This is not about books and libraries, this is about something very different. I suppose you could say that since there is an ant-Mormon bookstore in Utah, that is sufficient. It is not, my posts are accurate regarding censorship in Utah, refute the LDS involvment in the Trib’s woes if you must. Good luck.
Diane,
You are fishing here. I hope most people can see it, it is tiresome to argue it, and it is a disagreement along subjective lines. But, the point stands, nothing in SLWeekly disputes Mormonism. Please point it out yourself, not in some post of mine. Diane, if you read SLUG and are agnostic, how come we’re not friends?
emarkp,
I am confused on the first part of your post. But…
Sua,
I retract the statement that you know who the troll is. It seems likely that even though they did it to impress you, you may be oblivious to it. Sorry. Humblest apologies.
People: my main criticism of these types of Mormon arguments is that they prefer to quibble over irrelevant things such as in the last few posts, and no, I am not dodging the issue here, just trying to correct it. Please, try to imagine a world where an argument flows along its points and intentions or whatever it is you prefer to call it. I’m sure I’m not the only one here that sees the futility of the dogmatic style being waged here. Read Plato if you must. And, if you are going to quibble about technicalities, then you’d better get a book and read up on fallacies. Ad hominem is a fallacy, it means discrediting the person instead of their assertion, as in (hypothetically): “Your assertion that the lottery is unethical is meaningless, you’re just jealous because you never win.” Thanks again.
Just so we’re clear on this issue, we disagree over what constitutes anti-Mormon, AND what constitutes censorship. Those same libraries practice censorship on many, many levels (and all floors too), and my library keeps most “controversial” Mormon stuff (history, of course) in locked cages safe from defacatory predators, and doesn’t seem to care that people deface The Humanist magazine for sport. UNRELATED Question: Didn’t the wife of the mayor of Provo, who originated the ban on the once-in-a-lifetime viewing of those travelling Rodin statues at BYU, work/manage/direct at the Provo library? I’m just asking. Maybe, maybe not. (Phew! What a waste of time to over-qualify every damn sentence, the demand for which is evidence of paranoia, anal-retention, trauma, and/or desperation, and I’m probably the one of the few people here that can write symbolic logic.) Nevermind. That was just me talking to myself. But, then again, freely quote me, it just means you don’t have a counter-argument against the main argument (ie, nothing better to do).
Actually, my comment was in the “For What It’s Worth” category of response. To refute an argument–let’s say, one that claims in a sweeping generalization that the LDS have absolute control over the media in Utah–one need only point out one particular instance in which this statement is shown to be false. If you’re going to say, “There is some censorship in Utah,” fine, but there’s a difference between some censorship and total censorship. And I doubt you can find a state where religious groups do not have the ability to censor, at least to some extent, what is in the media.
I know nothing about the SL Tribune’s “woes,” so cannot comment on that.
And I’d like to know about this new sect called “ant-Mormons.” Are they similar to the “beetle-Mormons”?
Just FTR, the reason that no news source, anywhere in the US, prints hard statistics on polygamy, in Utah or elsewhere, is simply that there are no hard statistics on polygamy. No sociological or ethnographic studies have determined frequency or incidence of polygamy anywhere in the US. And self-report is, of course, notoriously unreliable.
Why doesn’t the Trib print the facts of polygamy? Possibly because of pro-LDS sentiment, possibly because of fear of church retribution, possiby because the 400,000 non-Mormons in the Valley are secretly pro-LDS. But first and foremost, it’s because there simply are no facts to report.
Brian, you claim that the City Weekly is pro-LDS, yes? Now, I know that they have published articles and columns extremely critical of the Church, the Governemnt, church influence in the Governement, and the “Mormon mafia.” You apparantly believe they have not done so. Here’s the question then: Is there any way to change you mind on this? That is, is there any amount of evidence, any at all, that will convince you that the CW is not supportive or compimentary of the LDS church?
See, the reason I ask is that I have some excerpts from CW articles I could post, but if you’re going to just dismiss them out of hand, I have better things to do with my time.
Listen (read) carefully, no periodical information source that uses reporters that I know of who or who publishes a periodical in Utah can get away with printing anything opposed to the tenets or practices of Mormonism, including the Trib. This means that if someone could extrapolate a statistic on Mormon suicides, child-abuse, or IQ, it would NOT be published in Utah, BECAUSE THEY WOULD LOSE SUBSCRIPTIONS, obviously, and no the publishers aren’t evil. By the way, the Arizona Republic publishes all stories that are too hot for Utah, including the famous story on Mormon church amassed wealth. Even the Trib didn’t reprint it (they share presses with the DesNews). Also, it was ANOTHER out of state paper, I FORGET WHICH ONE, that REPORTED that Mormon General Authorities worked as Board Directors for corporations, NOT THE TRIB OR SLWEEKLY! Now, ask yourself: Why is my point so disturbing to you? SLUG magazine is NOTHING as far as news is concerned. What are you driving at? I’m getting fairly annoyed. Why don’t you check my spelling instead?
