|
Post by Julian on Apr 5, 2009 10:25:25 GMT -5
The "average" critic of the LDS church is "wrong?" LOL That made even me laugh. So the default status of any given critic of the LDS church is error? No wonder you seem immune to logic. When you consider the sheer number I've dealt with over the years, I can safely say that. Wow, and the sheer number of times you've said that too, and it still cracks us all up! Wheee!
|
|
|
Post by Julian on Apr 5, 2009 10:00:11 GMT -5
She could hoist my engine block any day...
|
|
|
Post by Julian on Apr 5, 2009 9:03:33 GMT -5
Hey, Bloke, did you convert? I just thought that Bloke's statement smelled of a certain type of apologetics, and made a wrong assumption. If I offended anyone I am sincerely not sorry. ;D Nice example of possibility versus probability. Great apologist work, Bloke! No I realised after I wrote it that you were talking about him personally, rather than his game tactics. Was too lazy to get back in there. Sorry. Can't wait until sky starts talking about legal ramifications of suing for damages in other thread, I haven't raised them yet. Should be a load of fun.
|
|
|
Post by Julian on Apr 5, 2009 7:58:52 GMT -5
It's been my personal experience that the average person who regards themself as a critic of the church tends to get things wrong. A best-case scenario is that they took the bulk of their research (however much or little they did) from hostile parties and didn't properly research the LDS side, while a worst-case scenario is that they have deliberately fabricated things to suit their purpose. That's lengthy and hollow for yes, he does distrust any non mormon sources that don't show mormons in complete positivity. Obviously anyone that disagrees with the mormon church, regardless of reason, deliberately lies. All of you that think mormonism is bad given the absolute bullcrap Sky's laid down throughout this thread obviously are lieing and fabricating everything no matter how accurate your sources are. Ironically, bizarrely, egregiously and absurdly, he ignores them because he thinks that strengthens his argument. Oh my!
|
|
|
Post by Julian on Apr 5, 2009 6:54:42 GMT -5
This is what's baffling me. Even if everything Sky said about the Copyright case was true, doesn't it all come back to the fact that this is still some pretty damning information? Isn't the information they presented the big deal here, not whether or not they had the rights to distribute it? Actually, the chapter in question was the chapter regarding how to go about having one's name removed from the church rolls. The chapter had nothing to do with the clergy, gender in the church, or anything else. Likewise, it's not reserved for the "elite" as Julian claims: [1] Individual chapters are published separately as quick-reference guides for those in charge of the auxiliaries and those with certain positions. This includes areas like Sunday School and Relief Society. [2] Clergy have the discretion to allow the members of the congregation to read it over as they see fit. I myself have actually asked for and received permission to look it over when trying to find something. Thus, Julian's entire screed is, at best, highly misplaced and misinformed. While the main book remains in the minister's office, it's more a matter of ensuring that the book stays in a location where it can be accessed readily and thus doesn't get lost than anything else. Hey fuckwit... So from above you're saying [edit to add stress] selected excerpts are disseminated to certain lower ranking members of the church heirarchy. Certain higher members who have certain access to certain parts of it, can let others read certain bits of it IF THEY SEE FIT. The entire book is available only to ward bishops and stake presidents, yes or no? If no, which other church officers are privy to it's entire contents? What does "as they see fit" mean? Do you have to ask specifically for something? How do you know what to ask for if you don't know it exists or what is there? CAN WOMEN READ ALL OF/ ANY OF IT? If the entire purpose is to stop it getting lost, wouldn't printing a fuckload of copies be safer still? That way you don't have to worry about it being burnt in a fire, or being buried under a tree and you'd need to wake up Moroni again to puyt some kero on his sword and to go find someone to go dig it up.
