A question for logical Mormons in the know.

[Monty]

Please consider

You will notice that this thread appeared in the 1st posting on page six of this thread and that it was addressed to BB.

as reading

You will notice that this comment appeared in the 1st posting on page six of this thread and that it was addressed to BB.

Thanks.

& thanks to Guadere for fixing the coding in my posting above, also.

Not to mention thanks for the excellent advice.

[Brian_Bunnyhurt]

Ugly,

The Weekly also accused Hatch of lying about the SLTrib takeover attempt involving the LDS church. You call that anti-Mormon? You are misusing the term. Anti-Mormon would be those comments that dispute Mormon claims to their divinity. If your looking for anti-Hatch claims, then maybe the DesNews is anti-Mormon. Ugly, you really went out a limb with this to try to personalize the issue? This whole thread is littered with attempts to discredit me. And I don’t care what you think about anything I wrote, I’m flattered. Call the Weekly and ask them if they are anti-Mormon is you must. Over half of their readers are LDS after a fashion.

Sua,

I agree with you here that Israel should have never been established, which you conveniently didn’t admit earlier in that thread as to not lose your chorus, I suppose. I fear we will have no choice but to gradually depopulate it over generations, there are weapons out there that will undoubtedly change the equation. I say, prepare now before too late. Holy wars with nuclear/biological bombs. I suppose I’m the only one who believes the futility of this scenario, and to dismiss relocation out of hand is futile as well, it only leads to a total dustruction plan, but that was the whole point about defense contractors who fund the Republicans. I happen to know that most Christians could care less what happens to Israeli’s as long as it conforms to scripture, and you completely ignored Vanilla’s post in the last thread which proved my point about people being told by religious leaders about what to think on the issue.

Sua, as an aside: You really didn’t know what I meant in the last posted sentence? Nevermind anyway, I’ll use symbolism from now on since you seem slightly robotic here. Do not use wrenches for hammers, thereby damaging the wrench, and when you strike an anvil, be sure you are doing it safely, with a desire to shape an object, and not for the purpose of smashing the anvil, unless you like to buy new anvils. And, while we’re on the subject, the word “over-wrought” comes to mind. And, Sua, if you go about proving the BoM wrong scripture by scripture, you are missing one of the few strategies available to you, not to mention legitimizing the parts you can’t debunk which happen to lead to autocracy, and you have successfully illustrated my major criticism here of quotational analysis.

By the way Monte, Ugly, or anyone else. Sua and Lemur are atheists walking all over this thread telling you this or that is all way too obvious (the vulture effect, and they never gave a reason, or as they prefer–a quote, and the bragging is astoundingly hypocritical). I would’ve been slightly in their face about it or at least call them on their insult, if you had a shred of dignity about the subject. Too late now, maybe next time. Monte, I used the word “disconnect” to show my dismay. Strange bedfellows. At least I’m an exmo and gave my reasons.

People: I must drive to Vegas for the night and I was supposed to be gone from this thread anyway. I cannot respond until later tomorrow. No cheap shots, please. I know when someone was never trained in philosophy by their ethics, and I reserve the word “poser” for someone that thinks they know how to reason outside of the rules.

[SuaSponte]

In deference to your fear of being quoted, I won’t do that here. To respond to your last post.

1. I didn’t “conveniently forget” to mention my position on Israel in the last thread. As I pointed out to you several times in that thread, we never got to the debate because of your incorrect premises. Personally, I think nothing is more damaging to an argument than when a (partial) ally is spewing out bad facts. It delegitimizes the argument they are trying to make.
   As you may have noted, there is an ongoing debate on this boards right now about Israel’s right to exist. There, the debate is fully engaged, because the two sides are in (general) agreement on the facts, and are now arguing about interpretation of those facts. That’s how a debate should go.

2. I don’t consider myself “over-wrought”. In point of fact, the Israel debate amused the hell out of me. Furthermore, my emotions couldn’t have been engaged because we never got to the issues.

3. Your bit about me and Lemur: I haven’t read Lemur’s posts, but my only comment on the Mormon debate was about the proper role of the debating parties. You challenged my comment and, since it was open to interpretation, I withdrew it. If you consider this acting as a “vulture”, that’s a truly weird POV.

