Jump to content


Should people worry about a Mormon President


  • Please log in to reply
186 replies to this topic

#1 Happy Jack

Happy Jack

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 13,967 posts
  • Location:Florida

Posted 13 April 2012 - 06:26 PM

The Obamam campaign has set their initial strategy in place. Mitt is a threat to women's birth control....

The president’s chief strategist, David Axelrod, has gone further, quipping that the former Massachusetts governor “must watch ‘Mad Men’ and think it’s the evening news” while jabbing that Romney’s views are out of a time when “bosses could dictate on women’s health.”

Read more: http://www.politico....l#ixzz1rwWcMpNp

But is that true?

Mitt is a faithful Latter-Day Saint "Mormon", as such, one would expect him to have similar views to his church. So, what is the church position on birth control?

Birth Control

It is the privilege of married couples who are able to bear children to provide mortal bodies for the spirit children of God, whom they are then responsible to nurture and rear. The decision as to how many children to have and when to have them is extremely intimate and private and should be left between the couple and the Lord. Church members should not judge one another in this matter.

Married couples should also understand that sexual relations within marriage are divinely approved not only for the purpose of procreation, but also as a way of expressing love and strengthening emotional and spiritual bonds between husband and wife.


Is this an extreme position? Most people know very little about Mormons. Often what they do know, they learned from a hostile source.

#2 TheFlash

TheFlash

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 11,739 posts
  • Location:San Francisco Bay
  • Interests:Rum

Posted 13 April 2012 - 06:32 PM

I don't have any issue with Romney's religion. However, if he came out and said he had to do what the prophet says I'd have an issue. No different than when Kennedy had to let folks know his loyalty was to the people of the US, not the pope.

#3 kmccabe

kmccabe

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 22,524 posts
  • Location:Belly of the Beast.

Posted 13 April 2012 - 07:13 PM

I don't have any issue with Romney's religion. However, if he came out and said he had to do what the prophet says I'd have an issue. No different than when Kennedy had to let folks know his loyalty was to the people of the US, not the pope.


Bingo - Thank you Mitch. I've seen examples of otherwise on this forum.

#4 Olsonist

Olsonist

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 8,137 posts
  • Location:Oakland, CA

Posted 13 April 2012 - 07:27 PM

By way of comparison, I don't mind that Paul Ryan is a Catholic. I do mind when he mixes his Catholicism and his budget proposals:

http://www.christian...teaching-73069/

House Budget Committee Chair Paul Ryan (R-Wis.) said that the federal budget passed last month by House Republicans contains many principles consistent with his Catholic faith, in an interview on CBN.

"A person's faith is central to how they conduct themselves in public and in private. So to me, using my Catholic faith, we call it the social magisterium, which is, how do you apply the doctrine of your teaching into your everyday life as a lay person?" Ryan answered when asked how his faith informed the budget.


This I have a problem with.

#5 benwynn

benwynn

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 14,935 posts

Posted 13 April 2012 - 07:36 PM

Most people know very little about Mormons. Often what they do know, they learned from a hostile source.


I gotta say that most of what I've learned about Mormons is from you, which makes that statement pretty accurate.

Ben

#6 d'ranger

d'ranger

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 14,951 posts

Posted 13 April 2012 - 07:37 PM


Most people know very little about Mormons. Often what they do know, they learned from a hostile source.


I gotta say that most of what I've learned about Mormons is from you, which makes that statement pretty accurate.

Ben

:D

#7 Spatial Ed

Spatial Ed

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 17,486 posts
  • Location:The Dark Side of Kolob
  • Interests:Subhuman Mongrels in momjeans

Posted 13 April 2012 - 08:12 PM

I'll be here the entire election cycle to answer any questions you may have on Mormonism. Fire away.

#8 By the lee

By the lee

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 948 posts

Posted 13 April 2012 - 08:18 PM

".....Mormons really do have secrets and a lot of discipline. Does Romney espouse Mormon doctrines about gays or not? About obedience to the Prophet or not? If not, then isn’t he a fake Mormon, without a shred of principle. Why should be believe him about anything? If yes, then where does that put his loyalties and priorities as someone hoping to be President of the United States and supposed upholder of the Constitution? (Of course Obama has shredded substantial portions of the Constitution without even the excuse of being a Mormon.)

What about Romney’s associations? He is no ordinary Mormon. By lineage, upbringing and personal decision he’s about as dedicated a Mormon as you can be – which is very dedicated indeed. I urge you to check out the piece by a former Mormon in our current newsletter, which delves into Mormon practices and points out that Romney attends a Mormon temple. Temples are only open to those members who adhere completely to the strict standards of Mormonism, including unwavering loyalty to the president of the church.

“The level of secretiveness surrounding the temples is extraordinary, so much so that members of the Mormon Church who have not been to the temple have virtually no idea as to what they entail…Before Mormon are allowed to enter a temple, they must be interviewed by two separate tiers of ecclesiastical leadership to determine their worthiness to enter these edifices. These so-called temple recommend interviews are the first issue of concern regarding Mitt Romney. Among the various questions asked of a member, one particular question goes as follows: ‘Do you support, affiliate with, or agree with any group or individual whose teachings or practices are contrary to or oppose those accepted by the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints?’ The very nature of this question, coupled with several others regarding complete obedience to the president of the church (or ‘prophet’), put into question the overall allegiance of Mitt Romney (and, indeed, all Mormons). If members are found to be in violation of this question (or any other from the list of questions), they will not be allowed to enter the temple. Being blocked from entering the temple is tantamount to being blocked from Heaven, albeit temporarily (they can always repent).

“Among the various ‘ordinances’ performed in the temples, none are more divisive than the Law of Consecration. This rite requires members to pledge all their time, money, and abilities to the establishment of the kingdom of heaven on earth (the Mormon kingdom). Couple this with the demand to sustain the president of the church as the only prophet seer and revelator on earth, a particularly troubling form of absolute obedience emerges.” "

http://www.counterpunch.org/2012/04/06/romney-why-its-ok-to-stick-it-to-him-for-being-a-mormon/print

#9 By the lee

By the lee

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 948 posts

Posted 13 April 2012 - 08:21 PM


Most people know very little about Mormons. Often what they do know, they learned from a hostile source.


I gotta say that most of what I've learned about Mormons is from you, which makes that statement pretty accurate.

Ben

Everthing I learnt about Mormons came from reading..... http://en.wikipedia....ot_in_the_Heart :blink:

#10 Spatial Ed

Spatial Ed

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 17,486 posts
  • Location:The Dark Side of Kolob
  • Interests:Subhuman Mongrels in momjeans

Posted 13 April 2012 - 08:42 PM

Any religion as secret as the Mormons must be met with a healthy dose of scrutiny. Not sure they are ready and willing to tell us everything about them.

#11 Clove Hitch

Clove Hitch

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,849 posts
  • Location:around and about
  • Interests:Garnacha. Gunk-holing.

Posted 13 April 2012 - 08:58 PM

Any religion as secret as the Mormons must be met with a healthy dose of scrutiny. Not sure they are ready and willing to tell us everything about them.


Very true, as demonstrated by Happy Jack. Remember when he wouldn't say why mormons disliked bodies of water? I had to google that stuff, where as he could have simply answered the question.

#12 Spatial Ed

Spatial Ed

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 17,486 posts
  • Location:The Dark Side of Kolob
  • Interests:Subhuman Mongrels in momjeans

Posted 13 April 2012 - 09:30 PM


Any religion as secret as the Mormons must be met with a healthy dose of scrutiny. Not sure they are ready and willing to tell us everything about them.


Very true, as demonstrated by Happy Jack. Remember when he wouldn't say why mormons disliked bodies of water? I had to google that stuff, where as he could have simply answered the question.

Wait until you hear the story about the White Salamander!

#13 Happy Jack

Happy Jack

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 13,967 posts
  • Location:Florida

Posted 13 April 2012 - 09:37 PM



Any religion as secret as the Mormons must be met with a healthy dose of scrutiny. Not sure they are ready and willing to tell us everything about them.


Very true, as demonstrated by Happy Jack. Remember when he wouldn't say why mormons disliked bodies of water? I had to google that stuff, where as he could have simply answered the question.

Wait until you hear the story about the White Salamander!


Hitch needs to know that I only see his posts when someone quotes him so it isn't a question of I "wouldn't" answer him. I simply never saw the question. I swim, live on a lake, own boats, waterski, love cruising and scuba dive. Tell me again why Mormons dislike bodies of water.

#14 Spatial Ed

Spatial Ed

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 17,486 posts
  • Location:The Dark Side of Kolob
  • Interests:Subhuman Mongrels in momjeans

Posted 13 April 2012 - 09:42 PM




Any religion as secret as the Mormons must be met with a healthy dose of scrutiny. Not sure they are ready and willing to tell us everything about them.


Very true, as demonstrated by Happy Jack. Remember when he wouldn't say why mormons disliked bodies of water? I had to google that stuff, where as he could have simply answered the question.

Wait until you hear the story about the White Salamander!


Hitch needs to know that I only see his posts when someone quotes him so it isn't a question of I "wouldn't" answer him. I simply never saw the question. I swim, live on a lake, own boats, waterski, love cruising and scuba dive. Tell me again why Mormons dislike bodies of water.