|
|
|
Post by Julian on Apr 5, 2009 6:43:11 GMT -5
Well obviously Christianity is the dominant religion, but you would expect it to at least have the same representation in prisons as in society, but Christians only make up 76% of the US, so when they have a higher % in prisons, that obviously means something. Now, it is hard to discern whether they were Christian when convicted, or converted later, but the argument that they have the largest % in the US is null, since they have a much higher % in prisons. Now, what is really funny is religion, SUPPOSEDLY is supposed to give people morals and make them better people (at least according to the religious), and this obviously shows that it isn't the case. It doesn't show that it does the opposite-necessarily- though we can't be entirely sure. The best thing to do would be to seek a study that noted the difference between people who were Christian on the outside and people who converted on the inside. It's entirely possible that the conversion rate reflects the percentile difference. Only on planet sky! Being that of the most common study cited, less than 5% of the population was polled and the mormons did quite well, (by not reporting their sex and domestic violence crimes as much as anything else), 0.209% identified as atheist, but 115 times as many people replied unknown or declined to answer, you'd think the "conversion" factor would've done a better job on them yes? Yes apologetics is all about making up shit that makes sense to you, but unfortunately if they don't make sense to anyone else they're REALLY SHITTY apologetics. YOU FAIL AGAIN! A better lie would've been, "obviously they're only claiming they're religious to con the parole board". It's a lie, but it's possible, despite the fact this survey is unrelated to the parole claims so they'd only be doing so out of paranoia about confidentiality. Your lie however is CRAP! I know you think you're here to tell lies that sound plausible to make your religion slightly less offensive. When are you going to work out that you're doing exactly the opposite?
|
|
|
Post by Julian on Apr 5, 2009 5:55:43 GMT -5
No, the Tanners went back on an out-of-court settlement. Under US law, if one party to a legal settlement violates the terms then the other parties can haul their butts back into court. Holy steaming shitbuckets!!! Do you even READ what the fuck you type? We've been through this AGAIN and AGAIN and AGAIN! The out of court settlement was complying to the wishes of the LAUGHABLY named "Intellectual Reserve" in order to avoid a costly, needless and pointless litigation battle. They did this. They did what the mormon church asked of them dumbass. They complied with the agreement to the letter. They took the information down as REQUESTED. They did not get 'hauled' into court, particularly not with the crimal tones that alleges, and it certainly was NOT back into court. The mormon church was bitching that the information was still accessible. If anything the Tanners fucked up by signing the initial settlement, which allowed the 2nd case to have legs, even though it was pure and utter sloppiness on the part of the church that left the loophole open in the first place. The mormon church was trying to suppress information. They succeeded in this instance due to bullying a mom and pop enterprise, but overall the mormon church FAILED! The information is out there.
|
|
|
Post by Julian on Apr 5, 2009 5:42:17 GMT -5
It's been my personal experience that the average person who regards themself as a critic of the church tends to get things wrong. I wouldn't trust your personal experience enough to inform me about which brand of toilet paper to buy. And given how full of shit you are, that's saying a lot. Well being that, his responses tend to be "my shit doesn't stink", or "everyone used their hands back then" (even though they didn't) I'm guessing he's never actually heard of toilet paper, or it's something fabricated by anti-mormons in order to make mormons look bad.
|
|
|
Post by Julian on Apr 5, 2009 4:31:11 GMT -5
On Civ2 I managed to conquer both the Aztecs and the Sioux playing as Carthage by 1500BC. This proves it is entirely possible for vaguely semitic types to have crossed the oceans before conventional history claims it happened Well yes, on a flat Earth if there was a God saying, hey why don't you chaps build a city here, and why don't we all research map making - it'd be quite possible wouldn't it... (on a side note, last week I stumbled across a game of civII from 10 years ago I was playing and stopped when I was on future tech 132 in 1300AD)Oh and JE, civ2, not civ3.
