I'm starting to research it. Will take a while because there is just so much to dig into and I've gotta have my links and references down. One Google search opens up another. Learning a lot

I'm kind of disappointed though cuz initially I was thinking that Justa had done an incredible amount of work on this thing and i was impressed but a slightly closer read revealed that he'd merely posted a ready-made anti marriage equality polemic he'd gotten from some site that I don't think he linked. Oh well. Back to work.

I'm quite sure it is as you suspect ... not the work of justamere10, but something copied and pasted without attribution.

Isn't that plagiarism?

Here's a link to the text justamere10 quoted without attribution:

http://www.meridianmagazine.com/familylead...27marriage.html

Your post is the first time I ever heard of something called "Joel's Army". After a quick read it is my opinion that it is not even a church, certainly is not a Christian church, though it might have incorporated or registered as one. They appear at least from the information you posted to be some kind of emerging militant guerilla group, one that certainly bears watching by secular authorities. I too would sound an alarm about such a non-Christian group. The article says that conservative Christians are warning about it:

"Those sounding the alarm about Joel's Army are not secular foes of the Christian Right, few of whom are even aware of the movement or how widespread it's become in the past decade. Instead, Joel's Army critics are mostly conservative Christians."

Anyone who knows the bible and the end times prophecies contained in it are aware that there will be a huge battle in and around Jerusalem called "the battle of Armageddon". Millions of soldiers will fight against the Jews and will be held off by miraculous powers wielded by two prophets of God for 3 1/2 years after which they will be killed. 3 1/2 days after their death the two prophets will be resurrected and in the view of everyone watching will rise to the heavens. About that time Jesus Christ will set foot on the Mount of Olives, which will split in two. The surviving Jews will rush from the city into the gap to escape the invading armies and there they will meet the God they rejected and weep as he shows them the wounds in his hands and in his feet, the wounds they inflicted.

Almost all of the invading soldiers will be killed by huge hailstones.

In your customary mudslinging manner you try to equate the Latter-day Saints with groups such as "Joel's Army" which in the article is revealed as preparing to be among those soldiers who attack Jerusalem and are opposed to Jesus Christ.

Joel's Army is an emerging military force not a church and is not even on the same side as Christians, Jews, or Jesus Christ during the prophesied battle of Armageddon.

"Numbering in the tens of thousands, they base their beliefs on an esoteric reading of the second chapter of the Old Testament Book of Joel, in which an avenging swarm of locusts attacks Israel. In their view, the locusts are a metaphor for Joel's Army.

With respect, your ceaseless and groundless attacks and rants against me and the Latter-day Saints and your constant attempt to put words in my mouth in my opinion do not help your cause, though it might make you momentarily popular with those few who write in this thread. It must be sooo obvious to every intelligent person reading this thread what you are trying to do that it might even motivate some to actually click a link in my signature line and learn for themselves what Mormons are all about, they will certainly not learn any truth about that from you!

But of course you have as much right to write respectfully and civilly on this board as I have.

I'm glad I've been able to open your eyes and change your mind about your previous belief in the lack of truly dangerous elements and forces within Christianity.

As I've stated before, I think people looking for a Christian church to join should definitely consider the LDS church, which has much to recommend it, in my opinion. Just be sure to research the things that the church will NOT tell you about itself, so you'll have full disclosure and can make a truly informed decision as to whether or not this is the church for you. You almost certainly won't get that full disclosure from orthodox Mormons, the missionaries, or church leaders. Instead, I suggest read through this thread, and look into the links I and others here have provided to counter the official LDS "party line" (which is all you're likely to hear in church).

My position, as a Mormon, as I've stated SOOO many times ... is that the LDS church has roughly an equal number of positive and negative traits.

Your position is that the LDS church has zero negative traits.

I think the average thinking person would find the former position more credible.

What?

Joe's Army, Dominionists, and "Christian Re-constructionists" are not groups of people who consider themselves to be "Christians?"

That's absurd.

All you have to do is read the article I posted, or do a half hour's research using google, to know that these people think they're on the side of Christ ... and they intend to force you and me and all mankind to agree with them in their sliver-thin, ultra-fundamentalist interpretation of "Christian" theology, or else persecute and, ultimately, kill those of us that don't.

Don't you understand that, justmere10?

It's unfortunate that you fail to realize that such groups are not Christian in any way except that they may have the audacity to label themselves as such.

Members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints are just as human as are members of other churches and no church at all. As humans we have weaknesses and failings, all of us.

Quite frankly I think it is well for you to express your own opinions and beliefs but I find it disingenuous of you to so frequently try to place opinions on me that in most cases are not my opinions at all, as you again did in this post that I am responding to.

I think the "average thinking person" when investigating a church would look for information directly from that church's official media and representatives, and from active members, not from apostates and enemies. In no way do your views represent the beliefs and teachings of the LDS Church, but it is quite possible that they represent the beliefs of apostates and critics. I fail to understand why you persist in calling yourself a "Mormon" when you reject everything that Mormons stand for and actively engage in attacking our beliefs, unless of course your agenda is to deliberately mislead the members of this board.

Don't you understand that almost all the conspiracy theories, strawmen, and other devices you create to discredit the LDS Church and its members have ABSOLUTELY NOTHING AT ALL TO DO with the LDS Church?