Well you are a jack Mormon jack. Oh and thanks for not putting me on ignore. Malarkey did that and I still resent him for doing it.

#15 craigiri

craigiri

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 8,340 posts
  • Location:Home of US Sailing
  • Interests:Sailing, Innovation, Web Development, Writing, etc.

Posted 13 April 2012 - 09:44 PM

bear children to provide mortal bodies for the spirit children of God,
should be left between the couple and the Lord.


Not extreme compared to the Christians..... evangelicals.

A little strange - a bit weird (above), but not extreme. Beats the Catholics by a mile too.

Realistically, Jackie, I think you will have more righties that have a problem with Mormonism than lefties. We may joke here and there, but are very "liberal" in this type of thing.

For we lefties, the main thing is that he not try to force things on anyone......

Mitt has been making noises about wanting to overturn Roe v. Wade and other such stuff - that's injecting government and religion into the womb. What do you have to say about that? I say he should keep his hands off.

#16 Happy Jack

Happy Jack

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 13,967 posts
  • Location:Florida

Posted 13 April 2012 - 09:45 PM





Any religion as secret as the Mormons must be met with a healthy dose of scrutiny. Not sure they are ready and willing to tell us everything about them.


Very true, as demonstrated by Happy Jack. Remember when he wouldn't say why mormons disliked bodies of water? I had to google that stuff, where as he could have simply answered the question.

Wait until you hear the story about the White Salamander!


Hitch needs to know that I only see his posts when someone quotes him so it isn't a question of I "wouldn't" answer him. I simply never saw the question. I swim, live on a lake, own boats, waterski, love cruising and scuba dive. Tell me again why Mormons dislike bodies of water.

Well you are a jack Mormon jack. Oh and thanks for not putting me on ignore. Malarkey did that and I still resent him for doing it.


You I laugh at.

#17 craigiri

craigiri

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 8,340 posts
  • Location:Home of US Sailing
  • Interests:Sailing, Innovation, Web Development, Writing, etc.

Posted 13 April 2012 - 09:46 PM

By way of comparison, I don't mind that Paul Ryan is a Catholic. I do mind when he mixes his Catholicism and his budget proposals:

http://www.christian...teaching-73069/


House Budget Committee Chair Paul Ryan (R-Wis.) said that the federal budget passed last month by House Republicans contains many principles consistent with his Catholic faith, in an interview on CBN.

"A person's faith is central to how they conduct themselves in public and in private. So to me, using my Catholic faith, we call it the social magisterium, which is, how do you apply the doctrine of your teaching into your everyday life as a lay person?" Ryan answered when asked how his faith informed the budget.


This I have a problem with.


Apparently, Ryan does not see the irony of his idolatry of Ayn Rand....and his love of God....
Posted Image


#18 Happy Jack

Happy Jack

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 13,967 posts
  • Location:Florida

Posted 13 April 2012 - 09:50 PM


bear children to provide mortal bodies for the spirit children of God,
should be left between the couple and the Lord.


Not extreme compared to the Christians..... evangelicals.

A little strange - a bit weird (above), but not extreme. Beats the Catholics by a mile too.

Realistically, Jackie, I think you will have more righties that have a problem with Mormonism than lefties. We may joke here and there, but are very "liberal" in this type of thing.

For we lefties, the main thing is that he not try to force things on anyone......

Mitt has been making noises about wanting to overturn Roe v. Wade and other such stuff - that's injecting government and religion into the womb. What do you have to say about that? I say he should keep his hands off.



Like union (Card Check and closed shops), health care mandates, taxes, cap and trade, etc etc

All political movments are about imposing their will. Stop saying Liberals are any different. You could kill me with laughter.

#19 Spatial Ed

Spatial Ed

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 17,486 posts
  • Location:The Dark Side of Kolob
  • Interests:Subhuman Mongrels in momjeans

Posted 13 April 2012 - 09:50 PM

You I laugh at.

Back at ya!

#20 craigiri

craigiri

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 8,340 posts
  • Location:Home of US Sailing
  • Interests:Sailing, Innovation, Web Development, Writing, etc.

Posted 13 April 2012 - 09:59 PM

All political movments are about imposing their will. Stop saying Liberals are any different. You could kill me with laughter.


I'm saying you are preaching to the choir. Libs are OK with people sitting Zazen, chanting mantras or wearing magic underwear. We are also more ok than most with multiple wives.

What we don't like is when those religions are brought into the public sphere. As long as Mittens doesn't change the pledge of Allegiance to say "We pledge allegiance to the spirit bodies....", I'll be OK.

I sorta like Mittens. He's the ultimate capitalist...and, you can reset him like an etch-a-sketch. In politics, flexibility is a good thing.

#21 BigGuyWithPinkHat

BigGuyWithPinkHat

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 325 posts

Posted 14 April 2012 - 04:03 PM

Yes, be worried, be very worried.

#22 Happy Jack

Happy Jack

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 13,967 posts
  • Location:Florida

Posted 15 April 2012 - 02:12 AM



All political movments are about imposing their will. Stop saying Liberals are any different. You could kill me with laughter.


I'm saying you are preaching to the choir. Libs are OK with people sitting Zazen, chanting mantras or wearing magic underwear. We are also more ok than most with multiple wives.

What we don't like is when those religions are brought into the public sphere. As long as Mittens doesn't change the pledge of Allegiance to say "We pledge allegiance to the spirit bodies....", I'll be OK.

I sorta like Mittens. He's the ultimate capitalist...and, you can reset him like an etch-a-sketch. In politics, flexibility is a good thing.


Just ask Putin.... Boy did you straightman that one for me.. Zing

#23 TheFlash

TheFlash

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 11,739 posts
  • Location:San Francisco Bay
  • Interests:Rum

Posted 15 April 2012 - 03:49 AM

wtf are you babbling on about now?

#24 Happy Jack

Happy Jack

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 13,967 posts
  • Location:Florida

Posted 15 April 2012 - 04:18 AM

wtf are you babbling on about now?


You need to expand your news sources. Google Flexibility Obama Open-mike

#25 TornadoCAN99

TornadoCAN99

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,792 posts
  • Location:Vancouver, BC

Posted 15 April 2012 - 05:35 AM

The Obamam campaign has set their initial strategy in place. Mitt is a threat to women's birth control....

The president’s chief strategist, David Axelrod, has gone further, quipping that the former Massachusetts governor “must watch ‘Mad Men’ and think it’s the evening news” while jabbing that Romney’s views are out of a time when “bosses could dictate on women’s health.”

Read more: http://www.politico....l#ixzz1rwWcMpNp

But is that true?

Mitt is a faithful Latter-Day Saint "Mormon", as such, one would expect him to have similar views to his church. So, what is the church position on birth control?

Birth Control

It is the privilege of married couples who are able to bear children to provide mortal bodies for the spirit children of God, whom they are then responsible to nurture and rear. The decision as to how many children to have and when to have them is extremely intimate and private and should be left between the couple and the Lord. Church members should not judge one another in this matter.

Married couples should also understand that sexual relations within marriage are divinely approved not only for the purpose of procreation, but also as a way of expressing love and strengthening emotional and spiritual bonds between husband and wife.


Is this an extreme position? Most people know very little about Mormons. Often what they do know, they learned from a hostile source.


Hmm, so if Mitt is faithful to the church, what are we to think of this:

Doctrine and Covenants 132:61-62 (also Mormon scripture), which says:

[I]f any man espouse a virgin, and desire to espouse another,and the first give her consent, and if he espouse the second, and they are virgins, and have vowed to no other man, then is he justified; he cannot commit adultery for they are given unto him; for he cannot commit adultery with that that belongeth unto him and to no one else. And if he have ten virgins given unto him by this law, he cannot commit adultery, for they belong to him, and they are given unto him; therefore is he justified.



#26 Happy Jack

Happy Jack

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 13,967 posts
  • Location:Florida

Posted 15 April 2012 - 06:27 AM


The Obamam campaign has set their initial strategy in place. Mitt is a threat to women's birth control....

The president’s chief strategist, David Axelrod, has gone further, quipping that the former Massachusetts governor “must watch ‘Mad Men’ and think it’s the evening news” while jabbing that Romney’s views are out of a time when “bosses could dictate on women’s health.”

Read more: http://www.politico....l#ixzz1rwWcMpNp

But is that true?

Mitt is a faithful Latter-Day Saint "Mormon", as such, one would expect him to have similar views to his church. So, what is the church position on birth control?

Birth Control

It is the privilege of married couples who are able to bear children to provide mortal bodies for the spirit children of God, whom they are then responsible to nurture and rear. The decision as to how many children to have and when to have them is extremely intimate and private and should be left between the couple and the Lord. Church members should not judge one another in this matter.

Married couples should also understand that sexual relations within marriage are divinely approved not only for the purpose of procreation, but also as a way of expressing love and strengthening emotional and spiritual bonds between husband and wife.


Is this an extreme position? Most people know very little about Mormons. Often what they do know, they learned from a hostile source.


Hmm, so if Mitt is faithful to the church, what are we to think of this:

Doctrine and Covenants 132:61-62 (also Mormon scripture), which says:

[I]f any man espouse a virgin, and desire to espouse another,and the first give her consent, and if he espouse the second, and they are virgins, and have vowed to no other man, then is he justified; he cannot commit adultery for they are given unto him; for he cannot commit adultery with that that belongeth unto him and to no one else. And if he have ten virgins given unto him by this law, he cannot commit adultery, for they belong to him, and they are given unto him; therefore is he justified.


