No, that’s not what I want to hear.
What I want to hear is solid proof to back your claim or else an admittance that you lied.
Simple, eh?
Heres two interesting links:
http://www.exmormon.org/disease.htm
A woman who says she was fired for being Non Mormon http://exmormon.org/larson1.htm
Diane,
You read SLUG but you ask me to prove that Utah is conglomerated by the Mormons. That is laughable, the SLUG is called SLUG because it claims to be SL’s UnderGround. Diane, here’s your dilemma: If the SLUG is proof of your case that Mormonism is exposed in Utah, then I made my point, if the SLUG is just a fanzine that a guy named JR from the band “The JackMormons” used to help publish, then I made my point. Mormonism is NOT openly discussed in news forums and editorials in the negative across the state and I already explained that the Hinckster browbeats the Trib and is party to its slow death. The Trib, of course, was originally founded as an anti-Mormon paper, back when the word had meaning, back when Mormons actually were hapless immigrants who worshipped Brigham Young and made him a millionaire by somehow not knowing that they were no longer expected to behave this way (feudal-religiously) in America. Not anymore. The Trib is in bed with the DesNews and now the DesNews wants to enslave it for good. See links below.
Earth to Diane: you have never proved anything here, and your argument is worthless. You called me a liar, never apologized, and I am still talking to you. You can’t bury your tiny hatchet in my head, Diane, and you know what? I’m thinking you’re a Mormon and maybe you are lying. The hormone level here is way to high.
Et tu, Monty?
Here is your dilemma: You boldly claim that Utah Lighthouse Ministry, run by the Tanners, is evidence of non-censorship. Well, you stepped in fresh turds here. You didn’t hear about the lawsuit the LDS church brought against the Tanners last year for publishing a link to the secretive Bishop’s handbook online? (The fifth standard work in progress). Well, let me refresh your convenient memory. The Tanners were overwhelmed by the lawsuit, which strange enough was not brought against the Tribune for publishing the same link. The internet community and associated free-speech organizations were alarmed and sided with the Tanners in briefs. The lawsuit was brought about to bankrupt the Tanners and may have done so, they settled out of court and it cost somebody some big undisclosed bucks. Glad you raised the issue. Best to be open minded or the act of censorship was already acheived by getting any of you to beleive it doesn’t happen. Here is the link to Sandra Tanner’s summary of abusive events that made them fight for their lives against the LDS church in court:
http://www.utlm.org/underthecoveroflight/sandratannersstatement.htm
Here are the links to the Tribune archives to search for all the nasty articles about the Tribune defending itself from LDS church hostilities as per their recent sale from AT&T, which acquired the Trib from TCI, and was supposed to be sold back to the Trib within a five year option, but a Mormon judge ruled against the Trib. The Trib is in danger of losing its right to editorial freedom and was purchased by a Denver firm in cahoots with the LDS church. THIS IS YOUR PROOF PEOPLE! By the way, Orrin Hatch secretly arranged with AT&T to secretly SELL the Trib to the LDS church, and denied it, he was caught lying. Read all about it. AT&T chairman claims he and the board were “pressured” by Hatch because of his powerful position on the Senate committee that okays mergers. Score one for me. It’s a big game going on out there, and you all sit here on your asses and deny it. For shame. Here are a few articles from about thirty:
http://www.sltrib.com/2001/jan/01192001/utah/63869.htm
http://www.sltrib.com/2001/jan/01042001/utah/59404.htm
http://www.sltrib.com/2000/dec/12312000/commenta/58396.htm
http://www.sltrib.com/2000/dec/12122000/utah/53033.htm
http://www.sltrib.com/2000/dec/12082000/utah/51667.htm
http://www.sltrib.com/2000/dec/12062000/utah/51059.htm
http://www.sltrib.com/2000/oct/10072000/utah/30896.htm
By the way, for amusement, here is a odd link to a an article about tithing being mandatory, from an old argument here, with an amusing tithing calculator. Enjoy. (scroll to bottom of page for the articles).
http://users.sisna.com/wsimister/index.html
Are we done yet? This thread is over if all we are discussing is LDS church hegemony. It is real, get over it. I am wasting my time if I am arguing with people who are not Mormons. I hereby serve notice that I will no longer discuss this issue with people who claim they are objective (never or non-Mo’s) but are obviously biased against me and for the Mormon empire. If a sincere question arises, I reserve the right to return, but this is getting too stupid for me. Good day.
