Warp wrote:
>   The "murder of innocent babies" might sound horrible to you,

That fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil that all of mankind, 
all herbivores, and all serpents are still paying for? That Jesus had to die 
to forgive us for?  Doesn't seem to work too well. ;-)

-- 
   Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   Insanity is a small city on the western
   border of the State of Mind.

Post a reply to this message

On 7-7-2009 16:55, Warp wrote:

> - Mark a word as having some special meaning, such being a title, a slang
> word or an alias. An examples:
> 
>     Miles "Tails" Prower is a playable character in the "Sonic the Hedgehog"
>     game series.
> 
In this usage it can also be used as brackets that indicate that the 
whole thing in quotes is used as a single syntactic element. Your 
'"Sonic the Hedgehog"' is also an example of this usage.

Post a reply to this message

Darren New wrote:
> Patrick Elliott wrote:
>> Wonder if they where the ones that reported that Jeff Goldbloom had 
>> died falling from a mountain, in New Zealand, and 'verified' it by 
>> talking to 
> 
> Correct quote marks.
> 
>> the cops there? Colbert had Goldbloom on "during" his announcement of 
> 
> Incorrect quote marks.
> 
>> his supposed death, and the later 'confirmation' that he had indeed 
> 
> Correct quote marks.
> 
>> died. Funnier than hell.
> 
> See how the second set of quote marks are not saying "Really really 
> confirmed", but rather "claimed to be confirmed but not really"?  How 
> you put quotes around the word "verified" to say "they said it was 
> verified, but obviously they were incorrect"?
> 
> Just sayin'.... :-)
> 
Yeah, yeah, yeah.. At this point its frakking habit, and... those are 
hard to break. Same, to some extent, with the long sentences. Its how I 
am *actually* thinking at the time I write it, and getting the thought 
out. To break it up would require going back and logically reworking the 
entire structure in most cases, and I am usually also thinking about 4-5 
other things I am planning to do *after*, so actually stopping to look 
and see if I did such a thing isn't natural for me. lol

-- 
void main () {
   If Schrödingers_cat is alive or version > 98 {
     if version = "Vista" {
       call slow_by_half();
       call DRM_everything();
     }
     call functional_code();
   }
   else
     call crash_windows();
}

<A HREF='http://www.daz3d.com/index.php?refid=16130551'>Get 3D Models, 
3D Content, and 3D Software at DAZ3D!</A>

Post a reply to this message

Jim Henderson wrote:
> Maybe not a sin, but it seems to be a prohibition nonetheless.  Maybe 
> "Utah Mormons" are different in that regard, though (I have heard that 
> from various people, including those members of the church both inside 
> and outside of Utah).

"Utah Mormons" are the scourge of the Church, and a detriment to 
society.  They are both more judgmental and less forgiving than members 
of the Church in virtually any other part of the world.

They also tend to have lower IQs, from my experience with them.

> "Here's what we do, but you do what you like" isn't really giving people 
> a choice.  I wonder if one's temple recommend would be rescinded (I don't 
> know a lot about this aspect of the church) if one said "yes, I drink 
> Mountain Dew regularly".

No, it would not.  Now, if you drank Coffee or Tea, then yes.

> See, there's the problem.  "Blacks are equal, but only at some date in 
> the future".  That doesn't work for me any more than "All men are created 
> equal" does in the historical context of "men" being "white males who own 
> property".

I never claimed it was accurate, only that it was what the Mormons 
believe.  Besides, for a somewhat conservative religion springing out of 
19th century revivalism, it seems quite progressive.

That the world eventually caught up and passed them isn't their fault. 
After all, they were waiting for God to say, "When."

> No, it's not.  Recent research suggests that (a) it's more natural than 
> some people want to believe, and (b) that it's genetic and not a learned 
> trait.

That's more in line with the research I've seen as well.

-- 
Chambers

Post a reply to this message

Darren New wrote:
>> I can see how that could make my position confusing, though, and I 
>> should have been more clear.
> 
> OK. Altho I must say, if the teaching of the church is that all blacks 
> are descendants of the first murderer and cannot be spiritually whole, 
> it kind of throws a wrench into the McCain/Obama "vote whoever you feel 
> best about" doctrine. :-)

That's not really the teaching, though a lot of people (Mormons 
included, unfortunately) take it that way.

What it really is, is that one particular group of people were colored 
black because they descended from Cain.

But, wait a minute... there are SEVERAL colors of people, and several 
different ethnic groups that are "black"!  Which is which?!?!?

Mormon doctrine doesn't say anything about the other groups, where they 
came from or how they came to be the way they are.

Like I said, though, that's a common misunderstanding.

>> Yeah, that one surprised a lot of people at the time,
> 
> Funny. My understanding from other Mormons is that everyone at the time 
> knew exactly why God had commanded that.  Namely, that Mrs Smith didn't 
> like cleaning up when people missed the spittoon.

That complaint started it... the response of the Lord was basically, 
"Since you asked, you're getting the whole deal..."