As required by the rules of this board, please provide references proving that I am a bigot, and that The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is "a dangerous cult". Thank-you.

Ah, the persecuted fundamentalist believer. Sorry, but the rules state nothing of the kind. I am not referencing any outside sources or articles other than your own toady rants.

BTW, has this Board become a mission? Remember when you said this, "I'm brand new to this board and I don't have a lot of extra time to spend on it.". Your posts now number 321. Looks like you found some spare time, eh? How about this, "Well, I see that this thread has become entirely political rantings so perhaps it is time for me to move along." ........tick tock.......tick tock......tick tock......

My hat goes off to both shoeshoe and Tyo, for being able to tolerate this inanity for so long. I must admit that I look forward to reading their skewering of your cult's irrational and delusional teachings, and your failed rebuttal attempts are hilarious.

Before I forget, here's a link to the full South Park mormon episode--> http://www.southparkstudios.com/guide/712

Another interesting mormon reveal--> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zy0d1HbItOo...feature=related


As long as you asked, if you haven't noticed, there are already many responses to your posts that include/quote your bigoted comments. I hope you also do not act upon the violent threats you make against those who oppose your cult's delusions and irrational positions. I have gathered but a few, since I refuse to re-read any more of your blather than is absolutely necessary. Most reading this thread know all about the wacko mormonology malarky, and it's sad that you can't see your posts for what they are. So, here is a short list of your bigotry and threats of violence with just a perfunctory glance back at what you've posted:

{Freethinker bigotry and threat of violence}] "People who choose an "anything goes" valueless godless lifestyle tend to intrude on the freedoms of others and to generate discontent and disorder. Their way of life must ultimately be enforced by violent means because the majority of human beings believe in a Supreme Creator and a genuine purpose for life other than to satisfy one's insatiable appetite for parties and pleasure."

{Freethinker bigotry and threat of violence} "American Christians will always be opposed to the elitist secularization of the USA. Hopefully we will always be able to express that opposition peacefully, in accord with the Constitution and Bill of Rights of this great nation."

{GLBTS bigotry} "Although some may deny it, my understanding is that sexual sin (sexual relations other than between a man and woman who are legally married) continues to be contrary to the commandments of God and is thus a sin."

{Gender bigotry} "But it's true that the Lord has never called a woman to be one of His chosen Apostles. If you think He should, you'll need to take the matter up with Him. "

{General LDS bigotry} "One of the most serious of all the commandments, for a lot of reasons that even mortals can understand, is to refrain from sexual relations outside the bonds of matrimony." -- From a separate post, "It is clear to us that sexual sin (sexual relations outside of traditional marriage) is a very serious sin in the eyes of God. (We believe it to be the second most serious sin right after murder.)"

{Native American bigotry (reference), and general ignorance} It is thought that there were other people living in the Americas when the Nephites arrived..." http://www.rickross.com/reference/mormon/mormon34.html http://www.lds-mormon.com/lam-ind.shtml http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetics_and_the_Book_of_Mormon http://genealogy.about.com/b/2004/09/14/na...rmon-church.htm http://www.religioustolerance.org/lds_migr.htm, and on, and on, and on. And no, your Apologists' efforts fail miserably on this issue.

{GLBTS bigotry} "Most Christians consider sexual behavior between people of the same gender to be immoral and sinful."

{Freethinker bigotry and threat} "We are not a threat unless of course it is perceived to be a threat when one helps bring souls to Christ..."

{GLBTS bigotry, political interference} "What is a threat to Christians is when the state intrudes on things that are best left to religion and forces the acceptance of the immoral values and lifestyle choices of minority groups upon an unwilling people."

{GLBTS bigotry, political interference} "In the view of Christians however, giving that minority group special rights and privileges they have never had before would normalize behavior that Christians consider to be immoral and sinful."

{Secular bigotry} "Marriage is the business of churches, a sacred religious ordinance. The state had no business interfering with marriage, but has done so for decades and now is making very aggressive moves to thrust the mailed secular arm even deeper into things that should be the exclusive province of institutions that focus on our relationship with God."

{Gay bigotry} "Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination." Leviticus 18: 22"

{GLBTS bigotry} "I think I can very safely predict that there will be no "marriages" of same gender people in the LDS Church. That would be clearly an abomination in the eyes of the God whom we know."


And then there's an endless pig pen of muck and mire like this:

"Some may argue that marriage is a private matter and redefining it causes no harm to others or society as a whole. Nothing could be further from the truth!"

"The California court also went where no U.S. court has gone before and enshrined sexual orientation as a civil right on a par with race. Not even the European Court of Human Rights or the United Nations Human Rights Committee has so ruled."

"This means that those who see marriage as the union of husband and wife, and view sexuality as best confined to marriage so defined, are in the exact position as racists under California law"

"Acts done in the name of freedom have shut down the freedom of the religious."

"The Church as a whole maintains a neutral stance on party affiliation, but does speak out when it's a matter of immoral behavior (sin - the business of churches) that is being promoted by political and/or judicial entities." Vote ReThuglican much?

"Does the God you know say it's ok for people to have sexual relations outside of marriage? It almost seems that you want to blame someone else for the choices people make when they do things that are known to be sinful in the eyes of God."