Blah blah blah
How many times must I remind you that we are NOT referring to one or two publications? :::sigh:::
You can run around in circles with specific statements about the City Weekly and SLUG. You can continue to type your little fingers off with information that doesn’t come close to proving anything. You can not back up your words with credible cites because there is no such thing as Mormon censorship in Utah.
Period!
Got it?
Your statement was nothing more than a fabrication you created in order to make your hatred for the LDS Church seem justified. Sorry, those of us who know better aren’t buying it.
FYI - No, I am not LDS. In fact, I have very strong feelings against the teachings. As hard as it may be for you to understand, just because I called you on a flat-out blatant lie against the Mormon Church doesn’t mean I follow the faith. If someone were make a claim that homosexuals are purple and I were to correct them, would it make me gay? Don’t think so.
Got you, Diane. You just sacrificed your objectivity with above lame comment. Bye Bye.
Next time don’t let your mouth write checks your ass can’t cash, M’Kay?
Bu-Bye to you too, Sweets.
Apparently that’s not what she asked. First thing that happened was that you asserted that NOBODY in Utah is “permitted to publish” something. She merely requested you prove that assertion. You failed to do so.
Are you here saying that your assertion is false?
Reality Check shows: (a) Diane asked for you to prove YOUR assertion. You now say that SLUG proves the opposite assertion.
Nope. It doesn’t matter a whit BY WHOM or HOW OFTEN something is published critical of the LDS. Once is all it takes to disprove your assertion that it is not permitted.
You aren’t seriously expecting anyone here to believe that nobody in the entire state of Utah either posts on the web or reads posts on the web critical of the LDS church?
Nope. You posted a rant, and an incorrect one at that.
Aren’t you anti-Mormon? Doesn’t the word have meaning in describing you? Aren’t you alive now?
How about a better description: “back when Mormons were persecuted because of their religion.”
Mormons back in Young’s day worshipped God, not Brigham Young, and today they continue to worship God, not any of the church leaders.
You said it, now prove it.
Your first fallacy in this extract is that you think you’re speaking from an Earth-bound viewpoint. The second fallacy is that Diane has very ably proven that you are familiar neither with the truth nor logic. The third fallacy is that her argument (and try to remember, TRY TRY TRY TO REMEMBER {great, I’m channelling Jefferson Starship}, that she’s not a Mormon!) is valid, as those terms are used in logic.
Apparently she feels that one has no need to apologize for the truth. As it is, you’re not “talking to” anyone (except maybe to yourself); you’re “ranting at” folks.
Good one! Someone disagrees with your assertion so they’re obviously a member of the group you’ve attacked. Bluii, we’ve missed you for so long!
This has no bearing on anything other than to show your bigotry is not limited merely to Mormons.
- I hail from Germany, not Rome.
- Brutus was Caeser’s friend.
- I am not the friend of atrocious bigots.
I have no dilemma. Well, maybe one in that I freely admit, and have so done on this board, that I do not discount the possibility that, as a believer, I am willfully deluding myself in that belief.
“Calmly pointed out” is the correct description.
Nope. I pointed out that they do, in fact, publish material critical of the LDS church and that they do, in fact, publish same in Utah. These two proven facts counter your unsupported assertion that nobody is allowed to publish such critical material in Utah.
[quote[Well, you stepped in fresh turds here.[/quote]
Got footprints on you and you think they’re mine?
Heard about it, read about it, and even commented about it on at least one message board. I really don’t remember if I commented on it here in addition to my statements on the pounder board; however, I shall do a search and see if I did. At any rate, the lawsuit was addressing the unlawful violation of the church’s copyright.
For the unitiated, the LDS church uses the term “Standard Work” to mean any ONE of the following:
(a) The Bible,
(b) The Book of Mormon,
© The Doctrine and Covenants,
& (d) The Pearl of Great Price.
Don’t need memory when I’m opeating on facts, pilgrim. What you should do is review your oh so memorable positions above as you have managed to contradict yourself.
Are they not still in business? Did they not lose in court? Did they not violate said copyright?
Didn’t you assert above that President Hinkley was beating the Trib to death already? Why spend another bullet on a carcass, if your assertions are true? {To the audience: Yes, I know none of his assertions has panned out yet, but what the hey.}
Too bad the laws governing copyright were on the side of the copyright holder, huh?
