in-Chief, Pacific Operations
(CINCPAC) in return for all the guacamole our most Esteemed and Photogenic
Emperor Yeechang can eat and a steady supply of surgical low-yield nuclear
e-mail devices, produced by some of the finest defense contractors in the
nation.
Jason Hardy has been provisionally granted the title of "Defender of Bowie's
Inequality Constant," and has been granted the honorary degree of "Doctor of
the Utah!=Mormon Sciences."
Craig Olson, is recognition of his ability to throw out naval humor without
regret, has been commissioned Admiral of a.r.m.
E. Gordon Gee, Mormon and president of Brown University, has without his
knowledge been made honorary President of EEMABNES.
Further appointments are always available for mone^H^H^H^Hconsideration.
2.3. These are all men--can't women hold office in EEMABNES?
Well...Ummm...Ermmm...Well...
This is a matter of some debate within the EEMABNES hierarchy. After all,
we're Evil Mormons, and as such have the responsibility of upholding
people's preconceptions about us, which means we have to exclude women from
power. On the other hand, we're Eastern mormons, which means that we have a
duty to reject cultural hangups reported to be held by our Western
colleagues. Therefore, this is an issue that remains unresolved.
However, notwithstanding the fact that the issue is still under debate, Anne
Stevens has eagerly and repeatedly petitioned for provisionary control of
her homeland of Massachusetts. Although she has not been granted this
petition yet, it has not been rejected either, as she has offered most
excellent brib^H^H^H^Hgifts (all the maple syrup he can eat for David Bowie
and all the tortilla chips our most Astounding and Photogenic Emperor
Yeechang needs to eat the guacamole he has received from Guy Briggs), and
David Bowie has volunteered to mentor her through the grueling process of
appeasing the EEMABNES hierarchy.
In any event, we in the EEMABNES hierarchy, always willing to further the
interests of our loyal subjects, are always willing to give appropriate
gifts to those of our subjects who show suitable devotion, no matter whether
they are male or female. For example, in recognition of her service to the
realm, to Diana Newman has been given administrative control of Cache
Valley, Utah, and has been given sole propietorship of all of the cheese,
exercise equipment, and snowmobiles in Logan Canyon--not to mention her own
black helicopter, manned by five handsome, intellegant, hardworking,
romantic and malleable returned missionaries, of the appropriate gender,one
for each of her kids.
3. Weak pretenders
3.1. Have any organizations ever challenged EEMABNES for dominance?
No--you needed to ask?
There was one notable case, however, in which a group *attempted* to
challenge EEMABNES for dominance. This was the group known as W-AMAMU
(Well-Adjusted Mormons at Midwestern Universities), and their founding
philosophy was "Witty repartee and BBQ'ed German sausages."
While that philosophy is one that the hierarchy of EEMABNES most
emphatically approves of, the existence of such a renegade group could not
be tolerated, and so the weak pretenders were crushed. Mention should be
made here of Jason Roberts, who had been one of the founding members of
W-AMAMU but quickly realized the error of his ways and applied for
membership in EEMABNES. A search of the records showed that he repented
sufficiently and was given the titles listed above.
As a sidebar, to show how much Jason Roberts had to repent, consider all the
ways he had to prove himself, and take heed that it is better never to
transgress than to have to repent! For in order for JR to be accepted into
full fellowship into the EEMABNES organization, he had to do many mighty
evil deeds, including: Valiant service for a.r.m in the great
a.r.m/rec.org.mensa flamewars of spring '96 (nevermind that he started said
flamewar); leading the frontal assault on alt.fan.jello-biafra in early '97,
leading to a conclusive victory for a.r.m.; saving EEMABNES millions by not
calling upon the infamous fleet of black helicoptors to land in the East Bay
area or bomb alterative tentacles records; having had multiple death
sentences placed upon his head by moderate midwestern Mormon, Jason Hardy;
getting Kerry Shirts to apologize to him for swearing at him; being accused,
but never convicted, of driving Keryx (aka Richard Wight) off a.r.m. and
being responsible for Terry Lofthouse's apostacy. Take heed at how
difficult the return to the good graces of the EEMABNES hierarchy can be!
>>>end FAQ<<<
<snip>
David, EEMABNES Minister of Propaganda
--
Remove the % from my e-mail address to reply
David Bowie http://babel.ling.upenn.edu/~bowie
dbowie@mail%.sas.upenn.edu PhD student in Sociolinguistics
And yes, that actually *is* my real name!
Charlie C.
wrote:
>Recently we've received a complaint from a soc.religion.mormon reader
>about an example of less-than-pristine humor that was allowed onto
>the newsgroup. <snip>
>
I didn't find it amusing. While I personally can just ignore such as
this, I can understand and sympathize with the taking of offense by
some.
Eric Peterson
citizens in their own homeland) have been killed by the Israeli.
They have been killed in retaliation for the tens (around 50?) of
Israeli deaths.
So, in my view, backing Israel to the degree we do without saying
anything is "Kinda like what a lot of German citizens did... that
whole brotherly love thing...".
Raymond> If Moslems have a problem with Jews, they need to resolve
Raymond> that problem.
They appear to me to be trying harder than the Israeli.
[text omitted]
Raymond> Sure, we
Raymond> have a responsibility to share the Gospel with all
Raymond> people, but the church shouldn't adapt it's love for all
Raymond> men, in such a way that it harbors racists.