A prohibition on tobacco like that was pretty much unprecedented, 
however, and it surprised the majority of people.

>>> To masturbate? To be homosexual?
>> Yes, those behaviors are prohibited.
> 
> Well, since that's the specific bit we're talking about, and it sounds 
> like the church is giving specific instructions about what to do about 
> that, I'm not sure why you're disagreeing with me.

Well, you happened to touch on one of the few subject where the Church 
gets really specific.  You seemed to be taking my statement about 
generality and saying, "That can't be right because of this instance!" 
when that instance is one of the few exceptions.

>>> when he mentioned that homosexuality is unholy?
> 
>> What's wrong with saying that homosexuality is unholy?  Whether or not 
>> you believe it is your decision, but it's one of the teachings of the 
>> LDS Church, and they're unapologetic about it.
> 
> Sure. But then to say "but we won't tell you how to vote on the gay 
> marriage bill" is being kind of disingenuous.

Not particularly.  My own understanding of the issues led me to believe 
that I should vote for bills like that.  While I couldn't (as a member 
of the Church) approve of homosexual behavior, I also couldn't approve 
of discrimination against homosexuals.

Not to mention, that I think it's just plain stupid to try and legislate 
morality.

-- 
Chambers

Post a reply to this message

Jim Henderson wrote:
> How many BYU professors (for 
> example) have been dismissed for being seen to be challenging the 
> Church's authority?

That's actually an instance where I would side with the Church.

BYU is a privately funded university, and the Church has a vested 
interest in keeping tabs on what, exactly, is taught there.  I'd expect 
them to be hard on professors that don't toe the line, just like I would 
a private school run by Jehovah's Witnesses, or Jesuits, or any other 
religious group.

It's not like they're using state funds to run the place.  If you don't 
like what they teach, then don't go there - go to University of Utah 
instead, which is a public university.

-- 
Chambers

Post a reply to this message

Patrick Elliott wrote:
> Doesn't that kind of, sort of, run contrary to the idea that you "need" 
> an LDS church in the first place? Just saying, because... well, if they 
> think you still do, just so they can make sure you "do" know those 
> things, their way, then... this really isn't a truthful stance, is it?

One of the first things they ask potential converts to do is pray and 
ask God if He thinks joining the Church is a good idea.  Those who think 
God says "no" are free to pursue other religious organizations, or to 
practice unorganized (disorganized?) religion instead.

(In fact, members are frequently reminded to continue asking God if 
everything they've heard recently in Church is true, and if they should 
accept it).

-- 
Chambers

Post a reply to this message

Patrick Elliott wrote:
> Sorry, but you seem to be missing my point. The people "are" the union, 

OK.  When I talk of "The Church" (or "The Union"), I'm speaking of the 
organization, and not the individuals that comprise it (even as a group).

-- 
Chambers

Post a reply to this message

Jim Henderson wrote:
> The church is pretty active in local politics and lawmaking.  I've been 
> here in Utah for about 15 years now and the influence is very apparent.  
> Maybe it's not so obvious from the inside looking out, but from the 
> outside looking in, it's really obvious.

Well, I never lived in Utah, so it could be that the areas I've lived in 
were ones where the LDS Church simply didn't have enough influence to do 
things like that.

 From what I've seen of members who come from Utah, I don't think I 
would like living there, anyway.

> Let's ask the women in the church who are in leadership roles what they 
> think, shall we?
> 
> Oh, wait, there aren't any.  It's asserted that leadership in the church 
> is for males only.

Well, you can't blame them for being consistent.  Extension of the 
Priesthood to women would require divine revelation.  If and when it 
comes, then it will be accepted.  Until God says so, however, the LDS 
Church is going to keep doing things the same way, unapologetically.

The persecutions that members suffered during the early 19th century 
have created an inherited culture of martyrdom, you might say.  Members 
are constantly regaled with stories of individuals who stood by their 
beliefs, despite threats (or acts of) extreme violence.

Can you blame them, after all that, for sticking with what they believe, 
whether or not it's popular?

>>> It's also highly ironic that the Church's historic "marriage" is
>>> polygamistic (still practiced by some sects,
>> Still practiced by excommunicated members.  There are no "sects" of the
>> LDS Church practicing polygamy... whenever anyone is discovered
>> practicing it, they are excommunicated immediately.
> 
> I stand corrected, but that also ignores the history of the Church and 
> what was "traditional" from the church's point of view.  How many wives 
> did Joseph Smith have again?

The stance on polygamy is quite clear.  It was practiced because God 
allowed it to be.  It was halted because God commanded it to be. 
There's nothing else to it.

-- 
Chambers

Post a reply to this message

Patrick Elliott wrote:
> It wasn't until later that 
> "both" fell out of favor. And the polygamy mainly because more liberal 
> groups,

It had nothing to do with falling out of favor (see my reply to Jim on 
popular opinion) or because of liberal groups within the Church.

The practice of Polygamy was halted because the President at the time 
(Wilford Woodruff, I believe) said that God told him it was time to stop.

-- 
Chambers

Post a reply to this message