That’s your opinion. My opinion, and I identify it as such, is that the lawsuit was most likely pursued to stop the Tanners from violating the copyright.
They’s the chances you takes when you break the law, pilgrim.
Couldn’t help myself. I was really curious as to how many unsupported assertions you could make in one thread.
Unlike you, the rest of us here do not see the world as Alice does when she’s looking through her glass.
“Fight for their lives?” I was not aware that copyright violation carried the death penalty. Care to prove that?
Is this statement not published by Tanner from Utah? Does this not disprove your earlier assertion?
So you either (a) believe that all of the above is not critical of the LDS church or (b) you now admit you lied earlier?
Looks like a private site to me, pal. The official LDS website can be found at http://www.lds.org.
You assert it’s real. Folks have asked you to prove it. Either prove it or don’t assert it.
You are wasting your time here because you’re asserting falsehoods and refusing to acknowledge the facts when they are provided to you.
BFD. As it is, I’m LDS (scroll up, you’ll see the admission), so you apparently won’t have any problem with answering my questions.
Nor should you have a problem with answering Diane’s as you’ve asserted above that she’s really a Mormon.
Diane is most definitely not in favour of the LDS church. On the other hand, she has asked you many times to prove your assertions. You have failed to do so.
I’ve a sincere query for you: If you think the Mormons are wrong for believing something that can’t be proven, why do you believe the lies you’ve posted here?
I left out
After the first line of my posting above.
Monty,
As a metaphor: I’m not your slave mechanic, I’m your stockbroker. Sell all stock in Bigotry Central, er, Mormonism, I mean. I didn’t say I was your friend, SO DON’T TAKE IT PERSONALLY! (That was odd, Monty), I merely caught on to your ridiculous style that everyone seems to have in common here, which is to rudely demand cites for A. Logical Reasons, and B. Censorship in a theocracy, of all things, which is kinda impossible because there is LDS censorship. Get it?
Also, as I bow out here, let me comment on the style again. I seems that people here could not argue without an internet or a computer. This is sad, sad, sad, sad. I’m so glad I learned how before this new phenomenon. Take that as an insult, Monty, you’ll never know what the hell I’m talking about.
Also, as per your ridiculous post about the Tanners, who fought for their lives (bankrupcty is life threatening, Monty, remember that nagging fact about bankruptcty?) Anyway, you were dead wrong about them, absolutely screaming wrong and you sit here and admit you knew they were under siege after saying they were free to do whatever. You are beating a dead horse. There is a time when this has to stop. If I easily could prove censorship with a link from Utah, it wouldn’t be censorship, would it?
Also, I never read one thing in all those links I posted that was critical of Mormonism, only critical of the DesNews. If I am wrong, please post it for your last word. Bye Bye, Monty, why would you want to even talk to me anyway? Get it, you people are rude. You insult me and want me to do your legwork. Get a clue, get a clue, get a clue. I am done with this debate. Anyone want something from me, email it. I won’t even check back to see who gets the last word. I hope you understand, Monty, I don’t talk to rude closeminded people. Prove your own life, its your money. I gave it my best shot.
BBTFL: You now assert that bankruptcy is life threatening? Oh, that’s rich. I already asked for you to post a cite to prove that assertion. & No, just your say-so doesn’t cut it.
Folks did not ask for logical reasons for censorship in the alleged theocracy. What they asked for was proof or your assertions that such censorship existed in the alleged theocracy.
Yet another newsflash for you: Your say-so that the absence of such proof is proof of such censorship doesn’t cut it either.
I’m not insulted by your ineffective comments. Heck, nobody around here, not even another rabid anti-mormon (and note that I do not mean all anti-mormon folks are rabid, just you and at least one other; Diane has proven that she knows how to debate) cares to remain associated with you. Not only does nobody else know what the heck you’re talking about, but apparently neither do you!
BTW, Diane;
How am I doing here? Have I asserted that the LDS church is right? Did I post such a comment without proof to back it up?
Or, have I merely indictated that Brian is operating on the rules of Bizzaro Earth?
Are you honestly stating, or claiming, that you cannot produce one cite from one media outlet or organization for media criticism from, say, one of the other 49 states or someplace outside of the United States which demonstrates that anti-Mormon news reporting or publishing is censored in the state of Utah? Not one? Come on . . .