Pretty obvious. It's Plural Marriage. Ever Read the old testament? Obviously, if there is a Christian God, poligamy was sanctioned by him at various times. About a 1/3 of the world' poulation currently practices poligamy. Latter-day Saints are not among them.

#27 Spatial Ed

Spatial Ed

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 17,486 posts
  • Location:The Dark Side of Kolob
  • Interests:Subhuman Mongrels in momjeans

Posted 15 April 2012 - 08:45 AM

Pretty obvious. It's Plural Marriage. Ever Read the old testament? Obviously, if there is a Christian God, poligamy was sanctioned by him at various times. About a 1/3 of the world' poulation currently practices poligamy. Latter-day Saints are not among them.

Are there still Christian sects that still practice polygamy? I thought the LDS Church were the last to do it. Oh wait, there are LDS sects in southern Utah who still practice it. Warren Jeffs group. I think they call themselves the FLDS. But outside of them, I can't think of any other Christian sect who still does it. Not that some might say Mormons aren't Christian, but for the sake of argument, lets say they are.
Come to think of it Jack, I don't think polygamy was ever a tenet of Christianity? Going all the way back to the early formation of the Christian church. Are the LDS the only Christians who engaged in plural marriage?

#28 Happy Jack

Happy Jack

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 13,967 posts
  • Location:Florida

Posted 15 April 2012 - 08:52 AM


Pretty obvious. It's Plural Marriage. Ever Read the old testament? Obviously, if there is a Christian God, poligamy was sanctioned by him at various times. About a 1/3 of the world' poulation currently practices poligamy. Latter-day Saints are not among them.

Are there still Christian sects that still practice polygamy? I thought the LDS Church were the last to do it. Oh wait, there are LDS sects in southern Utah who still practice it. Warren Jeffs group. I think they call themselves the FLDS. But outside of them, I can't think of any other Christian sect who still does it. Not that some might say Mormons aren't Christian, but for the sake of argument, lets say they are.
Come to think of it Jack, I don't think polygamy was ever a tenet of Christianity? Going all the way back to the early formation of the Christian church. Are the LDS the only Christians who engaged in plural marriage?


Read the old testament and get back to us.

#29 Spatial Ed

Spatial Ed

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 17,486 posts
  • Location:The Dark Side of Kolob
  • Interests:Subhuman Mongrels in momjeans

Posted 15 April 2012 - 08:55 AM



Pretty obvious. It's Plural Marriage. Ever Read the old testament? Obviously, if there is a Christian God, poligamy was sanctioned by him at various times. About a 1/3 of the world' poulation currently practices poligamy. Latter-day Saints are not among them.

Are there still Christian sects that still practice polygamy? I thought the LDS Church were the last to do it. Oh wait, there are LDS sects in southern Utah who still practice it. Warren Jeffs group. I think they call themselves the FLDS. But outside of them, I can't think of any other Christian sect who still does it. Not that some might say Mormons aren't Christian, but for the sake of argument, lets say they are.
Come to think of it Jack, I don't think polygamy was ever a tenet of Christianity? Going all the way back to the early formation of the Christian church. Are the LDS the only Christians who engaged in plural marriage?


Read the old testament and get back to us.

Jack, Christianity is about the New Testament of Christ. The following of his teachings. That's why Christians can wear cloth of two types of fabric and eat shrimp. The Old Testament doesn't rule.
Have any Christian sects ever embraced polygamy? Simple question.

#30 Happy Jack

Happy Jack

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 13,967 posts
  • Location:Florida

Posted 15 April 2012 - 09:17 AM




Pretty obvious. It's Plural Marriage. Ever Read the old testament? Obviously, if there is a Christian God, poligamy was sanctioned by him at various times. About a 1/3 of the world' poulation currently practices poligamy. Latter-day Saints are not among them.

Are there still Christian sects that still practice polygamy? I thought the LDS Church were the last to do it. Oh wait, there are LDS sects in southern Utah who still practice it. Warren Jeffs group. I think they call themselves the FLDS. But outside of them, I can't think of any other Christian sect who still does it. Not that some might say Mormons aren't Christian, but for the sake of argument, lets say they are.
Come to think of it Jack, I don't think polygamy was ever a tenet of Christianity? Going all the way back to the early formation of the Christian church. Are the LDS the only Christians who engaged in plural marriage?


Read the old testament and get back to us.

Jack, Christianity is about the New Testament of Christ. The following of his teachings. That's why Christians can wear cloth of two types of fabric and eat shrimp. The Old Testament doesn't rule.
Have any Christian sects ever embraced polygamy? Simple question.


Who is Jesus? King of the Jews. Christians are Jews or maybe some prefer that Jews are Chistians. Either way Christians believe the savior that the prophets in the Old Testament prophecy about is Jesus silly boy. That makes them Christians. Are you saying that Christians believe Moses spoke to a non Christian God?

You are such a silly man.

#31 Spatial Ed

Spatial Ed

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 17,486 posts
  • Location:The Dark Side of Kolob
  • Interests:Subhuman Mongrels in momjeans

Posted 15 April 2012 - 09:20 AM

Who is Jesus? King of the Jews. Christians are Jews or maybe some prefer that Jews are Chistians. Either way Christians believe the savior that the prophets in the Old Testament prophecy about is Jesus silly boy. That makes them Christians. Are you saying that Christians believe Moses spoke to a non Christian God?

You are such a silly man.

Can't answer my simple question can you Jack. Is there a Christian sect that ever practiced polygamy?
You made the claim that 1/3 of the world population practices polygamy. Now back it up.

#32 Happy Jack

Happy Jack

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 13,967 posts
  • Location:Florida

Posted 15 April 2012 - 09:21 AM

BTW I know some of you are really into polls so I thought you would all appreciate that the last three national head to heads between Obama and Romney have Romney leading. The latest by 5% (outside the MOE)

#33 Spatial Ed

Spatial Ed

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 17,486 posts
  • Location:The Dark Side of Kolob
  • Interests:Subhuman Mongrels in momjeans

Posted 15 April 2012 - 09:27 AM

BTW I know some of you are really into polls so I thought you would all appreciate that the last three national head to heads between Obama and Romney have Romney leading. The latest by 5% (outside the MOE)

Why change the topic jack? why not just start another thread?
Care to answer my question?

#34 Happy Jack

Happy Jack

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 13,967 posts
  • Location:Florida

Posted 15 April 2012 - 09:41 AM


Who is Jesus? King of the Jews. Christians are Jews or maybe some prefer that Jews are Chistians. Either way Christians believe the savior that the prophets in the Old Testament prophecy about is Jesus silly boy. That makes them Christians. Are you saying that Christians believe Moses spoke to a non Christian God?

You are such a silly man.

Can't answer my simple question can you Jack. Is there a Christian sect that ever practiced polygamy?
You made the claim that 1/3 of the world population practices polygamy. Now back it up.

Muslims, many African sects, Polynesian groups and assorted other groups. Exact estimate is dificult but it is defintely more than 1.5 billion and may be as high as 2.2 billion so 1/3 is a good rounded estimate.

If I'm off by a couple hundred million either way I don't care. As I said a very large number have poligamy as a tenet of their religion. Members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints are not among them.

BTW if a large religion were to push for plural marriage, given the left's arguments in support of Gay Marriage e.g. "Who are Republicans to say who can love who.", How do you think the SCOTUS might interpret "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof"

#35 Happy Jack

Happy Jack

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 13,967 posts
  • Location:Florida

Posted 15 April 2012 - 09:42 AM


BTW I know some of you are really into polls so I thought you would all appreciate that the last three national head to heads between Obama and Romney have Romney leading. The latest by 5% (outside the MOE)

Why change the topic jack? why not just start another thread?
Care to answer my question?


Just giving you something to fret over while I answered.

#36 Spatial Ed

Spatial Ed

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 17,486 posts
  • Location:The Dark Side of Kolob
  • Interests:Subhuman Mongrels in momjeans

Posted 15 April 2012 - 09:46 AM



Who is Jesus? King of the Jews. Christians are Jews or maybe some prefer that Jews are Chistians. Either way Christians believe the savior that the prophets in the Old Testament prophecy about is Jesus silly boy. That makes them Christians. Are you saying that Christians believe Moses spoke to a non Christian God?

You are such a silly man.

Can't answer my simple question can you Jack. Is there a Christian sect that ever practiced polygamy?
You made the claim that 1/3 of the world population practices polygamy. Now back it up.

Muslims, many African sects, Polynesian groups and assorted other groups. Exact estimate is dificult but it is defintely more than 1.5 billion and may be as high as 2.2 billion so 1/3 is a good rounded estimate.

If I'm off by a couple hundred million either way I don't care. As I said a very large number have poligamy as a tenet of their religion. Members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints are not among them.

BTW if a large religion were to push for plural marriage, given the left's arguments in support of Gay Marriage e.g. "Who are Republicans to say who can love who.", How do you think the SCOTUS might interpret "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof"

No Christian polygamists? That's what I thought.