Regarding your cult status:

http://mormoncult.com/

http://religionnewsblog.blogspot.com/2008/...ays-mormon.html


Interfering in politics:

http://www.topix.com/news/gay/2008/06/lds-...-marriage-issue


And a poke in the funny bone:

http://www.landoverbaptist.org/news0704/mormonunderwear.html


I'm just glad that Freethinkers far outnumber the members of this cult.


As the great Philosopher CarmenJonze once said, "Screw your petty god and b.s. ideology of "sin". Go find someone else to impose them on. It's not going to work from this corner."

Oh, and I would like to see ANY evidence for your beliefs. ANY. Not quotes from your mormon book of....um...well...hmmm...well, just not from your book of fiction. Keep to a reality-based discussion.

BTW, please stop your proselytizing.

What are my views that are so contrary to teachings of the LDS church? I'd be curious to see what you'd list in answer to that question (with evidence, please).

Things that orthodox Mormons believe in and teach (but then sometimes frequently ignore in practice, in my experience) that I too believe in and wholeheartedly support:

1. Honesty
2. Integrity
3. Frugality
4. Charity
5. Service
6. Family first
7. Sexual abstinence before marriage, and fidelity after marriage
8. Hard work
9. Independence
10. Community effort and support
11. Putting one's attention and intention onto others and not just onto one's self
12. The importance of defining and maintaining ethical and moral standards
13. The notion that the U.S. Constitution is a holy document (i.e. inspired by Divinity)
14. Long suffering (trying not to complain too much)
15. Patience
16. Eternal progression of living beings
17. The existence of God (Good)
18. The existence of Jesus Christ and the Spirit of God (conscience)
19. Life after death
20. Love (God is Love)
21. Humility (I could be wrong)
22. Repentance (I am wrong)
23. Love of money is the root of all evil
24. Avoid debt at almost all costs
25. Agency (personal adult responsibility, free choice, and accountability)

I'm sure there are are others as well (these are a few, just off the top of my head).

Why does justamere10 have to keep repeating this false assertion about me, even when I show, over and over and over again, that it's a lie?

That's one of the primary tactics of totalitarians and tyrants, to tell big lies, over and over and over, and when rebutted just boldly repeat them, over and over and over, until people just give up and believe them. (Sound familiar? Rove/Bush/Cheney?)

justamere10, as a fundamentalist member of the "one true church on Earth," believes his (but ONLY his) church is never fundamentally wrong, and anyone, especially another member of his church, who says otherwise is bad and should go away, supporting a zero-tolerance policy toward dissent within his church ... all the while (as a typical hypocritical nationalistic conservative) hypocritically extolling the greatness of American democracy, free speech, free choice, freedom of conscience, etc..

It's as dishonorable as dishonorable gets, but for totalitarians, the means is justified by the end achieved. For religious fundamentalist totalitarians like justamere10, being dishonorable in "the name of God" becomes honorable, and they can live quite comfortably with themselves while committing all manner of atrocious behavior.

Notice justamere10's extreme, almost paranoiac defensiveness.

I'm certainly not trying to mislead anyone. I'm trying to be truthful about my experience as a Mormon, and to provide a more complete, reality-based picture of the church than the church itself would present either though it's official channels or through self-appointed surrogates, like yourself, justamere10.

Have I not, on a number of occasions, written extensively about those aspects of the LDS church which I very much support, and with which I very much agree? YES – I HAVE!!

And how many times have I had to point this out to rebut justamere10's repeated (and repeated, and repeated) abject and bald-faced lie that I "reject EVERYTHING that Mormons stand for? See the list above, and numerous previous posts in which I praise, often in glowing personal terms, the many, many positive aspects of the Mormon church.

It's just that I don't see ONLY good in the church, I also see evil there; and so, to justamere10, in his conservative, black-and-white, good and evil, fundamentalist, totalitarian thinking, this means I see NO good in the church, which is just completely false, as I've already demonstrated (and recapitulated ad nauseum to counter justamere10's obnoxious lie about that).

I think it's clear that justamere10 thinks Mormons, to be "good Mormons" (like "good Germans"), should never seriously or publicly question LDS church doctrine or leadership. I dare to seriously and publicly question my church authorities, and so justamere10 considers me an "enemy of the church." His motto seems clearly to be "My church, right or wrong." My motto is "My church when is it right, and let's speak out and correct it when it is wrong." Same goes for my country. Same for any organization I'm a part of. Because to me, in my hierarchy of values, Truth is second in importance to nothing (with the possible exception of to Love, as if Truth and Love could ever really be in conflict, which I doubt).

But religious totalitarians like justamere10 can't stand dissent. Just can't stand it. He apparently think Mormons who perceive there to be problems within Mormon culture and/or leadership should either just keep their dissenting opinions to themselves or else don't have a right to be Mormons and should just leave the church. That's not very Christian, nor American, in my opinion (in fact, "love it or leave it" is antithetical to both, in my view). It's just : "I'm right, all other views are wrong, the end, shut up."

But that's fitting for justamere10. As he's indicated himself ... he's a (proud) theocratic (LDS) totalitarian.

What conspiracy theories or strawmen? I've offered none, to my knowledge (only well supported opinions, with links to verifiable, independent sources).

Please list the "conspiracy theories" or "strawmen" I've offered into the discussion here.