Sua

[vanilla]

Since Stoid asked…
http://www.mrm.org/articles/american-prophet/html.

[vanilla]

Sorry wrong slash. its http://www.mrm.org/articles/american-prophet.html

[Diane]

You are again proof of Mormon ethics.

Really? I haven’t practiced, nor believed in the Mormon religion for almost 25 years. In case you missed it, I stated that I am agnostic/atheist.

I subscribe to City Weekly because I live in Southern Utah. I was signed up as part of an agreement they have with the organization I volunteer for. I am looking at a copy right now. It has my name on the white sticker. My address. a number in the left hand corner (00/12), and a area signifying the stamp which says: PRST STD US Postage PAID Midvale UT, Permit No. 9.

Yeah, so?

As usual Diane, you are the fool here. You typically pretend to know reality so well you can call others liars when it doesn’t fit your views.

At least I am consistent.

Phil didn’t prove anything of the sort that you suggest, everyone knows the song is what it is, it’s like those double drawings they have in psychology texts where you have to think hard to see both images from the same picture, you’re just too close minded to see more than one even both.

Uh noooooo. Either Lennon wrote the song about LSD or he didn’t. As Phil clearing pointed out to you, he did not.

You were raised Mormon? So what? What is your point? The claims I posted earlier stand.

I mention my past and present experience with the Mormon Church just to clarify my position. I was raised a devote Mormon, I am now agnostic/atheist. Simple, huh?

HOWEVER - MY POINT IS (which notice has NOTHING to do with my religious standing), is that you claimed that there are no publications in Utah that prints anti-Mormon material. Another poster pointed out that the City Weekly has published articles critical of Mormon beliefs. You argued that they only publish satire. This is crap. I don’t have this weeks copy here with me now, but I can guaranty you that I will find at least two articles criticizing Mormon beliefs. Would you like to place a wager that I can find two articles?

I can also list additional Utah publications that are critical of the LDS Church, beginning with SLUG (Salt Lake Underground). Just say the word and I will list articles along with publication dates.

My argument with you has nothing to do with religious dogma. My argument with you is with your knee-jerk, hysterical claims that you are not able to back up. I have very strong feelings against the beliefs of the LDS Church, but I will not look the other way when someone makes false claims on either side. You are attempting to make it appear as though the entire State of Utah is forced to live by the teachings of the LDS Church and than the media force feeds the doctrine with bias information. As I pointed out to you, this is crap. If anything, anti-Mormon sediments and publications are more prevalent in Utah simply because as with any dominate organization, there will be conflict between those outside the group.

By the way, nothing anti-Mormon was ever printed in the Weekly, you are sorely mistaken, the paper occasionally covers issues, but overall is extremely neutral as not to offend people like you, which you proved with your two posts.

Proved with my two posts? You really need to obtain some reading comprehension, Junior. Who said said I was offended by by anti-Mormon writings? Hell, I enjoy reading them, especially since I agree with almost everything written as long as it is written fairly instead of the inaccurate, hate filled vitriol that you spew.

But I guess DP Sorensen’s satire really offends you. Who is a dumbass?

I dunno - you?

Over half of their readers are LDS after a fashion.

Prove it.

I happen to know that most Christians could care less what happens to Israeli’s as long as it conforms to scripture

That is a pretty bold statement. I especially like the word “most”. Care to back it up with solid cites?

[Diane]

Whoops. Sorry mods. I had changed my mind about this sentence (my reply bolded) and was going to delete it after I ran spellcheck. I missed it, that is why I didn’t put quotes around BB’s sentence - “DP Sorensen. . . . .”.

Sorry.

But I guess DP Sorensen’s satire really offends you. Who is a dumbass?

I dunno - you?