#37 Happy Jack

Happy Jack

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 13,967 posts
  • Location:Florida

Posted 15 April 2012 - 10:02 AM




Who is Jesus? King of the Jews. Christians are Jews or maybe some prefer that Jews are Chistians. Either way Christians believe the savior that the prophets in the Old Testament prophecy about is Jesus silly boy. That makes them Christians. Are you saying that Christians believe Moses spoke to a non Christian God?

You are such a silly man.

Can't answer my simple question can you Jack. Is there a Christian sect that ever practiced polygamy?
You made the claim that 1/3 of the world population practices polygamy. Now back it up.

Muslims, many African sects, Polynesian groups and assorted other groups. Exact estimate is dificult but it is defintely more than 1.5 billion and may be as high as 2.2 billion so 1/3 is a good rounded estimate.

If I'm off by a couple hundred million either way I don't care. As I said a very large number have poligamy as a tenet of their religion. Members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints are not among them.

BTW if a large religion were to push for plural marriage, given the left's arguments in support of Gay Marriage e.g. "Who are Republicans to say who can love who.", How do you think the SCOTUS might interpret "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof"

No Christian polygamists? That's what I thought.


You were not paying attention. The Christians in the old testament and new since the new testament doers not sspecifically address polygamy.

Then there is this

Periodically, Christian reform movements that have aimed at rebuilding Christian doctrine based on the Bible alone (sola scriptura) have at least temporarily accepted polygamy as a Biblical practice. For example, during the Protestant Reformation, in a document referred to simply as "Der Beichtrat" (or "The Confessional Advice" ),[32] Martin Luther granted the Landgrave Philip of Hesse, who, for many years, had been living "constantly in a state of adultery and fornication,"[33] a dispensation to take a second wife. The double marriage was to be done in secret however, to avoid public scandal.[34] Some fifteen years earlier, in a letter to the Saxon Chancellor Gregor Brück, Luther stated that he could not "forbid a person to marry several wives, for it does not contradict Scripture." ("Ego sane fateor, me non posse prohibere, si quis plures velit uxores ducere, nec repugnat sacris literis.")[35]

"On February 14, 1650, the parliament at Nürnberg decreed that, because so many men were killed during the Thirty Years’ War, the churches for the following ten years could not admit any man under the age of 60 into a monastery. Priests and ministers not bound by any monastery were allowed to marry. Lastly, the decree stated that every man was allowed to marry up to ten women. The men were admonished to behave honorably, provide for their wives properly, and prevent animosity among them."[36][37][38][39][40][41]

The trend towards frequent divorce and remarriage is sometimes referred to as 'serial polygamy'.[42] In contrast, others may refer to this as 'serial monogamy', since it is a series of monogamous relationships.[43] The first term highlights the multiplicity of marriages throughout the life-cycle, the second the non-simultaneous nature of these marriages.

In Sub-Saharan Africa, there has often been a tension between the Christian churches' insistence on monogamy and traditional polygamy. In some instances in recent times there have been moves for accommodation; in other instances, churches have resisted such moves strongly. African Independent Churches have sometimes referred to those parts of the Old Testament which describe polygamy in defending the practice.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polygamy


Why do you enjoy being schooled all the time.

#38 Spatial Ed

Spatial Ed

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 17,486 posts
  • Location:The Dark Side of Kolob
  • Interests:Subhuman Mongrels in momjeans

Posted 15 April 2012 - 10:04 AM

Jack, there were no Christians in the old testament.

#39 Happy Jack

Happy Jack

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 13,967 posts
  • Location:Florida

Posted 15 April 2012 - 10:14 AM

Jack, there were no Christians in the old testament.


If you are a Christian then everyone in the old testament is a Christian. Like I asked you before who was Moses talking to if it wasn't the Christian God. If you are a Christian, you believe the God in the Old Testament is the same God that is in the New Testament. Duh.

#40 Happy Jack

Happy Jack

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 13,967 posts
  • Location:Florida

Posted 15 April 2012 - 10:17 AM

Besides, I that argument is independent of Luther's position on polygamy and the modern element and African Christian polygamists. Heck there ar Jewish sects in Europe that still practice polygamy.

#41 Spatial Ed

Spatial Ed

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 17,486 posts
  • Location:The Dark Side of Kolob
  • Interests:Subhuman Mongrels in momjeans

Posted 15 April 2012 - 10:20 AM


Jack, there were no Christians in the old testament.


If you are a Christian then everyone in the old testament is a Christian. Like I asked you before who was Moses talking to if it wasn't the Christian God. If you are a Christian, you believe the God in the Old Testament is the same God that is in the New Testament. Duh.

So Moses was a Christian?

#42 Happy Jack

Happy Jack

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 13,967 posts
  • Location:Florida

Posted 15 April 2012 - 10:20 AM

Jack, there were no Christians in the old testament.


BTW this is what I posted "Pretty obvious. It's Plural Marriage. Ever Read the old testament? Obviously, if there is a Christian God, poligamy was sanctioned by him at various times. About a 1/3 of the world' poulation currently practices poligamy. Latter-day Saints are not among them."

You raised the issue of Other Christians who practice polygamy, I didn't mention it.

#43 Happy Jack

Happy Jack

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 13,967 posts
  • Location:Florida

Posted 15 April 2012 - 10:23 AM



Jack, there were no Christians in the old testament.


If you are a Christian then everyone in the old testament is a Christian. Like I asked you before who was Moses talking to if it wasn't the Christian God. If you are a Christian, you believe the God in the Old Testament is the same God that is in the New Testament. Duh.

So Moses was a Christian?


From a Christian's perspective of course he was. Stop repeating yourself and answer my question. From a Christian's perspective who does a Christian think Moses talked to?

#44 Happy Jack

Happy Jack

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 13,967 posts
  • Location:Florida

Posted 15 April 2012 - 10:24 AM

Finally you have bored me to tiredness.

#45 Spatial Ed

Spatial Ed

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 17,486 posts
  • Location:The Dark Side of Kolob
  • Interests:Subhuman Mongrels in momjeans

Posted 15 April 2012 - 10:28 AM




Jack, there were no Christians in the old testament.


If you are a Christian then everyone in the old testament is a Christian. Like I asked you before who was Moses talking to if it wasn't the Christian God. If you are a Christian, you believe the God in the Old Testament is the same God that is in the New Testament. Duh.

So Moses was a Christian?


From a Christian's perspective of course he was. Stop repeating yourself and answer my question. From a Christian's perspective who does a Christian think Moses talked to?

God? Not sure what a Christian god is?
If being a Christian requires one believe he was the son of god, how would Moses be a Christian before the birth of Christ?
I just can't get past your claim that Moses was a Christian.

Finally you have bored me to tiredness.

Losing arguments can be very exhausting. Sleep well.

#46 craigiri

craigiri

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 8,340 posts
  • Location:Home of US Sailing
  • Interests:Sailing, Innovation, Web Development, Writing, etc.

Posted 15 April 2012 - 01:44 PM

So the stuff in the Torah about whipping a man but stopping when he poops himself - I should also take that as Christian doctrine?

#47 craigiri

craigiri

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 8,340 posts
  • Location:Home of US Sailing
  • Interests:Sailing, Innovation, Web Development, Writing, etc.

Posted 15 April 2012 - 01:59 PM

BTW I know some of you are really into polls so I thought you would all appreciate that the last three national head to heads between Obama and Romney have Romney leading. The latest by 5% (outside the MOE)


Hmm...talk about Malarkey - are you really an educated engineer?

Did you fail to mention that out of the last 15 major polls in the past month - that only TWO show Romney leading.....and guess who did those polls?

Yes, Fox and Rasmussen.....

Quite a reach, Jack!

Let me restate your bragging in a way which even you should find more informational....

In 15 major polls over the past month, Obama leads in 12 of them, one is a tie and Romney leads in 2. This means Obama leads in 600% more polls than Romney does. Furthermore, the polls which Romney leads in were done by far right orgs.

Is that better?

#48 Damaged Goods

Damaged Goods

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,614 posts
  • Location:1600 Penn Ave
  • Interests:Community organizing.

Posted 15 April 2012 - 02:53 PM

No more than they worried about our last Neo Christian neocon

#49 Happy Jack

Happy Jack

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 13,967 posts
  • Location:Florida

Posted 15 April 2012 - 04:20 PM


BTW I know some of you are really into polls so I thought you would all appreciate that the last three national head to heads between Obama and Romney have Romney leading. The latest by 5% (outside the MOE)


Hmm...talk about Malarkey - are you really an educated engineer?

Did you fail to mention that out of the last 15 major polls in the past month - that only TWO show Romney leading.....and guess who did those polls?

Yes, Fox and Rasmussen.....

Quite a reach, Jack!

Let me restate your bragging in a way which even you should find more informational....

In 15 major polls over the past month, Obama leads in 12 of them, one is a tie and Romney leads in 2. This means Obama leads in 600% more polls than Romney does. Furthermore, the polls which Romney leads in were done by far right orgs.

Is that better?



Polls taken after Santorum quit are significant, month old polls less so. But if your spin helps tame the dark demons in your nightmares then go for it.

#50 Spatial Ed

Spatial Ed

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 17,486 posts
  • Location:The Dark Side of Kolob
  • Interests:Subhuman Mongrels in momjeans

Posted 15 April 2012 - 04:23 PM

Hey Jack, now that your rested up, care to explain why you think Moses was a Christian?
Or give us the Christian denominations that practiced polygamy like the Mormons do?