If I've made any assertions without citing good evidence for them, you have a right to hold my feet to the fire.

Please ... a list.

They say they're Christian, and that MORMONS (among others) are not, justamere10.

I'd love to see you debate them about this. That would REALLY be an interesting thread: competing religious totalitarians trying to prove whose is REALLY the one and only true theology on Earth!!

I'd pay good money to see that match up ... but only if none of the parties involved had nuclear weapons at their disposal.

Please list what you believe to be negative aspects (i.e. patterns of behavior of it's leaders or authorities, unspoken rules of conduct, societal habits, etc.) of the LDS church – i.e. of the institution of the LDS church or of LDS culture, not of it's individual members.

Who is to say which group is "Christian" and which is not, justamere10?

You?

These fascist totalitarian "Christian" cults claim to be following Christ, and do all their mischief and mayhem in His name.

I think it's obvious that only Christ Himself can properly separate the Christian from the non-Christian ... but unfortunately there's so much disagreement as to what He Himself would say, and without Christ Himself making the judgement, I don't see how you resolve the dispute.

Are you that pleasant in real life? You know you could choose not to read this thread if it offends you so much.

Well, you came up with an admirable list of Christian qualities, only one of which I would consider to be possibly exclusive to the Latter-day Saints. Hardly telling the truth about the Saints in my opinion. Why not just refer people to www.mormon.org or www.lds.org where they could learn the truth instead of having to put up with your constant harping criticism and statements that mislead any members of the board who might be genuinely interested in learning about the Mormons?

I must say you are persistent in attempting to place your own definitions and opinions on me as if they were my own, I'll certainly grant you that.

By the way, if your declaration about me is true that I am a "totalitarian" and "can't stand dissent, just can't stand it," why would I be here entertaining you and your buds who are in a continual state of angry aggression because there are people in the world who disagree with you about a lot of things that are important to them? Is your anger affecting your family?

I give up. It's like trying to have a conversation with a wall ...

It's an effective strategy: ignore the argument and evidence cited by the person you're debating, until they get so flabergasted that they finally throw in the towel.

Okay, justamere10, you win. The sky is green, and the grass is blue.

Because in this country, for the time being, you still don't have any other choice but to put up with us (thank God).

How is it that, as you've stated, the list of my beliefs that I presented "in no way [represent] the beliefs and teachings of the LDS Church ..."?

Because the LDS church, in my experience, doesn't the whole truth ... only the nice, fluffy, good parts (which to me is plainly dishonest, and hypocritical).

Why are you, and the orthodox brand of Mormonism you so ably represent, so troubled by my expressing my opinion and describing my experience from my own point of view? Why do you want to silence my opinion, and have only those that support your own publicly expressed? What are you so afraid of, that you can't stand the thought of a Mormon publicly disagreeing with you and with orthodox Mormon culture on some points (but NOT all points, for the millionth time ...)? What is it about public disagreement with the official orthodox line that offends your sensibilities so very much?

Oh ... that's right. Now I remember. You're an LDS totalitarian, and church members aren't allowed to publicly disagree with the orthodox line. If they do, they're bad Mormons (very bad), and worthy of banishment. Because only ONE view, the official view, is the right view, and all others are by definition wrong ... and ... DANGEROUS!!

Sorry, I forgot. I was thinking in a free and democratic fashion, there, for a minute.

No, they are not a "Christian church", they are what religion scholars call a "parachurch organization".

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



Incorrect. Anyone who knows the bible knows it's full of crap, written by bigots, and promoted by dupes.

Of course Joel's Army critics are other christian conservatives -- chopping each others' heads off over differences in dogma is just what conservative christians DO.

Again, even the slightest glance at LDS history reveals this historical fact.

One word: C-O-N-T-R-O-L.

It is logically possible that it is your sky that is green and to billions of others it is blue. You reject the consensus reality of millions of Latter-day Saints and choose instead to roam in lonely fields casting stones across the fence you have built between yourself and your former brothers and sisters. There is a way back, but horrors you might have to accept the truth to return.

I understand that there are a few members and former members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints who do not believe that Joseph Smith is God's chosen Prophet of the Restoration and there is no living Prophet and Apostles today even though there may have been anciently. You are apparently among them. So?

Your list is a list of qualities that are important to all Christians, not just to the Latter-day Saints. So by saying you believe in those qualities you are possibly identifying yourself as a Christian, but not as a member of a specific Christian denomination.

I am not troubled by your opinions, you have every right to them, and to express them civilly and respectfully on this board. But I am troubled that you are misleading members of this board into thinking that The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is something other than what it really is, the truth is hugely different than what you say it is. It seems that you prefer to focus all your attention on a stubbed black and blue toe and fail to recognize that the wounded toe is only a miniscule part of a wondrous living creature filled with light and goodness.

Someone expressed a notion that the 13,000,000 members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints are somehow magically "controlled" or that they want to somehow magically control others.

That could not be further from the truth. Latter-day Saints are adamant in their belief that God has given to all of His children the freedom to CHOOSE for themselves what to believe, and how to behave, even if it is offensive to Him.

Just because millions of people all over the world believe that Jesus is the Christ, or that Joseph Smith is His prophet does not mean that those people testify to those beliefs because they are forced to belief them. It means that they have each individually arrived at a belief that is common and meaningful to all of them.