[Brian_Bunnyhurt]

Diane,

What does SLUG have to do with SLWeekly? Nothing, of course, SLUG is a fanzine for punk music and its lifestyle, anti-Mormonism doesn’t even come to mind here unless your talking screaming rage or parody. Also, Diane, I’m sure you read some of the letters to the editor in SLW that blasted the Weekly when they carefully and gingerly “took sides” over the main street plaza debacle. There were Mormons telling the editors that they were anti-Mormon for not supporting the Mormon church in buying two acres of downtown SLC, city property, to use as a platform to preach during the Olympics. As I told someone else, you are mistaken if you think that they were anti-Mormon for doing so. Also, I neglected to tell you about Tom Green. My point in telling someone to look up Tom Green was simply to establish the marriage age in Utah, since he is currently being tried for impregnating a thirteen year-old, which may have prompted the law change in 1999, as posted here. Okay, you completely misread that one, but don’t bother to admit it. As for Green being Mormon, well, that is another issue. He was raised conventional Mormon in Idaho, and left the mainstream to practice polygamy, as do many Mormons. He is devout about the BoM and the Bible, and JS and BY. I know alot about this issue because I know two members of his extended family. Diane, the thread was about Mormonism, not me, you got sucked into the popular misconception. You want a cite for something? I cited my experienced opinion, get used to it, the media has yet to mine the self-righteous religious prejudices of America (to keep the peace, no doubt), it’s a taboo subject, just like anti-Mormonism in Utah media, and their failure does not disprove my knowledge.

…

Sua,

Fear of being quoted? No, fear of being trolled perhaps, and if I exude fear, it’s partially because I believe the moderators have yet to expel the real criminal. Identity theft was made a federal crime in 1998. But am I complaining? Hardly. As for your amusement on the last thread, please spare me the insult this once. I read your post that expressly disinvited me from any threads on Israel and I won’t bother to quote it, it’s not my style (suffice to say that only toddlers eat their own shit, Sua). In other words, it didn’t smack of amusement, but it did sound insecure. Somebody already spilled the beans to me on you in a private email that by your credentials they fancy you an expert on foreign relations and that says alot here, any reader here knows what I’m talking about, and your hubris does not bode well with the company you keep, mostly pseudo-intellectual hacks that argue with a laugh track. I was amused too until they laughed at sick troll, and one of them even defended the sick troll, and then urged me to seek counseling. Oh, if I had a nickel…

I’ll agree to end this here if you want. But, my last thoughts regard implied assumption. The implied assumption of my Israel thread was that it was a mistake. You agree, but argued against something you call facts, which I never asserted once as part of any assumption or conclusion, except that Israel existed (remember that line?). (Any facts you disagreed with were a defense on my part, not an offense). The rebuttal submitted to me is commonly called a dodge, and the disingenuity of which is carried by your imposing false legalistic restrictions on details you could not disprove, which is a tactic used by desperate attorneys to discredit the witness. We are not trying a case here, we are discussing the solutions to a mistake, and by principle that mistake can be remedied completely or partially, but not overcome by legitimizing it. Two wrongs don’t make a right, as they say.

In philosophy, we use “natural deductive rules” and do not prove deductions of theorems as in geometry, “because we don’t want any rules that will allow us to prove invalid arguments to be valid.” (Introduction to Logic, p. 110, authors already cited here in this thread). As such, we stick with chains of reasoned statements that follow from the assumption to the conclusion. To mistake the assumption is a gross error. My assumption: Israel was a mistake. My conclusion: slow depopulation is an ethical option considering threats to population. One of my reasons: Arabs are not our enemies, no such thing as appeasement if they are not enemies. To label the argument a mistatement of fact is absurd. Harping on Canada’s immigration laws was amusing to say the least, but all is forgiven. One of the reasons we cannot argue why Mormons fail to respond to logic is because we are forced to stick with the validity of Mormonism itself, which is circular. There is my counter-example. There are many viewpoints to consider, but two sides to a functional argument. Get it? We never even concluded that Israel was a mistake in the last thread. So much for trying. Bottom line: You obviously have an intellect to work with, you don’t need to stoop to limiting admission to the clubhouse to prove it, it’s a waste of talent across the board (no pun necessary). See you on another board, perhaps.

People: Personal attacks to debase an argument are phoney and not allowed anywhere near a logic professor, they are only allowed in certain instances of law, under duress, with eyewitness testimony. Many of you should quit watching WWF and stick to Perry Mason.