FWIW, I’m inclined to believe you in this matter due to my own prejudices and cynicism concerning organized religion, but I know from bitter experience that simply repeating a claim has no bearing on its truth value.
Oh, it is not, either. In fact, bankruptcy proceedings are all too common in the United States as a method for people to avoid legitimate debts. There has been a great hue and cry in recent years to reform the bankruptcy laws for this very reason. My mother declared bankruptcy several years ago, and while it certainly necessitated changes in her lifestyle, it was hardly life-threatening.
See, this is why people have a hard time wth you, Brian. You appear to be either trying to argue by assertion, which you know is a fallacious argument method; or you’re under the misimpression that some of the things you are saying are commonly-held opinions are well-accepted facts. Well, they aren’t. That’s why you’re going to require cites. To analogize, “everybody knows” that Catholics think the Pope is infallible and worship Mary. You’ll see those assertions repeated quite frequently here, and a lot of people believe them. Unfortunately, neither of them is true, so assertion alone is not good enough.
That’s the rub, right? So provide a cite from outside Utah.
No there isn’t. Get it?
You made the claim, If there is any leg work to be done, it is yours.
Monty - Nope, it will take a lot more than that to convince me the Mormon Church is right. 
Don’t take it personally, it is just what I have chosen for myself. I believe that we all have the right to worship how we please and I don’t expect, nor do I want to convince anyone to believe the things I believe. It is a very personal choice that each one of us have the right to make. That is the sole reason I do not debate religion on a message board. I will confess that I do get into some heated debates IRL with some of my close LDS friends, but hey, we need some type of entertainment on the weekends here in Utah. 
Brian - You want to debate the teachings of the LDS Church, go for it. In fact, I am sure that I have a lot of the same feelings as you (although I don’t have your obvious hatred), just don’t make up things up as you go along. Your lies make you lose credibility.
PLD,
Monty is ignoring the posts I left him, you got wrapped up in his denial. Please read them, especially the Tanner article, and read his claim that the Tanners are free to publish anti-Mormon stuff. Monty is hiding the fact that the LDS church censors and HIDES their records, financial and historical, and the secretive church handbook, which the Tanners published a link to (for his own benefit), withdrew it after a cease and desist order, and STILL got sued for punitive damages, although no damages were done, as a legal effort to put them out of business so their website wouldn’t exist.
The New York Times and the Wall St. Journal, as I already mentioned, published a story disclosing that the Mormon church leader demanded explanantions from the Tribune Publisher (in a secret meeting the Tribune did not originally disclosed), for publishing recent stories about a Mormon massacre and polygamy abuses, I don’t have the links, they cost money, but it is also mentioned in one of the Tribune articles, published after the outside press published it. Bear in mind that the Mormon church leader could put the Tribune out of business in two ways: A) Buy it, which they tried to do, even securing the efforts of Orrin Hatch, who approves all disputed anti-trust mergers. Or, B) Claim to all Mormons that God told him that Mormons should not read the Tribune. The last one is tricky, a few educated Mormons would leave their church over it (but not folks like Monty, who called me a bigot when Brigham Young wrote discourses and tracts on the inferiority of different races and all other churches).
Also, it is a fact that the Mormons run their own internet service provider, called MStar, I believe. It is censored. Also, Provo City, a bastion of conservatism, just voted to conglomerate all telecommunications in Provo as a city utility, the only city besides Ashland, Oregon, to do so. Utah just appointed the first porn czar ever.
I honestly don’t know what you require to prove censorship, if I am reporting it for the first time, so be it, but news in Utah is over-filtered as to not offend Mormons. As a counter-proof, you should examine the fact that Monty is hoping to prove Mormonism is right by disputing my assertions, unless his post on the matter was a joke. Strange.
PLD, I should submit here that I believe that Monty also needs a special cite that proves Mormonism is wrong–from Mormon leaders. That’s how it works in Mormonism. That is what is wrong with Mormonism. Get it? A sign from god there is no god? A scripture to prove god exists? It’s all circular, which passes for reasoning around here, as does ad hominem and fallacies of: division, accident, non-sequitor, false cause, post hoc, composition, appeal to ignorance, equivocation, and begging the question, not to mention false appeal to authority, and appeals to force and pity. PLD, not to brag, but I might be the only one here who is trained to spot them, since I don’t see anyone else handing “citations” out to the offenders. I just assumed this was a lightweight forum is all, present company excepted, or course. Logic is not used very often in any debates here, obviously. Religion is a reason issue, requiring convincing, not proof, because there never was proof to begin with, only invalid assumptions. Proof is a tricky thing, I could go on for pages, but anyone who uses the word “proof” casually knows nothing about proof. I would have to quote from more logic books here, and it would bore you, some other time maybe. Let me say this again: it is possible to “prove” an invalid proposition using invalid assumptions. I learned that in my first logic class, in the first week of. If one assumes a god, and assumes a prophet, and assumes this or that, one can prove any church is true.