Have you ever heard the phrase "Zionism is Racism". I didn't make it
up. It's chanted on may U.S. campuses. But I'm not willing to point
the racism finger at either group. I think both groups are just
deeply afraid of each other (and for good reason). The "racists" you
refer to are to me are just a bunch of folk who are terrified of
Israeli F-16's and and Israeli nuclear capability (not to mention the
Sandi
SRM Moderators wrote:
> <snip>
> But where do we draw the line between what's acceptable, what's
> tolerable if tasteless, and what's completely out of bounds? We'd
> like some input from newsgroup participants: is the discussion here
> too free-wheeling, so that it gets offensive at times to too many
> people? Where should we be drawing the line, according to the
> "community standards" of this community? Was the acceptance of this
> particular article a minor slip-up? or a clear sign of down-to-the-
> core corruption? or did you think it was kind of amusing?
>
> <snip>
>
> Regards,
>
> SRM Moderators
I wasn't going to respond to this because when the original article was
posted I just passed by it because I was in a hurry. I went back today to
read it and was shocked. I think it was in poor taste and really didn't
belong here. But I do agree with Ray in that there could be a note placed
on the top of the message warning readers. I don't want to be a moral
policeman but when I read this newgroup I am looking for decent
discussion.
--
Sandi * "A true friend loves you even when you act like yourself"
***************************************************************
Rob Pannoni
>
> Still, I would like the moderators to place a unique keyword in the top
> of all posts of a questionable nature. I suggest the word "sexplicit".
>
While I am a strong proponent of free speech, I agree that preventing
accidental exposure to unwanted material a worthy goal. Tagging
marginal posts would be an acceptable solution as far as I'm concerned
as long as it doesn't have a chilling effect on conversation (i.e.
people refusing to contribute to threads simply because of the stigma of
the tag rather than because of the content per se).
--Rob
Jerry James
While misappropriating money from the GF (Guacamole Fund), David Bowie
<dbo...@npl.com> paused on 8 Oct 1998 at 18:30:06 GMT to write:
> 3. Weak pretenders
>
> 3.1. Have any organizations ever challenged EEMABNES for dominance?
>
> No--you needed to ask?
Alas, the Most Eloquent EEMABNES Minister of Propaganda failed to
remember another challenger. His memory will be refreshed, no doubt,
after he searches DejaNews for an article posted to a.r.m. on March 8,
1996 with the subject "EEMABNES rival organized". The author of that
piece posted another reference to the organization on December 4, 1997,
in an article with the subject "Re: Age of old RS/Priesthood manuals".
However, I am certain that the author of said articles will graciously
forgive the Most Linguistic EEMABNES Minister of Propaganda in exchange
for a large mug with the slogan "California: Best Place on Earth"
emblazoned upon it, and a picture showing:
(1) buildings crumbling into a large crack in the ground;
(2) a tar-and-seaweed-covered beach;
(3) a submerged strawberry field; and
(4) several large homes of the incendiary variety.
--
Jerry James
Assistant Adjutant, Alliterators and Assonancers Anonymous
Email: je...@cs.ucsb.edu
WWW: http://www.cs.ucsb.edu/~jerry/
Yeechang Lee
> For those who have no idea what this is talking about, i attach below the
> long-promised, still-incomplete EEMABNES FAQ.
And a beautiful FAQ it is. Just a few corrections:
> Our most Astonishing and Photogenic Emperor Yeechang has explained
> that the A in EEMABNES stands for "athwart," but his ways are so far
> beyond the rest of us that we have been unable to overcome our awe
> of the word and use it as he has decreed.
Hey, if William F. Buckley (a Yale man, if not exactly an EEM) could
declare that _National Review_ could stand athwart Western
Civilization, we can use the word too.
> From: David Bowie
>
> Is there any need to question the Mysteries? For there are seven
> great mysteries of the EEMABNES, and among these is the method by
> which our most Noble and Photogenic Emperor Yeechang Lee received
> his most Powerful and Holy calling.
Aw, what the heck. Let's pull the curtain on this one. One and all,
take a look at
<URL:http://www.emf.net/~estephen/manifesto/aum00049.html>. Need I
say more?
> Let there be none who dares malign the great name of our most
> Fearsome and Photogenic Emperor Yeechang, lest the CIC of the
> EEMABNES forces be required to send the black helicopter fleet after
> the unbeliever and, to put it bluntly, blast him to bits.
This is still true.
> E. Gordon Gee, Mormon and president of Brown University, has without his
> knowledge been made honorary President of EEMABNES.
His position is ex officio. We probably ought to send him an official
certificate and membership card one of these days.
> However, notwithstanding the fact that the issue is still under
> debate, Anne Stevens has eagerly and repeatedly petitioned for
> provisionary control of her homeland of Massachusetts.
See, if the Ivies were still (mostly) single-sex, Smith College, as a
Seven Sisters school, would easily be a BNES. Alas, chalk this loss
up to the feminist movement.
> For example, in recognition of her service to the realm, to Diana
> Newman has been given administrative control of Cache Valley, Utah,
I dunno. Wisconsin is hard enough to reconcile with EEMABNES. But
Utah? What next, North Dakota?
ObLDS: Hey, how about sending more Mormon undergrads to Columbia and
Barnard? We can always use more.
ObMoreLDS: I know John Widtsoe "graduated from Brigham Young College
in 1891 and from Harvard, with high honors, in 1894"
<URL:http://www.signaturebooksinc.com/rational.htm>. Was it Harvard
College Elder Widtsoe attended, or a graduate program? If the former,
does this make him the first (and the only?) GA to have received his
undergraduate education from an Ivy League school?
--
All LDS mission alumni pages: http://www.columbia.edu/~ylee/all-missions.html
[alt|soc].religion.mormon FAQ: http://www.columbia.edu/~ylee/a.r.m.faq.html
LDS at Columbia University: http://www.columbia.edu/~ylee/lds-columbia.html
My home page: http://www.columbia.edu/~ylee/