#51 TheFlash

TheFlash

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 11,739 posts
  • Location:San Francisco Bay
  • Interests:Rum

Posted 15 April 2012 - 10:54 PM

Happy malarky is having a tough time here.

Hey Jack - let me help you out.

As a recovering Catholic/Methodist/Lutheran/Catholic again:

No-one pre-Jesus, including the man himself, was a Christian. It required the "raise from the dead" episode to create what we call Christianity.

So no - Moses wasn't a Christian, Nor Abraham, nor any of the much referenced old dude and dudettes from the "Old" testament. They could not be "By Definition"

Now - let's look at post-the-man himself - Christian Era folks. Were there any mainstream sects of Christianity that expoused polygamy? Other than the modern LDS (who many would say are really morphing from the original tenets of the religion - I would say the FLDS are closer to the original teachings - but that's just me)



Now - the other question you have - I believe is actually interesting. Does our gov't, given the 1st amendment, have any "right" to say no to polygamy. I'd say no under strict interpretation, barring of course the horrid side effect of powerful men "marrying" young girls. That's just institutionalized child abuse, of which we've seen so much of under the guise of religion.

So - in summary: You're full of shit with regards to Christians and Christian god pre Jesus, and have a point that the LDS were likely persecuted unconstitutionally. Of course, Jeffs wasn't prosecuted for polygamy, rather child abuse/statutory rape.

#52 Spatial Ed

Spatial Ed

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 17,486 posts
  • Location:The Dark Side of Kolob
  • Interests:Subhuman Mongrels in momjeans

Posted 15 April 2012 - 11:00 PM

Jack, Moses was a Christian? Really?

#53 TheFlash

TheFlash

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 11,739 posts
  • Location:San Francisco Bay
  • Interests:Rum

Posted 16 April 2012 - 12:16 AM

Ed, didn't you know Moses was a time traveler? If God can speak through a burning bush and engrave some tablets (looks like he kept up the engraving trick for the Mormons, and there's something similar about the tablets getting lost, but anyway) he can certainly zip Moses forward in time, meet the Christ, then take him back to the mountain.

#54 Spatial Ed

Spatial Ed

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 17,486 posts
  • Location:The Dark Side of Kolob
  • Interests:Subhuman Mongrels in momjeans

Posted 16 April 2012 - 12:28 AM

Ed, didn't you know Moses was a time traveler? If God can speak through a burning bush and engrave some tablets (looks like he kept up the engraving trick for the Mormons, and there's something similar about the tablets getting lost, but anyway) he can certainly zip Moses forward in time, meet the Christ, then take him back to the mountain.

I'm sure Jack is envious of Moses' gift of time travel. If Jack only had those skills, he could go back and edit his post and not make himself sound so stupid.
So Jack, if Moses was praying to a Christian God, I also assume Abraham was too. Don't Muslims and Jews also pray to the same god as Moses and Abraham and in your mind, make them Christians also?
I think its safe to say the Hindu and Budhists are not Christians as Hindus are polytheists and Buddhists believe the self is God.

#55 benwynn

benwynn

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 14,935 posts

Posted 16 April 2012 - 12:35 AM

Posted Image

In comparison, the time machine sounds a fuck of a lot less far fetched.

Ben

#56 craigiri

craigiri

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 8,340 posts
  • Location:Home of US Sailing
  • Interests:Sailing, Innovation, Web Development, Writing, etc.

Posted 16 April 2012 - 12:45 AM

Heck, Jackie already helped him move forward in time to bumfuck NY state and come up with Gold Tablet that only one person would see. What you guys are talking about is childs play compared to that.

#57 Spatial Ed

Spatial Ed

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 17,486 posts
  • Location:The Dark Side of Kolob
  • Interests:Subhuman Mongrels in momjeans

Posted 16 April 2012 - 12:49 AM

Heck, Jackie already helped him move forward in time to bumfuck NY state and come up with Gold Tablet that only one person would see. What you guys are talking about is childs play compared to that.

I'm thinking of a screen play....
Indiana Jack and Raiders of the Golden Tablets - 3D

#58 Olsonist

Olsonist

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 8,137 posts
  • Location:Oakland, CA

Posted 16 April 2012 - 12:56 AM

I'd rather see a Mitt Romney Presidency than another Harrison Ford movie and I used to like Harrison Ford like back in American Graffiti. Please kill me before you cast Harrison Ford in a Woody Allen movie.

#59 Mark K

Mark K

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 35,157 posts

Posted 16 April 2012 - 01:18 AM

Jack, Moses was a Christian? Really?


The Muslims think in similar ways. Everybody was a Muslim, they just didn't know it. It's a fact to them that all people are Muslims, it's just that some have refused to acknowledge it. The Mormons don't seem to worry as much about that. Maybe because if they can't get them to acknowledge they are Mormons while alive, they can baptize them after they are dead anyway.

Both Mormonism and Islam came from a notion that the Jews and Christians were being misled by their bible. They wrote an amendment to correct those mistakes. Mormonism is special because is the one truly American religion. Everything else was imported.

#60 Spatial Ed

Spatial Ed

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 17,486 posts
  • Location:The Dark Side of Kolob
  • Interests:Subhuman Mongrels in momjeans

Posted 16 April 2012 - 01:46 AM

I'd rather see a Mitt Romney Presidency than another Harrison Ford movie and I used to like Harrison Ford like back in American Graffiti. Please kill me before you cast Harrison Ford in a Woody Allen movie.

I'm thinking a three movie deal.
Indiana jack and the raiders of the golden tablets.
Indiana jack and the secret of the white salamander.
Indiana jack and the temple of maroni.

#61 Bull Gator

Bull Gator

    Anarchist

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 29,280 posts

Posted 16 April 2012 - 01:54 AM


Jack, Moses was a Christian? Really?


The Muslims think in similar ways. Everybody was a Muslim, they just didn't know it. It's a fact to them that all people are Muslims, it's just that some have refused to acknowledge it. The Mormons don't seem to worry as much about that. Maybe because if they can't get them to acknowledge they are Mormons while alive, they can baptize them after they are dead anyway.

Both Mormonism and Islam came from a notion that the Jews and Christians were being misled by their bible. They wrote an amendment to correct those mistakes. Mormonism is special because is the one truly American religion. Everything else was imported.



What about Scientology - that's the ultimate American religion

#62 Spatial Ed

Spatial Ed

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 17,486 posts
  • Location:The Dark Side of Kolob
  • Interests:Subhuman Mongrels in momjeans

Posted 16 April 2012 - 01:58 AM



Jack, Moses was a Christian? Really?


The Muslims think in similar ways. Everybody was a Muslim, they just didn't know it. It's a fact to them that all people are Muslims, it's just that some have refused to acknowledge it. The Mormons don't seem to worry as much about that. Maybe because if they can't get them to acknowledge they are Mormons while alive, they can baptize them after they are dead anyway.

Both Mormonism and Islam came from a notion that the Jews and Christians were being misled by their bible. They wrote an amendment to correct those mistakes. Mormonism is special because is the one truly American religion. Everything else was imported.



What about Scientology - that's the ultimate American religion

It's so uniquely American it's banned in most of Europe.

#63 Mark K

Mark K

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 35,157 posts

Posted 16 April 2012 - 02:10 AM



Jack, Moses was a Christian? Really?


The Muslims think in similar ways. Everybody was a Muslim, they just didn't know it. It's a fact to them that all people are Muslims, it's just that some have refused to acknowledge it. The Mormons don't seem to worry as much about that. Maybe because if they can't get them to acknowledge they are Mormons while alive, they can baptize them after they are dead anyway.

Both Mormonism and Islam came from a notion that the Jews and Christians were being misled by their bible. They wrote an amendment to correct those mistakes. Mormonism is special because is the one truly American religion. Everything else was imported.



What about Scientology - that's the ultimate American religion


If you are going to deem stuff like that religion, my term is not accurate, for you. Objectivism could qualify as a religion under that meaning of the word, IMO.

#64 Spatial Ed

Spatial Ed

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 17,486 posts
  • Location:The Dark Side of Kolob
  • Interests:Subhuman Mongrels in momjeans

Posted 16 April 2012 - 02:11 AM

Would Jedi also be considered an American religion?

#65 Mark K

Mark K

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 35,157 posts

Posted 16 April 2012 - 02:13 AM

Would Jedi also be considered an American religion?


The Farce is strong in this one...

#66 Happy Jack

Happy Jack

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 13,967 posts
  • Location:Florida

Posted 16 April 2012 - 02:22 AM

Happy malarky is having a tough time here.

Hey Jack - let me help you out.

As a recovering Catholic/Methodist/Lutheran/Catholic again:

No-one pre-Jesus, including the man himself, was a Christian. It required the "raise from the dead" episode to create what we call Christianity.

So no - Moses wasn't a Christian, Nor Abraham, nor any of the much referenced old dude and dudettes from the "Old" testament. They could not be "By Definition"

Now - let's look at post-the-man himself - Christian Era folks. Were there any mainstream sects of Christianity that expoused polygamy? Other than the modern LDS (who many would say are really morphing from the original tenets of the religion - I would say the FLDS are closer to the original teachings - but that's just me)



Now - the other question you have - I believe is actually interesting. Does our gov't, given the 1st amendment, have any "right" to say no to polygamy. I'd say no under strict interpretation, barring of course the horrid side effect of powerful men "marrying" young girls. That's just institutionalized child abuse, of which we've seen so much of under the guise of religion.