Think about that for a moment and you may understand better that it may be you who is caught up in an unreasoning hatred of a portion of American society that you choose to disagree with and not to affiliate with.

To disagree with and not affiliate with is ok, that's the American way, nobody forces anyone in our nation to join or to remain a member of a specific church or other entity. If you do join one and later decide that it's not for you, you walk away. That's what makes American society so enjoyable, the lack of force other than what is required to enforce our laws and way of life.

But when you publicly mock and aggressively demonstrate hatred and intolerance for other Americans with different beliefs, I think you have crossed a line and left civilized society behind.

Your posts show that at least you are not. Do you have a clue as to what constitutes reality? Oops, we already know the answer to that rhetorical question. And the thread doesn't offend me, your frightening, delusional and irrational beliefs are what makes the RESPONSES to your rants so interesting. It's your ongoing responses which give me my daily dose of humor.

Still waiting for ANY evidence of your fairy tale claims.

So meremormon, you still haven't provided ANY evidence for your claims or those of your superstitious cult. What's the delay? Could it be you have NONE? Another rhetorical question it seems.

"The truth is your beliefs are infantile, your scriptures are lies and your gods are illusions. And I can say that with all due respect, because no respect is actually due. Please don’t tell me not to mock your beliefs. That’s like telling me not to laugh at your toupée, it just makes the damn thing even more ridiculous...Obviously I’d like to show more respect to people’s sincerely held beliefs, of course I would, but unfortunately that would violate my own sincerely held belief that religion is a filthy lie and a threat to civilization, so you can see the problem I’ve got with that. Besides, I don’t think that I’m insulting anyone who doesn’t deserve it a thousand times over. I also think that if we did a bit more insulting and a bit less pointless debating, then religion might not have such a falsely inflated idea of its own importance and there might not be so many people on this planet who want us all to live our lives according to ideas and stories that would embarrass a second rate fantasy novelist." -- Pat Condell

Stop the whining and provide some evidence please.

Magical thinking rules your life, and you intend to force others into that lifestyle.

You shouldn't be surprised when your b.s. lifestyle is rejected by normal people.

So desegregation in the 50's and 60' and giving African AMericans the same rights as whites would also be wrong to you because that was the desire of a minority. WHy don't you try thinking for yourself for a change and not believing everything the book of mormon tells you. I have some family members you are LDS and they still think for themselves on these sort of things.

pah-lease.
christianity wrote the book on intolerance. i 've bared the brunt of it for the past 15 years for my beliefs,
just don't do it, okay.

Most are controlled, and "magic" has nothing to do with it.



It is the truth, and your state of denial is noted. There is no evidence for your god, if you want to be taken seriously then please provide evidence for your belief. Choice is not applicable here, since most mormons are brainwashed from birth, and they are threatened with becoming an outcast from their loved ones if they dare to speak the truth that this cult is dangerous and utter nonsense.



Stop with the Ad Populum fallacy, it's pathetic. Please provide the evidence which demonstrates that your mythological jesus existed. There are no prophets, only profits....sheesh.... Forced beliefs take many forms, and mormonism is one of the greatest offenders. Individually arrived at a belief? Hardly. Similar to other false teachings, any meaning derived from this cult's teachings is a placebo, and based on teachings which are false. It is sad that otherwise rational and reasoning people suspend disbelief and abandon all reason.



OK, thought about it. Total BS. And sorry, but calling for evidence to support your ridiculous beliefs is neither unreasoned nor hatred. Creating a Red Herring will not relieve you of the burden of proof for your claims.

Again, let's see your evidence.



If only it were that simple. Again, force comes in many shapes and sizes.



You could not be more wrong. Well, I take that back. I am certain you can be more wrong. Demanding proof for your wacky beliefs is not hatred. I know you would like to frame it this way, but rational people will not allow themselves to be distracted by your attempt at misdirection. For your beliefs to be worthy of respect, all you have to do is provide evidence for those beliefs.

Still waiting for that evidence.

You have one experience of the LDS church, which is that there are no important negative aspects to it, and I have my experience of the LDS church, which is that there are roughly equal amounts of positive and negative aspects to it (not just a "black and blue toe" compared to an entire body).

In my experience, there exist serious deficiencies in the integrity and veracity of the church as an institution and a great many of its orthodox members and leaders exhibit dishonest, dishonorable behavior entirely inconsistent with the claim that the LDS church is "Gods only true chruch on Earth" – as you so ably and frequently demonstrate on this board by your own continual dishonesty, resistance to independent inspection and verification, deliberate ignorance of facts (like the large amount of sincere praise I've given the church in addition to my criticism), and hypocrisy on any number of fronts.

You believe there are no serious problems with the truthfulness or integrity of the LDS church either as an institution or with it's leadership or orthodox membership.

I have several times openly acknowledged that I could be wrong about my conclusion regarding the LDS church.

You have never done so, and I think it's pretty clear to all readers hear that you're incapable of doing so.

I think church members should be free to publicly express their honest, sincerely held dissent.

You do not (while somehow claiming to admire American democratic ideals of free speech, honoring the right to dissent, etc.).

I think most people will find my position to be the more credible one on its face.