Please feel free to post any Weekly excerpts, or links, that dispute the divine claims of Mormonism or categorically disputes any perceived positive effects Mormonism has, excluding letters to the editor. (BTW, I read the T. Nibley article, he is a Mormon, and he carefully, walking on eggshells, wondered why Mormons think they can’t vote Democrat BUT never disputed Mormonism, if that is what you had in mind). Lets see if the Weekly can help talk anyone out of Mormonism or substantiate my claims that it is false and corrupting. And all you Mormons, please freely point out how threatened you are by the info which goes out to tens of thousands of devout Mormons weekly. I imagine this is a set-up, but I will endure. Remember Andros, try to stick to anti-Mormonism, not parody of, and I already think you and I disagree with the definition of anti-Mormonism too. By the way, Andros, it is your option, I am not forcing you, since you are busy, you guys obviously need a win on this point, and hell, I could use the info for my next post.
Oh god, Diane, you can’t prove something doesn’t exist for Christsakes. I see the problem now. Okay, let’s say I can prove that I would prefer to quote stats on Mormons and how detrimental they are to society. Hmmm. Sorry, can’t find any pro or con. By the way, the Hinckster is fond of pulling out a little ditty from a California newspaper that a Mormon EDITS, yes, edits, and it said, according to him on Larry King Live, that according to a “study” in California, Mormon high-priests live an average of eleven years longer than the average population. Guess what? That study mimicked a national study that also said that wealthy people live an average of eleven years longer. BING! California? High-priests? It seems suspicious they would bother limiting their own study to CA HP’s. Diane, we disagree. Learn to live with it. Call me a liar, I don’t care. This is a waste of bandwidth. Even some Mormons might agree. I made thousands of statements in this thread, and you want to tell me that this is the most important to you and you don’t want to rush out and make your point? Andros will save you, perhaps. But I’m wearing down on this point from boredom!
Brian, once again, I am not a Mormon. I have never been.
Here’s the difficulty. Let me see if I understand you fully.
I (and others) claim that the City Weekly does not actively support the LDS Church. However, that’s not enough for you. You don’t want them to be neutral or mildly critical, you want them to actively oppose the Church with the same vehemence you do. If they fall short of total denial of and direct opposition to the Church, they have, in your mind, failed.
May I suggest that the next time you start tossing around wild stories you stop and think about what it is you really want to say and how you plan to back up the things you claim, especially if you present them as fact.
What’s wrong with the Weekly being neutral? Is that what we’re discussing? Did you know that the SLWeekly once ran an editorial that I consider to be pro-Mormon and accused most detractors of “Mormon-bashing.” If I bothered to save them, I might have spent an good hour or so looking it up, but that would not have proved anything. Not a thing. It’s too subjective of a call. I say potato, you say potata.
And while we’re on the subject, people, I am not “anti-Mormons” but anti-Mormonism. If any of you doubt my sincerity in helping you along in life, my being here is proof, but don’t take my word for it, just imagine yourself mellowing out on thinking you can ethically assert or prove all of Mormonism if nothing else (it does openly support the right of kings, you know, a minor quibble). I don’t get paid to do this. I think you are good people, but the dogma is insane to me and I think it causes most people to become nervous wrecks, and the calm ones get weird too. That is an opinion, as is so much about religion. I take issue with religious freedom when that freedom is abused as in fake charity and claims to be the only true church, which attempts to deny me or anyone else freedom to dispute it openly, ask any devout Christian in Utah if they are tolerated for openly not thinking Mormonism is “true” to someone’s face. I’ve heard many bad stories, even people losing their job for converting from Mormonism to Protestantism. I live in a community that if it was any further to the right of where it is now, I would be in jeopardy of bodily harm, and I don’t want your sympathy, I just want you to consider the evidence and assumptions that Mormonism leads you to make on a daily basis as per conservatism and other philosophies. If you want to be a Mormon, fine, but let others freely leave without any social stigma or backlash. And we all know what I’m talking about. Andros, you are sounding more rational to me.
Nice try, Brian!! I applaud you. However, there are two problems. First, may note that this wouldn’t addressed to you, but to foolsguinea. So it wasn’t inviting you or disinviting you anywhere. Second, and more importantly, this occurred after you had announced that you were abandoning the thread.. So again, it wasn’t directed at you. If anything, I was “disinviting” foolsguinea.
Speaking of literalism. :rolleyes: Next time, I will place smilies next to my jokes.
I don’t have a client here;
I’ve already explained that having an ally who bases his/her position on bad facts is a liability, not an asset;
You can’t get to truth without truthful facts.
Any attorney who tries to win at any cost soon finds him/herself disbarred. So, we don’t try - we play within the rules.
Being an atheist may be a good reason for not taking sides in a holy war, but being an atheist doesn’t mean you can recognize what is and what isn’t a holy war.
I assume you mean my first credential is my degree in international relations. The existence of Israel is pretty much irrelevant to that degree - my concentration was U.S. post-WWII relations with the Third World. Israel was part of my studies, but if Israel didn’t exist, I’d still have approximately 5 billion people to study.