[SuaSponte]

*Originally posted by Brian Bunnyhurt *
Sua,

Fear of being quoted? No, fear of being trolled perhaps, and if I exude fear, it’s partially because I believe the moderators have yet to expel the real criminal. Identity theft was made a federal crime in 1998. But am I complaining? Hardly.

If you think I am a troll, please email the moderators and administrators with your allegations. As two moderators have met me IRL, I suspect they will chuckle, but that is their call. In any event, publicly accusing another poster of being a troll is a violation of SDMB policy.

As for your amusement on the last thread, please spare me the insult this once. I read your post that expressly disinvited me from any threads on Israel and I won’t bother to quote it, it’s not my style (suffice to say that only toddlers eat their own shit, Sua).

Ya know, I warned you about this. This is a computer message board. Thus, everything you and I write is in the public record, and can be accessed. Thus, I can prove that your allegation that I disinvited you from any threads on Israel is a lie. My exact words are as follows (it’s called cutting-and-pasting):

Mr. Bunnyhurt there is a legitimate debate about Israel’s right to exist, which has been fought out repeatedly on this board. You aren’t making that debate. I ask that, the next time you plan to start a thread chock-full of citationless and completely wrong “facts”, you do us all a favor and start it in the Pit, where we can flame your idiocy properly.

Sua

On a personal note, I would like to state for the record that I didn’t eat my own shit as a toddler. I knew a kid down the block who did, but we all thought he was weird.

In other words, it didn’t smack of amusement, but it did sound insecure.

Please see above.

Somebody already spilled the beans to me on you in a private email that by your credentials they fancy you an expert on foreign relations and that says alot here, any reader here knows what I’m talking about, and your hubris does not bode well with the company you keep, mostly pseudo-intellectual hacks that argue with a laugh track.

I too read the email (the author cc’d me). The email did not identify me as an expert on foreign relations, but instead someone who had studied them. Let me ask, what are your credentials?

I was amused too until they laughed at sick troll, and one of them even defended the sick troll, and then urged me to seek counseling. Oh, if I had a nickel…

Can’t speak for anyone else, but I didn’t laugh at that troll, and, if you may recall, specifically apologized to you after realizing what the troll had done. Of course, that is another inconvenient fact, isn’t it?

The implied assumption of my Israel thread was that it was a mistake. You agree, but argued against something you call facts, which I never asserted once as part of any assumption or conclusion, except that Israel existed (remember that line?).

I didn’t argue against facts; instead I argued for facts.

Brian, don’t you understand? You will be a much more forceful advocate of your positions if you base your positions in the truth.

The rebuttal submitted to me is commonly called a dodge

For the umpteenth time, we never got to the merits of your position in the Israel thread, because we could never get to the facts. I for one never rebutted your position - I never responded to it.

and the disingenuity of which is carried by your imposing false legalistic restrictions on details you could not disprove, which is a tactic used by desperate attorneys to discredit the witness.

Um, actually, no. It is the burden of the party asserting a fact, whether in the courtroom or in the debate chamber, to support that fact if it is challenged. You are the one who stated that the majority of Christians wish for an early Armageddon. You are the one who asserted that Israelis are fleeing Israel as soon as they can get the money together. You are the one who asserted that U.S. support for Israel is based solely upon Christian fundamentalists. I and others not only challenged these assertions, but refuted them.

In philosophy, we use “natural deductive rules” and do not prove deductions of theorems as in geometry, “because we don’t want any rules that will allow us to prove invalid arguments to be valid.” (Introduction to Logic, p. 110, authors already cited here in this thread). As such, we stick with chains of reasoned statements that follow from the assumption to the conclusion. To mistake the assumption is a gross error. My assumption: Israel was a mistake. My conclusion: slow depopulation is an ethical option considering threats to population. One of my reasons: Arabs are not our enemies, no such thing as appeasement if they are not enemies. To label the argument a mistatement of fact is absurd.