So - in summary: You're full of shit with regards to Christians and Christian god pre Jesus, and have a point that the LDS were likely persecuted unconstitutionally. Of course, Jeffs wasn't prosecuted for polygamy, rather child abuse/statutory rape.


Jeffs is not a member of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. But you knew that.

#67 craigiri

craigiri

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 8,340 posts
  • Location:Home of US Sailing
  • Interests:Sailing, Innovation, Web Development, Writing, etc.

Posted 16 April 2012 - 02:43 AM

Right , his church split off from the LDS when the LDS kowtowed to the US Government and said (wink wink) they would give up polygamy.

BUT, back to the thread title. Wasn't Mittens Grandfather a polygamist? That would make him in line with the FLDS....wouldn't it?

#68 Spatial Ed

Spatial Ed

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 17,486 posts
  • Location:The Dark Side of Kolob
  • Interests:Subhuman Mongrels in momjeans

Posted 16 April 2012 - 02:44 AM


Happy malarky is having a tough time here.

Hey Jack - let me help you out.

As a recovering Catholic/Methodist/Lutheran/Catholic again:

No-one pre-Jesus, including the man himself, was a Christian. It required the "raise from the dead" episode to create what we call Christianity.

So no - Moses wasn't a Christian, Nor Abraham, nor any of the much referenced old dude and dudettes from the "Old" testament. They could not be "By Definition"

Now - let's look at post-the-man himself - Christian Era folks. Were there any mainstream sects of Christianity that expoused polygamy? Other than the modern LDS (who many would say are really morphing from the original tenets of the religion - I would say the FLDS are closer to the original teachings - but that's just me)



Now - the other question you have - I believe is actually interesting. Does our gov't, given the 1st amendment, have any "right" to say no to polygamy. I'd say no under strict interpretation, barring of course the horrid side effect of powerful men "marrying" young girls. That's just institutionalized child abuse, of which we've seen so much of under the guise of religion.

So - in summary: You're full of shit with regards to Christians and Christian god pre Jesus, and have a point that the LDS were likely persecuted unconstitutionally. Of course, Jeffs wasn't prosecuted for polygamy, rather child abuse/statutory rape.


Jeffs is not a member of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. But you knew that.

But Jeffs follows the teachings of Joseph smith and the book of Mormon, probably closer than you do jack.

#69 TheFlash

TheFlash

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 11,739 posts
  • Location:San Francisco Bay
  • Interests:Rum

Posted 16 April 2012 - 03:16 AM



Happy malarky is having a tough time here.

Hey Jack - let me help you out.

As a recovering Catholic/Methodist/Lutheran/Catholic again:

No-one pre-Jesus, including the man himself, was a Christian. It required the "raise from the dead" episode to create what we call Christianity.

So no - Moses wasn't a Christian, Nor Abraham, nor any of the much referenced old dude and dudettes from the "Old" testament. They could not be "By Definition"

Now - let's look at post-the-man himself - Christian Era folks. Were there any mainstream sects of Christianity that expoused polygamy? Other than the modern LDS (who many would say are really morphing from the original tenets of the religion - I would say the FLDS are closer to the original teachings - but that's just me)



Now - the other question you have - I believe is actually interesting. Does our gov't, given the 1st amendment, have any "right" to say no to polygamy. I'd say no under strict interpretation, barring of course the horrid side effect of powerful men "marrying" young girls. That's just institutionalized child abuse, of which we've seen so much of under the guise of religion.

So - in summary: You're full of shit with regards to Christians and Christian god pre Jesus, and have a point that the LDS were likely persecuted unconstitutionally. Of course, Jeffs wasn't prosecuted for polygamy, rather child abuse/statutory rape.


Jeffs is not a member of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. But you knew that.

But Jeffs follows the teachings of Joseph smith and the book of Mormon, probably closer than you do jack.




That's the thing. Jeffs is a better Mormon than the Mormons.

And yes, the Mormons who went to Mexico were Polygamists on the run.



#70 Olsonist

Olsonist

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 8,137 posts
  • Location:Oakland, CA

Posted 16 April 2012 - 03:18 AM


I'd rather see a Mitt Romney Presidency than another Harrison Ford movie and I used to like Harrison Ford like back in American Graffiti. Please kill me before you cast Harrison Ford in a Woody Allen movie.

I'm thinking a three movie deal.
Indiana jack and the raiders of the golden tablets.
Indiana jack and the secret of the white salamander.
Indiana jack and the temple of maroni.

Indiana Jack and the Magic Underwear with Rosanne Arnold as Jack's love interest.

#71 TornadoCAN99

TornadoCAN99

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,792 posts
  • Location:Vancouver, BC

Posted 16 April 2012 - 06:05 AM

So to recap... HJ's orignal posit that Mitt is a good & faithful believer of the Book of Mormon thus the nation has nothing to fear on what his stance should be on Birth Control. This of course opens up all the tenets of the religon/cult of Mormonism, including the fact that plural marriage ("Sealing"...not to be confused with what my countrymen do on the ice flows of Newfie & Labrador each spring) is still "on the books" and so fair game for the nation to be worried about. His pitful defense of this was not to correct the claim, but to state Christians have polygamy too...

I really think HJ has out done himslef on this thread...one of his worst fails ever.

#72 craigiri

craigiri

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 8,340 posts
  • Location:Home of US Sailing
  • Interests:Sailing, Innovation, Web Development, Writing, etc.

Posted 16 April 2012 - 12:40 PM

I really think HJ has out done himslef on this thread...one of his worst fails ever.


It looks even worse when you consider that many here probably think Mittens is somewhat OK...especially compared to the others that have "led" the GOP in recent decades.

#73 TheFlash

TheFlash

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 11,739 posts
  • Location:San Francisco Bay
  • Interests:Rum

Posted 16 April 2012 - 05:25 PM

Mitt does seem like a responsible type of fellow who would be guided by his personal beliefs, but I believe would respect the constitution.

Happy Malarky? Not so much.

#74 B.J. Porter

B.J. Porter

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 28,685 posts
  • Location:On my boat, somewhere...
  • Interests:Hallberg-Rassy 53 "Evenstar"

Posted 16 April 2012 - 05:34 PM

If you oppose plural marriage, don't have one.


I only worry about zealots that want to push their religious and moral agenda into law, that I have a problem with no matter what the religion.

Since we have ZERO chance of an openly atheist president any time soon, I've got to pick from candidates with different publicly avowed superstitions. Big deal - I so no real difference between any of them, only in how said superstition is pursued in public policy.

An Opus Dei style Catholic like Santorum was a lot more unnerving that the rather flexible Romney, who seems to say whatever the crowd want to hear and probably won't make any bold and controversial moves without a focus group and poll first.

#75 Olsonist

Olsonist

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 8,137 posts
  • Location:Oakland, CA

Posted 16 April 2012 - 05:38 PM

Mitt I have less of a problem with. He doesn't really believe anything; he just wants to out do his daddy (sound familiar?).

I have a big problem with Rove and thez NeoCons that signed on with Romney so that Romney could get Rove.

That and the Supreme Court.

#76 Happy Jack

Happy Jack

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 13,967 posts
  • Location:Florida

Posted 16 April 2012 - 05:46 PM

So to recap... HJ's orignal posit that Mitt is a good & faithful believer of the Book of Mormon thus the nation has nothing to fear on what his stance should be on Birth Control. This of course opens up all the tenets of the religon/cult of Mormonism, including the fact that plural marriage ("Sealing"...not to be confused with what my countrymen do on the ice flows of Newfie & Labrador each spring) is still "on the books" and so fair game for the nation to be worried about. His pitful defense of this was not to correct the claim, but to state Christians have polygamy too...

I really think HJ has out done himslef on this thread...one of his worst fails ever.


The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saint does not practice polygamy so you fail on that score. You and the others fail a second time if you can not understand that Christians and Mormons believe there is One God and One Religion. Both that God and his religion are the same ones before and after the birth of the Jesus. Everyone since Adam has the same God and the same Savior. Or are you saying that Christians believe everyone that died before Jesus was born has no Savior and is lost? Come now.

LDS believe that family relationships can persist beyond the grave. Unlike many other faiths where the marriage vow ends with "until death do you part" the LDS Temple marriage (i.e. Sealing), is for eternity, in addition children are sealed to their parents. Not secret, Sacred. I find it interesting and heart warming how often I hear someone from another faith say something like "I miss my wife and I know in my heart I will be with her again when I die". Even though eternal marriage is not a doctrine in their own faith, they seem to instinctively know the truth.

Defense? The LDS Church needs no defense. The 11 article of faith "We claim the privilege of worshiping Almighty God according to the dictates of our own conscience, and allow all men the same privilege, let them worship how, where, or what they may." proclaims LDS tolerance. Your own intolerance and bigotry are your concern.

#77 craigiri

craigiri

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 8,340 posts
  • Location:Home of US Sailing
  • Interests:Sailing, Innovation, Web Development, Writing, etc.

Posted 16 April 2012 - 06:04 PM

they seem to instinctively know the truth.