PLD, to get back to the subject, I think we’re dealing with a case of pan-filtration about all religious topics, all across America, and a cite from Japan won’t prove anything, they don’t care. You can’t even write an article debunking Christianity in America for any reason, historical or political, and I think you know this much, let alone a mainstream article debunking Mormonism in Utah. Just the way it is, because people who subscribe aren’t ready for it. They aren’t objective, they aren’t trained to reason. Too many unearned rewards and punishment issues to deal with. Too many childhood issues. Too painful to face the facts and the truth, which Monty is ready to pour into your head with scripture cites to validate his childhood fears and desires. Beware. The Mormon church has “Net Missionaries” all over the place. A cite? Call them and ask. They will send some over to your house or email. Nice to talk this over, I harbor no ill will towards anyone except Mormon leaders for hiding history and facts from people. Monty knows they do this, he knows he cannot research Mormon history in Mormon archives, he knows this and he calls me the liar. Good day, I was just responding to you PLD, because you deserved it, because you did not yet resort to gross illogical fallacies.
PLD, anymore questions please direct them to my email function, I am through here for obvious reasons. I demand civility and logical rules to apply. I am free to assert, anyone is free to disupute, but my lack of posting a statement from any newspaper somewhere that claims Mormons are engaging in censorship does not even suggest there isn’t let alone prove it, and my own observations are being used against me in ad hominem, which means I am talking to the wrong people who are biased towards the logical hypothesis, or given, that Mormons are trying to control news events. Debating is based on reason and convincibility. Proof is to test a proposition for validity based on valid assumptions. One cannot, cannot, cannot prove a lifestyle choice based on hope of heavenly rewards, that requires convincing. Different style to be sure.
PLD,
http://www.atheists.org/flash.line/utah5.htm
Note: This site is probably censored on the Mormon internet provider. I already know that some like it are.
I use the “Mormon internet provider” called CompuServe. So does my Dad. A lot of people in my family use the “Mormon internet providers” called AOL and MSN, as well as Juno. Boy, are we censored or what???
Oh, lookie, Snark engaged in ambiguity! It’s worse than a fallacy to some. Not to me, but I am now allowed to conclude that either he: A. Didn’t know, or B. Attempted to mislead, or C. Has a droll sense of humor. Snark, I should sign off to you to. You were at least courteous. Thanks.
Yeah, you’re right Brian.
There is Mormon censorship in the media. There are also black helicopters with the letters “CTR” painted on the side flying over your house sprinkling angel dust over Happy Valley. I wouldn’t be surprised if the LDS Goonies have tapped your phone and are getting ready to send someone out to baptize you. The next time you listen to your Mormon Tabernacle Chior CD you might want to put on your tinfoil hat to filter out the reverse masking that tells you to put on a pressed white shirt and tie and go knocking on doors.
Yep, you win this argument Brian.
Oh wait, you have told us how many times you aren’t coming back to this thread? Too bad, you will never know that you won.
Yeah, you’re right Brian.
There is Mormon censorship in the media. There are also black helicopters with the letters “CTR” painted on the side flying over your house sprinkling angel dust over Happy Valley. I wouldn’t be surprised if the LDS Goonies have tapped your phone and are getting ready to send someone out to baptize you. The next time you listen to your Mormon Tabernacle Chior CD you might want to put on your tinfoil hat to filter out the reverse masking that tells you to put on a pressed white shirt and tie and go knocking on doors.
Yep, you win this argument Brian.
Oh wait, you have told us how many times you aren’t coming back to this thread? Too bad, you will never know that you won.
Um, Diane…the point of my query was really verification that I am not witnessing here. I was hoping to show BB that someone who has no love for the LDS church and a member of that church are trying to show BB the same thing about himself.
I, personally, couldn’t care less if someone joins up or not. What I object to is behaviour such as BB’s; i.e. lies about the church.