1. As for the one reason you give here - Arabs are not our enemies - in the original thread you actually argued that Arabs are our enemies because of our mistaken support of Israel. I rebutted this by pointing out that most Arab countries are our allies, e.g., Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Bahrain, Egypt (others I didn’t mention in the original thread are: Morocco, the UAE, and Oman).
2. You neglect to point out here that you had other reasons - Christian fundamental zealotry, the price of oil, the desire of Israelis to flee, etc., etc.
3. All of these allegations were proven false by myself and others. In contrast to you, we provided citations to authority in proving them false.
4. Apply your philosophical mind to this - if the facts that lead you to your assumption are false, does it not then logically follow that your assumption is either false or, at the least, must be reassessed in order to base it on correct facts?

Harping on Canada’s immigration laws was amusing to say the least, but all is forgiven.

Once again sir, you forget yourself. You raised the issue of Canadian immigration on the thread. We refuted you. If Canadian immigration laws were not relevant to the discussion, why did you raise them?

We never even concluded that Israel was a mistake in the last thread. So much for trying.

Again, we never got to the debate.
A more general point: say that you believe that abortion should be legal. Say someone comes to you and says he agrees. You ask him why, and he responds that the voices in his head told them that women have a right to choose. Do you want this person as your ally?
This is hyperbole, and I’m not accusing you of hearing voices. The point is that the potential ally supports your position because of wrong facts. He is an embarassment to your cause, and will cause more damage to your cause than benefit. This is the case with your incorrect beliefs about the reason for the existence of Israel, Israeli emigration, etc.

Bottom line: You obviously have an intellect to work with, you don’t need to stoop to limiting admission to the clubhouse to prove it, it’s a waste of talent across the board (no pun necessary). See you on another board, perhaps.

Not limiting admission to this board - I don’t have that power, and I wouldn’t use it if I had it. My intellect and talent are for the people who read my opinions on this board to judge.

People: Personal attacks to debase an argument are phoney and not allowed anywhere near a logic professor, they are only allowed in certain instances of law, under duress, with eyewitness testimony. Many of you should quit watching WWF and stick to Perry Mason.

The hypocrisy about personal attacks is obvious (not to mention the toddler shit-eating episode above), and needs no comment.
As for the legal analysis you provided concerning the admission of evidence, I, as an attorney, can only say – “Huh?”

[PublicBlast]

Yikes–the debate has turned ugly!

[hijack]I’m interested in hearing from people who have left Mormonism and what their current spiritual beliefs are like. Anyone who wants to share please check out the following thread:

http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?threadid=57839

Please note: I am Mormon myself but do not want the new thread to be 1) a debate or 2) a proselyting forum. I’m just curious to hear what sorts of things former Mormons believe in. Pardon my hijack: back to the ad hominem, please. [/hijack]

[vanilla]

Brian, I think its time to give it up.
The posters can go to the Mormon Research Ministry site and also the All ABout Mormonism site and read them both and decide for themselves.
You are Not helping your case, you are in fact, hurting it here.

BTW, I was accused of being a troll, wrongly.
So was the poster who accused me told they were violating SDMB rules?

[Diane]

Brian, the more you post, the more obvious it is that you lack general reading comprehension. You wrote the following, remember? -

As for generalizations, I would prefer to quote statistics on Mormons, but nobody is allowed to publish these in Utah. Utah is run by Mormons.

To which Andros responded:

False. Never read the City Weekly, huh?

You then went on with some drivel:

I subscribe to the City Weekly and have yet to read one article critical of Mormon beliefs or origins, (not even one, not ever). You may be confusing occasional satire of people owning two minivans or jokes about minimum wagers and union members automatically voting Republican as being critical of Mormonism.

Andros, RJKUgly, and myself all pointed out to you that the City Weekly does in fact "quote statistics on Mormonism" (your words). They have on numerous occasion published articles that speak out against the church and its teachings. As shown above, you claimed that “NOBODY IS ALLOWED TO PUBLISH THESE IN UTAH.”, to which I reply - BULLSHIT! Not only does the City Weekly publish these types of articles, SLUG and numerous other publications do as well. I can also assure you that hundreds of books speaking out against the Mormon Church have been written, printed, and sold here in the State of Utah. You are making things up and twisting facts in an attempt to give your hatred justification.

Sorry, some of us know better.