People have "instinctively" known millions of truths throughout the ages.

Problem is, 99% of them turn out to be wrong.

The only truth here is that we come from monkeys and have entirely too much free time.Posted Image

#78 TheFlash

TheFlash

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 11,739 posts
  • Location:San Francisco Bay
  • Interests:Rum

Posted 16 April 2012 - 06:05 PM

umm, yeah, christians do have a problem with pre-Jesus times and beliefs. Many do believe they weren't saved, so they're SOL.

Baptizing dead folks from other faiths is kinda whack, but getting the basics of what others believe incorrect is just ignorance. You can "wish" they believe a certain way, but they don't. Similar to how they would "wish" you'd be a Christian (their definition) but you aren't. So yes, I'm saying you're ignorant.

Ain't theology fun? A bunch of arguing over shit that can never be resolved, as there is no evidence or data to resolve the arguments!

#79 Happy Jack

Happy Jack

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 13,967 posts
  • Location:Florida

Posted 16 April 2012 - 07:11 PM


they seem to instinctively know the truth.


People have "instinctively" known millions of truths throughout the ages.

Problem is, 99% of them turn out to be wrong.

The only truth here is that we come from monkeys and have entirely too much free time.Posted Image


In your case evolution looks plausible.

#80 Happy Jack

Happy Jack

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 13,967 posts
  • Location:Florida

Posted 16 April 2012 - 07:15 PM

umm, yeah, christians do have a problem with pre-Jesus times and beliefs. Many do believe they weren't saved, so they're SOL.


Really? I would love to study a Christian faith that claims Adam, Eve, Abraham, Moses etc are out of luck and un-saved. I'm am not aware of any and I am willing to stand corrected. Please educate us.

#81 Olsonist

Olsonist

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 8,137 posts
  • Location:Oakland, CA

Posted 16 April 2012 - 07:19 PM

Ain't theology fun? A bunch of arguing over shit that can never be resolved, as there is no evidence or data to resolve the arguments!

In addition to its many other faults, theology/religion has proven itself in having no predictive value whatsoever. I believe Saint George has something to say about that:

http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=MeSSwKffj9o

#82 TheFlash

TheFlash

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 11,739 posts
  • Location:San Francisco Bay
  • Interests:Rum

Posted 16 April 2012 - 07:31 PM


umm, yeah, christians do have a problem with pre-Jesus times and beliefs. Many do believe they weren't saved, so they're SOL.


Really? I would love to study a Christian faith that claims Adam, Eve, Abraham, Moses etc are out of luck and un-saved. I'm am not aware of any and I am willing to stand corrected. Please educate us.


Show me a passage from the new testament that proclaims the already-dead saved. Please remember that New Testament Christians don't have a living prophet who can make shit up as they go along. It's either in the book, or it's open to interpretation.

#83 Happy Jack

Happy Jack

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 13,967 posts
  • Location:Florida

Posted 16 April 2012 - 07:41 PM


Ain't theology fun? A bunch of arguing over shit that can never be resolved, as there is no evidence or data to resolve the arguments!

In addition to its many other faults, theology/religion has proven itself in having no predictive value whatsoever.


In 1833 the Lord gave a commandment to Latter-day Saints called the word of wisdom. It came with a prediction.

"18 And all saints who remember to keep and do these sayings, walking in obedience to the commandments, shall receive health in their navel and marrow to their bones;"

Abstract

This paper compares life expectancy between members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (LDS or Mormons) and non-LDS in Utah. It examines the extent to which tobacco-related deaths explain variation in life expectancy between LDS and non-LDS.

Complete life table estimates were derived using conventional methods and cross-sectional data for white males and females from 1994-1998. Life expectancy was 77.3 for LDS males, 70.0 for non-LDS males, 82.2 for LDS females, and 76.4 for non-LDS females. For those alive at age 80, the remaining years of life expected were 8.2 for LDS males, 6.5 for non-LDS males, 10.3 for LDS females, and 7.1 for non-LDS females. Years of life expected increased more so among non-LDS after we removed deaths associated with tobacco use from the life table.

A comparison between LDS and non-LDS of the adjusted life expectancy estimates indicates that although differential tobacco use explains some of the higher life expectancy in LDS, it only accounts for about 1.5 years of the 7.3 year difference for males and 1.2 years of the 5.8 year difference for females. Higher life expectancy experienced among LDS not explained by tobacco-related deaths may be due to factors associated with religious activity in general, such as better physical health, better social support, and healthier lifestyle behaviors. Religious activity may also have an independent protective effect against mortality.

My link

Looks like you are wrong again.

#84 TheFlash

TheFlash

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 11,739 posts
  • Location:San Francisco Bay
  • Interests:Rum

Posted 16 April 2012 - 07:44 PM

or it could be genetics. Bunch a tea-totalling white folk are gonna live longer than hard partying folks, regardless of color. Look at the life expectancies of Northern Europeans - pretty similar to the LDS parishioners doncha think?

#85 Happy Jack

Happy Jack

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 13,967 posts
  • Location:Florida

Posted 16 April 2012 - 07:53 PM

or it could be genetics. Bunch a tea-totalling white folk are gonna live longer than hard partying folks, regardless of color. Look at the life expectancies of Northern Europeans - pretty similar to the LDS parishioners doncha think?


Maybe not if you compared LDS to non LDS Northern Europeans.

#86 Happy Jack

Happy Jack

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 13,967 posts
  • Location:Florida

Posted 16 April 2012 - 07:57 PM



umm, yeah, christians do have a problem with pre-Jesus times and beliefs. Many do believe they weren't saved, so they're SOL.


Really? I would love to study a Christian faith that claims Adam, Eve, Abraham, Moses etc are out of luck and un-saved. I'm am not aware of any and I am willing to stand corrected. Please educate us.


Show me a passage from the new testament that proclaims the already-dead saved. Please remember that New Testament Christians don't have a living prophet who can make shit up as they go along. It's either in the book, or it's open to interpretation.


You said "Many [Christians] do believe they [people who dies before Christ was born] weren't saved, so they're SOL"

I asked you to identify the "Many" you were referring to instead you mumble about living prophets. BTW LDS have a living prophet

#87 TornadoCAN99

TornadoCAN99

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,792 posts
  • Location:Vancouver, BC

Posted 16 April 2012 - 08:31 PM



Ain't theology fun? A bunch of arguing over shit that can never be resolved, as there is no evidence or data to resolve the arguments!

In addition to its many other faults, theology/religion has proven itself in having no predictive value whatsoever.


In 1833 the Lord gave a commandment to Latter-day Saints called the word of wisdom. It came with a prediction.

"18 And all saints who remember to keep and do these sayings, walking in obedience to the commandments, shall receive health in their navel and marrow to their bones;"

Abstract

This paper compares life expectancy between members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (LDS or Mormons) and non-LDS in Utah. It examines the extent to which tobacco-related deaths explain variation in life expectancy between LDS and non-LDS.

Complete life table estimates were derived using conventional methods and cross-sectional data for white males and females from 1994-1998. Life expectancy was 77.3 for LDS males, 70.0 for non-LDS males, 82.2 for LDS females, and 76.4 for non-LDS females. For those alive at age 80, the remaining years of life expected were 8.2 for LDS males, 6.5 for non-LDS males, 10.3 for LDS females, and 7.1 for non-LDS females. Years of life expected increased more so among non-LDS after we removed deaths associated with tobacco use from the life table.

A comparison between LDS and non-LDS of the adjusted life expectancy estimates indicates that although differential tobacco use explains some of the higher life expectancy in LDS, it only accounts for about 1.5 years of the 7.3 year difference for males and 1.2 years of the 5.8 year difference for females. Higher life expectancy experienced among LDS not explained by tobacco-related deaths may be due to factors associated with religious activity in general, such as better physical health, better social support, and healthier lifestyle behaviors. Religious activity may also have an independent protective effect against mortality.

My link

Looks like you are wrong again.


Seems you forgot this little tidbit:

Author's affiliation
Ray M. Merrill
Brigham Young University, Provo, Utah, United States of America


Now why would you want to do a thing like that, eh?

#88 another 505 sailor

another 505 sailor

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,534 posts

Posted 16 April 2012 - 09:03 PM

Happy Jack, I have asked you this before, but you have not answered it. Have you spent much time in Utah?
If so, how would you describe the non-LDS population as it compares to other states?

#89 TornadoCAN99

TornadoCAN99

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,792 posts
  • Location:Vancouver, BC

Posted 16 April 2012 - 09:22 PM

Happy Jack, I have asked you this before, but you have not answered it. Have you spent much time in Utah?
If so, how would you describe the non-LDS population as it compares to other states?



From HJ's little Research article, I found typographic ("$" used inplace of "%" & calculation errors (1.8 divided by 2 does not equal 2.5%) in the tables & graphs (with no margins of error displayed) presented.

Further, there is this statement regarding other factors not accounted for in the study:

Although tobacco did not contribute to this difference, this may be partly explained by the comparatively large number of accident-related deaths occurring earlier in life because of alcohol (National Center for Health Statistics 2002). Consistent with their comparatively low tobacco use,
LDS also have relatively low alcohol consumption in Utah (Merrill and Thygerson
2001). It has been previously shown that in the age ranges 1-19 and 20-39, from 1994
through 1998, non-LDS experienced a higher proportion of motor vehicle deaths than
did LDS (Hilton, Merrill, and Sturgeon 2001).