Further, as I no longer am studying for that degree, I no longer have an “investment”.
Whaa? Read the thread again. You stated that Israelis are fleeing as fast as they could get the money together. I (actually I think it was Freedom2 first, refuted that, with a citation and a link.
Whaa? redux. You said Arabs countries are our enemies. I said that most Arab countries are our allies.
Actually, I don’t remember you saying that on the original thread. Glad you didn’t; I would have been forced to point out to you that, in 1948, the U.N. split Palestine into Jewish and Arab areas. The Arabs refused to accept this, and the Arabs attacked first. I would have been further forced to point out to you that the U.S. has never been in a war involving Israel, and, in fact, forced Israel (along with Britain and France) to withdraw in 1956 when they attacked Egypt.
How are the two related?
If you are talking about novoicemorereasonable, he is already banned. If you are saying that I know who he is IRL, you are wrong. In any event, I do believe that you were accusing me of being a troll. As I’ve already quoted you saying:
As you later explicitly discuss NVMR, I believe that you were talking about two different trolls. Since the comment was addressed to me, I believe that you were talking about me.
You deny this now; unfortunately, your habit of denying you said many things in your time on this board makes your denial less than credible.
Forget about the City Weekly or any other specific source. I am just asking you to back up your claim with fact. How much simpler can I say that?
How are they forbidden to publish statistics on Mormons? Does the bishop hire someone to break their legs? Do they bomb their would-be author’s houses with lime jello? WHAT? How are they not allowed?
I maintain that the City Weekly does not actively support the LDS Church. However, it seems that’s not enough for you. You don’t want them to be neutral or mildly critical, you want them to actively oppose the Church with the same vehemence you do. If they fall short of total denial of and direct opposition to the Church, or if they ever publish anything in support of the Church or anything it does, they have, in your mind, failed.
Yes, the Bishops send out angels to erase the quotes and stats in all newspapers, one by one. Is that what you want to hear? Goooood.
Sua,
For someone that loves facts, you make them up as “fast as you can.” I don’t recall saying that people move out of anywhere “as fast as they can,” and you have always included convenient extra phrases and words (remember “Rampant” persecution?) to make your reply look saner than it is, when it is a bluff attempt to smokescreen your over-wroughtness. I see now that you wanted the discussion to be a FACT FEST where you would come off looking so good. Well, it wasn’t and you huffed and puffed and whipped up a frenzy over a radical idea based on saving money which apparently helped to inspire a troll to put down the debate by seeking attention. By the way, dismantling Israel might save money and the world, but you never once complained about the economic or preventive reasons against my proposal. Why? Oh, you say you have a valid reason, but I’m certain because it didn’t involve FACTS that you could quote. Congratulations for not convinincing me or anyone else you chased off.
Let me get this straight–it was not a “disinvite” because you were talking to someone else? Sir, you have become completely strange on this point–it was for everyone to read–REMEMBER? So, can anyone now say, NOTHING they said mattered if they weren’t talking to you? I think not. By the way, the best credentials for this debate is objectivity, which you easily sacrifice, proven by the disinvite. Well, I guess I should finish my comments on this subject by insisting that the US supports Israel in war because we once sent F-4’s over straight from US airbases when they were almost defeated. Dispute it if you must, maybe my sources were printed by radicals, but I didn’t want anyone to swallow your hints that we are neutral here. I think you have concluded that your reputation depends on it. In several posts I adamantly decried ruining our goodwill with Arabs/Muslims and asking people if Arabs are to be opposed for a reason. You say they are mostly our friends. Fine. I disagree. I must retire for the day. Thanks for responding.
1c) I also have registered as a Republican in my voting district.
1d) I voted for Al Gore’s slate of Electors in the last election.
1e) I did not, at any time, think Gore was the Republican candidate.
2a) You posted:
2b) A few posters, and a couple of non-Mormons among them, have proven this statement to be {okay, I’ll be charitable here} inaccurate.
2c) You continue to assert that “nobody is allowed to publish [those statistics] in Utah” and “Utah is run by Mormons.”
2d) Utah is governed by (1) the Constitution of the United States of America, and (2) the Constitution of the State of Utah.
2e) There is no gag order violating those constitutions.
2f) There is at least one vocal anti-mormon outfit, run by the Tanners, IN UTAH! They publish IN UTAH! Their stuff is read IN UTAH! The constitutions cited above PERMIT THEM TO PUBLISH THEIR STUFF IN UTAH!
You assail others for not following your mystical rules of logic, yet you are so far away from Logic as to be in another universe.
I maintain that the City Weekly does not actively support the LDS Church. However, it seems that’s not enough for you. You don’t want them to be neutral or mildly critical, you want them to actively oppose the Church with the same vehemence you do. If they fall short of total denial of and direct opposition to the Church, or if they ever publish anything in support of the Church or anything it does, they have, in your mind, failed.