Don’t tell me that I am closed minded and unwilling to see the Mormon Church for what it is. I’ll explain it again since you had such a hard time grasping it the first two times. I am an agnostic/atheist. I am not defending Mormon doctrine at all. I have very strong feelings against its teachings. However, you are making things up just to spread hate. The only thing you are accomplishing is confirming your ignorance, your bigotry, and your stupidity.

You really should stop.

[Brian_Bunnyhurt]

*Originally posted by SuaSponte *
**As I’ve noted before, there is a legitimate debate about Israel’s right to exist, and I would be glad to debate the issue with you.

But not in this thread. For the sake of your own argument, and for the hope that we could have one free of the taint of Bunnyhurt, I suggest you start a new thread on the subject. I’ll see you in there.

Sua **

What was that ornate denial that you disinvited me? Oh yeah, something about computers. Yes, Sua, you don’t have the power, but I don’t engage in debates or conversations with unwilling partners.

Also, Sua, I didn’t say you ate shit as a toddler, obviously, it was a metaphor, again, obviously, I hope you at least get beyond literalism if nothing else occurs in your life. Submission of evidence? Please do tell, in fact, I was hoping you would admit to being an attorney and better expose your credo of winning at all costs, even if it goes against a mutually shared implied assumption! See, Sua, I know as well as you do that an attorney isn’t there to find the best truth to an argument, an interest of mine, but to do a job of winning for a client at any cost. That’s why few people like attorneys unless they really need one. By the way, my credentials are that I am an atheist, which is the best personal reason to argue against taking sides in a holy war. Both of your credentials are a liability here, one for trying to protect your investment that Israel exist forever to give you an excuse to ply your expertise, and the other, that as an attorney you try to win your investment at any cost.

Also, you didn’t once refute the fact that Israeli’s emigrate to you-know-where, you dropped your claim that net immigration from all points constituted a denial of zero emigration. Again, I don’t buy into the idea of making religious enemies of oil allies, oh, but you can identify who is the enemy and who is not on a map! That was an oversimplification if there ever was one. Whole nations or dictator governments are the enemies of WHO now? My other point was that the US and Israel are the original aggressor here, and finding enemies on a map tell me that you lack foresight in preventing war, or even waging one, and perhaps a total meltdown of the world economy once an atomic bomb threatens Israel, which is a scenario that you must’ve disimagined in order to believe you refuted everything else. Native wisdom from nowhere: try to rescue your friends before the giant pot they are sitting in boils. Sua, it was fun at times, but the troll thing really bothered me. You are not the troll, quit suggesting I even implied it. But you know who is, why don’t you email the moderators as per your own suggestion.

[Brian_Bunnyhurt]

Diane,

Please feel free to quote anything critical of Mormon beliefs or origins from the SLWeekly. STOP. Otherwise, you should stop. STOP. I’m still curious as to what your driving at. STOP. What is the connection here? STOP.

[Diane]

Brian, either you are feigning ignorance, lying, or truly are incapable of comprehending simple words.

AGAIN -

You said:

As for generalizations, I would prefer to quote statistics on Mormons, but nobody is allowed to publish these in Utah. Utah is run by Mormons.

THAT IS BULLSHIT!

There have been MANY articles in magazines, newspapers, and other publications, not to mention books written, published, and sold in the State of Utah that not only speak out against the Mormon Church, but actually divulge some of its guarded secrets. Are you familiar with the book Secret Ceremonies (Deborah Laake) written, published, and sold in Utah? Are you familiar with the Tanners? Have you ever actually read the City Weekly?

Either admit that your statement quoted above is false, or prove it with legitimate cites. Until then, I will continue to believe that your “facts” are nothing more than hate driven fabrications.

[Brian_Bunnyhurt]

Books, of course, those can be published by small Christian presses, even in Utah, but we are talking news forums that can be accessed by Mormons (and even the book printing side is tricky, try distributing an anti-Mormon book in Utah). Articles, stories and statistics negating Mormonism and its beliefs or even common practices are absolutely censored, or underground if at all. And Diane, from one fellow SLUG reader to another, you are really stretching SLUG’s importance here, its just a fanzine with Mormon anecdotes. And you want to me to reverse myself on what evidence to do with SLUG or SLWeekly? Quote anything that argues against believing in Mormonism.