The study was also not stratified for income disparity, and since LDS members tend towards higher education levels (stated in the study), it's a good assumption the income levels are also skewed. Since we know income level is a good predictor of your healthcare options in the USA, this should be an important point to look at.

Or, what about wanking...presumably the non-lds folks are all wankers, and lds'ers abstain. Or maybe it's the special underpants?

#90 TheFlash

TheFlash

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 11,739 posts
  • Location:San Francisco Bay
  • Interests:Rum

Posted 16 April 2012 - 09:41 PM

Happy Malarky might have a point. It's hard to think and develop opinions for yourself - maybe if others think for you, you'll have less stress and be "happier" like Jack?

#91 craigiri

craigiri

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 8,340 posts
  • Location:Home of US Sailing
  • Interests:Sailing, Innovation, Web Development, Writing, etc.

Posted 16 April 2012 - 10:11 PM

So, now HJ has come up with the theory that clean living makes one live longer? Breathing mountain air, as opposed to Cancer Alley, may help a body? Laying off the booze and drugs and hard partying may just be safer than not doing so?

Wow.....the guy keeps rediscovering the wheel.

Ok, we get it. Mormons are superior because they don't have fun....well, with the multiple wives they do. But that's probably over rated too.

#92 TheFlash

TheFlash

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 11,739 posts
  • Location:San Francisco Bay
  • Interests:Rum

Posted 16 April 2012 - 10:25 PM

unless you're one of the wives…. and underage.


Kinda like the choirboy problem a different organized religious sect has had.

There - fair and independent!

#93 Clove Hitch

Clove Hitch

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,849 posts
  • Location:around and about
  • Interests:Garnacha. Gunk-holing.

Posted 16 April 2012 - 11:07 PM


umm, yeah, christians do have a problem with pre-Jesus times and beliefs. Many do believe they weren't saved, so they're SOL.


Really? I would love to study a Christian faith that claims Adam, Eve, Abraham, Moses etc are out of luck and un-saved. I'm am not aware of any


I guess Jack has never heard of Catholicism.

#94 Olsonist

Olsonist

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 8,137 posts
  • Location:Oakland, CA

Posted 16 April 2012 - 11:51 PM



umm, yeah, christians do have a problem with pre-Jesus times and beliefs. Many do believe they weren't saved, so they're SOL.


Really? I would love to study a Christian faith that claims Adam, Eve, Abraham, Moses etc are out of luck and un-saved. I'm am not aware of any


I guess Jack has never heard of Catholicism.

I think Mormonism is stupid but I think Catholocism is evil.

#95 Spatial Ed

Spatial Ed

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 17,486 posts
  • Location:The Dark Side of Kolob
  • Interests:Subhuman Mongrels in momjeans

Posted 17 April 2012 - 12:30 AM



umm, yeah, christians do have a problem with pre-Jesus times and beliefs. Many do believe they weren't saved, so they're SOL.


Really? I would love to study a Christian faith that claims Adam, Eve, Abraham, Moses etc are out of luck and un-saved. I'm am not aware of any


I guess Jack has never heard of Catholicism.

Jack don't study other religions. I do. And present my findings here. Jack don't like that.

Hey Jack, tell us the story of the White Salamander. For those of you who can't wait,

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=mormon+white+salamander

#96 Happy Jack

Happy Jack

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 13,967 posts
  • Location:Florida

Posted 17 April 2012 - 12:36 AM




Ain't theology fun? A bunch of arguing over shit that can never be resolved, as there is no evidence or data to resolve the arguments!

In addition to its many other faults, theology/religion has proven itself in having no predictive value whatsoever.


In 1833 the Lord gave a commandment to Latter-day Saints called the word of wisdom. It came with a prediction.

"18 And all saints who remember to keep and do these sayings, walking in obedience to the commandments, shall receive health in their navel and marrow to their bones;"

Abstract

This paper compares life expectancy between members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (LDS or Mormons) and non-LDS in Utah. It examines the extent to which tobacco-related deaths explain variation in life expectancy between LDS and non-LDS.

Complete life table estimates were derived using conventional methods and cross-sectional data for white males and females from 1994-1998. Life expectancy was 77.3 for LDS males, 70.0 for non-LDS males, 82.2 for LDS females, and 76.4 for non-LDS females. For those alive at age 80, the remaining years of life expected were 8.2 for LDS males, 6.5 for non-LDS males, 10.3 for LDS females, and 7.1 for non-LDS females. Years of life expected increased more so among non-LDS after we removed deaths associated with tobacco use from the life table.

A comparison between LDS and non-LDS of the adjusted life expectancy estimates indicates that although differential tobacco use explains some of the higher life expectancy in LDS, it only accounts for about 1.5 years of the 7.3 year difference for males and 1.2 years of the 5.8 year difference for females. Higher life expectancy experienced among LDS not explained by tobacco-related deaths may be due to factors associated with religious activity in general, such as better physical health, better social support, and healthier lifestyle behaviors. Religious activity may also have an independent protective effect against mortality.

My link

Looks like you are wrong again.


Seems you forgot this little tidbit:

Author's affiliation
Ray M. Merrill
Brigham Young University, Provo, Utah, United States of America


Now why would you want to do a thing like that, eh?


Next time I will so that people like you that can't follow an included link won't make an ass of themselves. BTW are you NDP? It is a simple question. Oh, and ... it was published in a German Journal.

But just for you here is more evidence from a source you may find more palatable.

In 2010, Dr. Breslow, then 95, joined with Prof. James E. Enstrom of U.C.L.A. to publish a paper about a group of California Mormons whom they had studied over 25 years. The life expectancy of the Mormon males was 9.8 years greater than that of the general population of white American males; female Mormons lived 5.6 years longer than their general-population counterparts. The authors credited the Mormons’ healthy lifestyle.

My link

#97 Bull Gator

Bull Gator

    Anarchist

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 29,280 posts

Posted 17 April 2012 - 12:57 AM

Isn't that because there are no black american Mormons?

Ps why are there no black American Mormons?

#98 Bull Gator

Bull Gator

    Anarchist

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 29,280 posts

Posted 17 April 2012 - 01:04 AM

Ps I see you claim 9 yeArs greater than white American males which would put them into their 90's your link is bullshit

#99 ease the sheet!

ease the sheet!

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,515 posts
  • Location:balls deep in someones daughters.

Posted 17 April 2012 - 01:05 AM

Ain't theology fun? A bunch of arguing over shit that can never be resolved, as there is no evidence or data to resolve the arguments!

evidence? dont bring that shit here!

and there are no black mormons cause they understand the importance of evidence.

#100 badlatitude

badlatitude

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 10,808 posts
  • Location:Malibu, Ca.

Posted 17 April 2012 - 01:09 AM

Was it this Mormon group they studied for that healthy lifestyle Jack?



Utah: Online Porn Capital of America?

Harvard researcher reveals the most avid consumers of Internet pornography.
By Dan Tynan, Computerworld Mar 3, 2009 7:34 am

For most of my life I have lived in the cauldrons of sin - first New York, then California. These Bluer than Blue states are the source of most of our society's ills, or so we are constantly told.

When it comes to online smut, though, it appears I've been living in the wrong places. Thanks to Harvard researcher Ben Edelman, we now know the most avid consumers of Internet pornography live in the heartland -- the "real America," I believe someone once called it.

Edelman, a lawyer-geek who made his bones hunting down spyware and adware firms, has published a report titled "Red Light States: Who Buys Online Adult Entertainment?" [PDF] in the ponderous sounding Journal of Economic Perspectives.

For his report Edelman analyzed subscriber data from an unnamed "top 10 seller of online adult entertainment," broken down by ZIP codes, demographic data, and the speeds of users' Internet connections.

One key finding: The biggest consumers of online adult entertainment live in the great state of Utah. An average of 5.47 people per 1000 broadband subscribers pay for porn in Orrin Hatch's home state. (Utah also leads in porn consumption among the general population and dial-up users, in case you're wondering.)

It must have been all those Osmonds Gone Wild videos that sent them over the edge.

Close behind Utah with just over five porn subscribers per thousand is Sarah Palin's Alaska. California and New York, on the other hand, average between 2.4 and 2.9 subscriptions per 1000 broadband users, smack dab in the middle of the pack. Overall, eight of Edelman's top 10 porn-consuming states voted for McCain last fall, while six of the least smut-crazed states went for Obama.

It appears the Red states are also the Red Light states.

Notes Edelman:

Subscriptions are slightly more prevalent in states that have enacted conservative legislation on sexuality. .... subscriptions are also more prevalent in states where surveys indicate conservative positions on religion, gender roles, and sexuality. In states where more people agree that "Even today miracles are performed by the power of God" and "I never doubt the existence of God," there are more subscriptions to this service. Subscriptions are also more prevalent in states where more people agree that "I have old-fashioned values about family and marriage" and "AIDS might be God's punishment for immoral sexual behavior."

Here's another fascinating tidbit:

... adult escort sites are more popular in "blue" states that voted for Gore in 2004, while visitors from the "red" states that voted for Bush in 2004 are more likely to visit wife-swapping sites, adult webcams, and sites about voyeurism.




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users