It's my opinion that the LDS church and its orthodox members like yourself continually attempt to dishonestly hide from others serious failings in LDS church history, culture, doctrine, etc., and exhibit truly disturbing tendencies that should be alarming to anyone whose system doesn't allow for hypocrisy and authoritarianism.

I've given my opinion about the church, with citations of independent evidence to back them up, and you accuse me of intentionally misleading people. I'm not saying categorically that I'm right, and you're wrong; I'm saying that, based on my experience, and the facts I'm aware of, I believe I'm right and you're wrong. You've offered no evidence or example of any kind to effectively challenge that belief; if fact, for myself and others, your behavior here has only greatly reinforced it.

I'm not trying to mislead people. I'm simply offering my opinion, as an opinion only, and my reasons for having that opinion.

You, however, are NOT presenting your view as an opinion, but as fact. You are right, and I am wrong ... period. There's NO possibility at all in your mind of any other possibility. It is IMPOSSIBLE that you could be wrong, and I could be right, in your mind, justamere10. You insist that there's NO way that your perceptions and analysis and experience could in any serious way be flawed.

Is that credible, people?

Who's trying to be misleading, here?

Come on, justamere10, most people are not that stupid. I think it's pretty obvious that the readers of this thread see through you, and through the incredible, fossilized hardness of your utter unobjective, self-referential, self-verifying autocratic pronouncements, quite clearly.

Well, it's not an "also", that is directly what they are referring to.

The interesting part is that their own view is a minority view.

They need to be thanking Black people. But then they are probably still of the mentality that Black people shouldn't be priests in their stupid cult.

All the better. We have a difficult enough time with traditional christianity already.

Hello Luissa,

While I much prefer to stick with discussing religion in the religion forum it is apparent that most of the few people who write in this thread prefer to stick with mudslinging politics. Your comment appears to be a bit more sincere than the usual politically-tinged rants we've been seeing here lately after what was primarily in my view an interesting largely civil discussion about religion for the first few weeks of this thread's existence. I've come to appreciate the now very rare civil comment that abides by the forum rules; yours is accusatory but that's how you see it with the information you are aware of from this awkward medium where people abuse and shout at each other because they aren't in their physical presence looking them in the eye and discerning their body language.

So, you know a few Mormons in real life, in this case members of your family who actually "think for themselves". That's a good observation, my guess is that they are active members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. There's a bit of valid proof for you that real life active Mormons are not at all the kind of people that some thread writers like to spin and twist to fit into their own little box of understandings. Most active Mormons in America are happy good people who care about and do good things to help their neighbor, as Christ taught we should all do.

A civil war was fought to bring freedom to those who were born with black skin. Desegregation is not a new and minor matter, I am in favor of it, I see all people as God's children. He says He is "no respecter of persons".

The matter of civil rights was and is a matter of FREEDOM for all, which is the American way, the way the majority of Americans consistently vote to maintain.

The matter in California is a matter of four judges trying to FORCE their own elitist view on the majority of Americans in that state. Because of the hard work of enough concerned citizens, the people of California will once again have a chance to express their position by again voting on the issue. That's the way Americans have been doing it for hundreds of years, voting, not dictating. It's extremely dangerous to our way of life in my opinion to allow a few judges, the state, to overthrow the will of the people.

That's how I see it from a political perspective.

Your "citations" either come from anti-Mormon sources or are simply your own judgments, interpretations, coloring, spinning of facts. Yes, there are a few writers here who validate your claims because you share a common political ideology and pessimistic worldview. You would not do so well on most other boards, your logic is much less than compelling.

The evidence I offer is that there are many millions of people all over the world who obviously disagree with your extremist views because they freely choose to be members of the LDS Church.

Notice how justamere10 completely ignores the point Luissa27 was making.

Her point, as I read it, is that he's being inconsistent, as usual, in his argument ... opposing the righteous views of a "minorty of the population" from eventually becoming enshrined into law, exactly as was the case with civil rights in America, favored by only a minority of Americans until the 1960's, as Luissa27 points out. Such was also the case with women's rights, and so, so many other things (the movement to protect the environment, seat belt laws, consumer protection statutes, etc., etc., etc.).

Perhaps if you were less dogmatic and more honest and consistent, justamere10, you'd get a little support here. Liberals, by and large, are not followers but leaders, who listen to their own drummer, unlike conservatives, who have far less trouble goose-stepping behind charismatic individuals or dogma (in general, liberals are like cats, conservatives are like dogs ... which explains in part why liberals are so disorganized, uncooperative and less able to win elections -- it's hard to herd cats).

But justamere10, desperate to avoid the real issues raised in this thread and retreat to unquestioned dogma instead of real discussion, conveniently ignores Luissa27's main point.

Luissa27 was saying that some of her family members, who are Mormons, ALSO do things differently from justamere10 , preferring to "think for themselves," rather than accept the orthodox Mormon party line unquestioningly. "Why don't you think for yourself, like my Mormon family members?" was her question to you, justamere10.

Why don't you answer her question?

What kind of logic or evidence is that? So, because millions of people eat at McDonald's, that makes McDonald's a "great restaurant," the best in the world, the "one and only true restaurant on Earth?"

Okay, fine, talking the example of your own unsound logic ... the evidence I offer to counter yours are the many, many, many millions MORE who chose NOT to be members of the LDS church.