Here is the real story, published in SLTribune AFTER it was published in the Wall St. Journal and New York Times: It involved a request by Mormon church leader GBHinckley for the publisher of the Tribune to attend Hinckley’s office (read: browbeating). Hinckley said to him and others, and I’m recalling as one who read all three articles, that he was “very disappointed with recent stories about Mt. Meadows and POLYGAMY” which were published in the Tribune. That’s apparently all he wanted to say, besides get an explanation, which is disgusting to me. Okay, let’s all recall that these were stories that detailed an old Mormon massacre at Mt. Meadows (where 120 men, women and children were murdered by Mormons) and a news series that REPORTED TENDENCIES (not OFFICIAL STATISTICS) on POLYGAMOUS MISDEEDS, such as beatings, abuses, welfare fraud (NO STATISTICS WERE CITED, other than speculations by experts). Anyway, Hinckley had a major problem with it, and now the Tribune is fighting for its life over ownership due to LDS church meddling and Mormon judges who decide the case. If any Mormons need a cite over this case, I would suggest they search the Trib database because the stories on this takeover issue number over a dozen and it is common knowledge.

Anyway, Diane, my point is the same as made above. SLWeekly is so mealy-mouth boring and toady on Mormonism that I read the ads more than the articles. Please, let’s be realistic here for the sake of non-Utah readers who actually may believe that SLWeekly is anti-Mormon (which is a Mormon way of saying they disagree with their moderate stance). Also, I despise your suggestion that I am a liar about subscribing to the Weekly, cheeky does not even describe it. If you want to call somebody a liar about something you don’t know, you better learn to apologize real fast. All is forgiven. I don’t hate any Mormons. I am here for altruistic reasons, not to convince myself that I’m right about Mormonism.

Here is what I really hate about Mormonism, reprinted in 1999 in UTAH!

"Racial degeneration, resulting in differences in appearance and spiritual aptitude, has arisen since the fall. We know the circumstances under which the posterity of Cain (and later of Ham) were born with the characteristics of the black race. (Moses 5:16-41; 7:8,12,22; Abra. 1:20-27.) The Book of Mormon explains why the Lamanites received dark skins and a degenerate status. (2 Ne. 5:21-23.) If we had a full and true history of all races and nations, we would know the origins of all their distinctive characteristics. In the absence of such detailed information, however, we know only the general principle that all these changes from the physical and spiritual perfections of our common parents have been brought about by departure from the gospel truths. (Doctrines of Salvation, vol. 1, pp. 148-151; vol. 3, pp. 313-326.)

VOMIT! SPIT! SPASM! WRETCH! There, I got it all out.

[Diane]

Please, let’s be realistic here for the sake of non-Utah readers who actually may believe that SLWeekly is anti-Mormon (which is a Mormon way of saying they disagree with their moderate stance).

Ya know Brian, it was YOU who said THIS EXACT STATEMENT:

As for generalizations, I would prefer to quote statistics on Mormons, but nobody is allowed to publish these in Utah.

I’m just calling you on it and until you stop back peddling and actually prove it with verifiable cites, I will continue to think you are talking out your ass.

Prove your claim that no one in Utah is allowed to publish anything that speaks out against the LDS Church. Let me save you some time - You can’t.

[emarkp]

Fascinating. I’d like a moderator to tell me that or someone point to a URL containing the rules of the forum.

And vanilla, I still haven’t seen a response to my question. Why is it that you demand an answer to your questions, and when I answer them you don’t answer mine?

Still waiting…

[Snark_Hunter]

Brian, I happen to be familiar with the religious sections of two Utah libraries (Provo’s and Orem’s). Although it’s true that these libraries have a lot of pro-LDS books, they also possess a number of anti-LDS books. Mind you, this is in PROVO and OREM, two sister-cities 45 miles south of SLC where the concentration of LDS people is about 90% of the population. You can find about any anti-LDS book that is in existence by perusing their shelves. So in that particular alone, you’re assertion that Utah is completely censored by the LDS is incorrect.

[Snark_Hunter]

Oops, that should read “your assertion,” not “you’re assertion.”