A better indication of the serious flaws LDS church culture, in my view, is found in the large majority of newly baptized members who become inactive rather soon after baptism, judging by my experience as a ward missionary for a few years. Probably only one in four newly baptized adults actually became regularly attending, active members of our ward, after baptism, still attending church a couple of years later. I didn't keep careful track of the numbers, here, so one in four is just an estimate, but I think it's roughly accurate.

Okay, fine, taking the example of your own unsound logic ... the evidence I offer to counter your statement above is the "many, many, many millions more" who KNOW NOTHING WHATSOEVER about the LDS Church and about your own politically colored personal view of that Church, its beliefs, and its members. So those "many millions" (and your "logic") in my opinion are totally irrelevent.

You know shoeshoe, you get along well on this board where there is no moderation evident and you have a few fellow travelers to support your extemist views. My guess is that if you tried to push your stuff the way you do on almost every other board on the 'net where there are moderators who care about enforcing the rules of the board, you wouldn't last more than about three posts before you were either laughed off or kicked off the board. On one of the other political boards where I started an "Ask a Mormon" thread there are close to 5,000 posts (every single one of them civil and respectful) and more than 60,000 views.

Why not try your luck and logic in such an environment? You might learn something about polite well-reasoned normal discussion.

But, we love you anyway shoeshoe, thanks for participating in this "Ask a Mormon" thread.

It’s taken me a while to respond to Justamere10’s post (#792) It turned into more of a project than I’d expected. Plus the beautiful weather this weekend has been a distraction. Anyway, I’m kind of there now. Mods, if you feel that this more properly belongs in the GLBT section, please move it.

I spent quite a bit of time surfing trying to get a handle on this. Before I get into the specifics of Justamere’s post I’d like to mention a few things that struck me during my travels. One of them being the lack of personal stories from conservative heterosexual Christians about the negative effect that same sex marriage has had on their lives or the lives of those close to them.

You’d think that the destruction of marriage, which is what we are repeatedly told that marriage equality will bring about, would have had some effect by now on people who live in places where it is already a fact of life. But the net is not flooded with stories from Canadian Christians whose churches have ceased to function and whose personal lives have been destroyed because Michael and Travis down the street decided to tie the knot

There also seems to be a lack of data supporting the assertion that allowing same sex couples to enter into a marriage contract will destroy the institution. One of the more frequently cited pieces of evidence that I have seen for this theory comes out of studies done in Scandinavia. It fails to prove the case, but is an excellent example of the selective use of statistics.
http://www.slate.com/id/2100884/

If the sheer volume of Google entries is any guide, (and the Mormons are very well represented here) the real concern that many conservative Christians have about marriage equality is not that it would have any adverse effect on what goes on in their churches or in their marriages. What they really seem worried about is that marriage equality could bring about limitations on their freedom to “proselytize” and, more importantly even than that, limitations on their freedom to discriminate against gays and perhaps other undesirables as well.

These fears are not without foundation when it comes to discrimination, although they seem to me to be in part overblown and also seem to be based in part on some odd assumptions. More on that later. But I don’t think anyone can deny that as the stigma of being gay fades, and marriage equality is a big step in that direction, there will be more challenges to religion’s prerogative to discriminate against us in the public sphere. Corresponding to this I think we will be taking a closer look at where we draw the line between private religious organizations as opposed to public ones with religious connections. Whether this constitutes an undue infringement on religious freedom is largely in the eye of the beholder.

One thing I noticed is that in attempting to make the case that their religious freedom is or will be infringed upon the religious Right use the same illustrative examples on site after site after site over and over again. This makes me wonder if such examples might be a little thin on the ground since they seem to have to be constantly recycled. Justamere has provided a couple of really popular ones for us.

This brings up another thing I noticed. The anti-equality folks seem not to use many examples from other countries to support their argument that marriage equality is a civilization-killer and a threat to religion. Since places like Canada and Spain are in the process of actively destroying marriage, at least in Fundie eyes, so you’d think they’d be a goldmine of cautionary tales for us. Haven’t found much though.

It’s possible I haven’t been looking in the right places. It’s also possible that there really isn’t much to find. That touches on the nightmare scenario that might just be lurking in the background for the religious right. The one in which gays are integrated into society and when the dust has settled it turns out that nothing horrible is happening because of it.

Since I got a little carried away on length I’m going to break this up into sections. I’ll follow up shortly with my take on a few of Justamere’s arguments.

Continuation of post 842

Intentionally Creating Motherless or Fatherless Children

There are no links or references to any of these many studies. However, here are a few that I have found which address the issue of kids growing up in households with same sex parents. The American Psychological Association had this to say.

http://www.apa.org/pi/lgbc/policy/parents.html
http://www.webmd.com/mental-health/news/20...l-adjusted-kids
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/na...1,4475318.story


It is not the responsibility of the state to reinforce in children the religious beliefs of their parents. At least not in this country it isn’t. Children will learn that in the greater world outside the cocoon of family and church things are sometimes viewed and done differently
than they are at home. I think most of us came to this realization early on in our lives. It’s called reality.

I assume that “fragile identity” is code for gay or questioning. And we certainly wouldn’t want them to think that’s okay. Better they should end up married and hiring rent boys on the side or soliciting for sex in airport washrooms.

Marriage as a legal institution is not being redefined in any way. It is simply being opened to legally competent couples who were hitherto barred from entering into a marriage contract.


Never mind that it is not explained exactly how marriage equality dilutes the definition and purpose of marriage or even exactly what the writer feels that definition and purpose are. And typically, no evidence is cited to support the assertion.

"Can a group such as a church or a religious charity that opposes gay marriage keep its
tax exemption if gay marriage becomes the law?"

We have to draw a distinction between a church and a church sponsored or supported public entity. Nowhere have I seen evidence that there is any threat of a church being forced to sanctify a same sex union or losing its tax exempt status for refusing to do so. No one seems to be seriously arguing that because something is legal a church must approve of it or be forced to sanctify it.

Divorce is legal. It is also legal for divorced people to re-marry. But the state has no problem with the Catholic Church’s refusal to recognize divorce and its refusal to sanctify the marriage of a couple in which one or both parties has been divorced. In the same way, the decision to sanctify or not to sanctify same sex marriages would be left of to the discretion of the various churches. Church sponsored organizations and charities could be a different story if they are legal entities separate from the church and have been put in place to serve the general public, of which gays are a part.



They decided to shut their doors, they were not forced to. The four Catholic Bishops in Massachusetts were faced with a choice and they made the decision to close BCAS rather than adopt children out to gay couples. What you don't get here is the rest of the story,

“

So the people who actually oversaw the operation and policies of the charity, many if not all of whom were presumably straight, had families of their own and were Catholic, did not feel that such a drastic move was warranted. According to the article linked below they had in fact already placed 13 children with gay couples who met the criteria and made it through the screening process. What the bishops decided to do was stop placing children with gay adoptive parents and it was this decision that brought them into conflict both with the state and with their own board of directors.

Among other things this highlights the fact that religious opinion is by no means uniformly anti-gay or that religious people feel as threatened by gay equality as the hard-liners would have us believe. But we’re not supposed to know that. Again, the decision to close the agency was made by four bishops. Totally within their rights, but their decision was in direct contradiction to the views and wishes of the people operating the charity.
http://www.fdncenter.net/pnd/news/story.jh...2F?id=133800009
http://www.boston.com/news/local/massachus...involving_gays/

Like the Boston adoption thing, The Attack of the Lesbians is another story that crops up over and over again on anti-equality websites and blogs.



In reading this you could be excused for getting an image in your head of a couple of women singling out this hapless church and pounding on the rectory door demanding to use its hall for their commitment ceremony. Or else.

Back story is this. This hall is a totally separate facility from the church itself and the church has made it available to the public for years. In fact its tax exempt status is apparently a trade off for the public being allowed to use it.

Moreover the church has solicited and accepted both state and federal funds to help pay for maintenance and upgrading again with the understanding that the public would have access to the facility. The church had never stipulated that it did not view lesbians and gays as part of the public it had agreed to accommodate. Whichever side you support in this, it is clearly a lot more nuanced than the Fundies would like you to think.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/03/nyregion...nted=2&_r=1



A little research into the school’s curriculum ahead of time should be all it takes to make this a non-issue. Do they expect warnings when it comes time to teach evolution as well?


Part 3 later

Huhhh??

Your point was that millions of people agree with orthodox Mormonism, therefore orthodox Mormonism is true. By that same logic, the Earth is flat, because lots of people believe it is, and McDonald's is a great restaurant, because lots of people eat there. So, also, by extension, orthodox Mormonism is false because many people believe it is false. That's all based on stupid logic.

But your follow up point just escapes me entirely. Anyone else get what justamere10's saying, here?

Please send me a link to the other board. I'd be happy to point out your lies, deliberate deception, dishonesty, lack of integrity, and proud totalitarianism there as well as here.

What incredible b.s. THIS is!

First, justamere10 complains on and on about what I write, and then thanks me for writing it.

Good grief ... what a crock.

But, as I said before, if I'm going to have my constitutional rights stolen and then tortured with no habeas corpus rights, I'd certainly rather have it done by a POLITE self-described totalitarian, like justamere10. At least he'll say he loves me as he breaks my arms with cattle prods and waterboards me because I don't agree with his theology or bow to his eminence.

Justamere said...


So which board is that? And 60,000 views. Whoa, I mean let's face it. That's more than you'll ever get from on you have characterized on more than one occasion as "this small board".

Sooo, where does this obsession with size come from anyway?

Really nice work, Tyo, as usual.

Good job.

Shoeshoe already responded to this logical fallacy in Post #840. As I also mentioned earlier, this is an Ad Populum fallacy. However, it is obvious meremormon isn't paying attention nor can he comprehend that his argument has no merit. Sheesh...

And again, all the ravings of the meremormon and his cult's teachings are irrelevant, until and unless he provides testable evidence.

Still waiting.....

Thanks Tyo, a real breath of fresh air. The light of reality, common sense and truth has exposed (and will continue to do so) the dark dungeon of meremormon's cult for all to see. One can only hope he is able to free himself from this delusion in the near future.

Look forward to Part 3.

And again, meremormon, if you are still lurking around, you still haven't provided one iota or scintilla of evidence for your extraordinary claims. And that's the point really, isn't it? Waiting.....