|
|
|
Post by Julian on Apr 5, 2009 4:30:29 GMT -5
On Civ2 I managed to conquer both the Aztecs and the Sioux playing as Carthage by 1500BC. This proves it is entirely possible for vaguely semitic types to have crossed the oceans before conventional history claims it happened Well yes, on a flat Earth if there was a God saying, hey why don't you chaps build a city here, and why don't we all research map making - it'd be quite possible wouldn't it... (on a side note, last week I stumbled across a game of civII from 10 years ago I was playing and stopped when I was on future tech 132 in 1300AD)
|
|
|
Post by Julian on Apr 4, 2009 15:19:00 GMT -5
A few things. It's been a while since I was in the DoD and read the latest in wound ballistics but it actually takes a bit to kill someone with a bullet. First there is only 10 % of the body that gives a kill, then there is calibre to take into account, proximity and hence force, the type of bullet and how many hits. Hence the demand for semis that takes the guesswork out. We aren't going to stop gangs and hold ups but gun control will certainly go some way to stopping accidents, suicides and domestic murder. 10% not sure but that sound a little low. Anyways you do hit the nail on the head as far as lowering accidents, suicides and domestic murders. Yes and no, there's a lot of useless flesh and blubber out there fucking with the stats. It's probably near instant kill figures, and is the femural artery, aorta, jugular, heart, certain core areas of the brain etc... I don't think I'm up to 10% either, so there'll be a few others. Don't forget the head and torso combined is the same size target as the arms and legs combined.
|
|
|
Post by Julian on Apr 4, 2009 14:58:24 GMT -5
So the Mormons are taking a page from the Book of Scientology. Cool Birds of a feather and all that stuff. Did they sue 'em in England? They got sued here in the US. US intellectual property laws are pretty strict, as are the courts in enforcing them. As part of it, a copyright holder must actively defend their copyright if they wish to keep it. Otherwise, if it can be proven that there was no active defense then a person can get the copyright thrown out in court and have the item in question become public domain. The Tanners, by publishing the copyrighted material, were challenging the copyright. The church said "we've let you go in the past, but this time you're doing something illegal. Knock it off or we'll see you in court." The Tanners ignored the warning, but when they got served with the paperwork they agreed to an out-of-court settlement. Thing is, the Tanners went and violated that settlement shortly after. Although they themselves didn't put out the material, they gave the web link to a website that did (said site also didn't have permission). They also publicly declared that the material was back on the internet, and encouraged their readers to make and circulate as many copies as possible. The church hauled them back in to court, and as you can imagine the judge was pretty well pissed at what happened. The judge declared that while the Tanners might have kept to the letter of the settlement, they were so far in violation of the spirit that they were still breaking the law anyway. The Tanners ultimately ended up taking it in the shorts, and were lucky to even be allowed to keep their ministry (the judge could have legally put them out of business). Commentary by lawyer T. R. Halvorson.Sky. Which hat do you have on here? General idiot or mormon liar? 1/. It's not a copyright case in the general sense. The mormon church authored a highly contraversial, extremely sexist (in particular), smoking gun of a 'handbook' for extremely limited distribution amongst their sexist elite. 2/. The Tanners chose to release portions of said smoking gun to the general public against the wishes of the extrmely sexist mormon elite in the name of public interest. They're not trying to undermine the ability of the mormon church to make money by flooding the market with free or pirated copies. They're trying to undermine the mormon elite's determination to keep some of the specifics of their asshattery top secret. 3/. They did not go to court the first time, they simply agreed to remove some of the information from their pages which they did. They were not ordered to. 4/. Please cite where the judge was pissed. A copy of the ruling should suffice. How did they get hauled back into court when they weren't ever there in the first place? Also, while we're at it, do you know what a preliminary injunction order is because that is as far as things got fuckwit the 2nd time round. The judge was not pissed. The judge did not say what words you just put in her mouth. The Tanners were not lucky to keep their ministry. The temporary injunction was made permanent but so fucking what. Are you done lying now? Would you like to start talking about why women cannot be preists? You can use your own original brand of sexist apologetics or some of the tired old ones - you choose. I cannot for the life of me work out why your entire 'argument' ATM consists of "you shouldn't have been able to see that" instead of talking about THAT. All you've done so far is point out how sensitive the mormon church is about THAT. What has been seen cannot be unseen. Defend THAT or shut the fuck up.
|
|
|
Post by Julian on Apr 4, 2009 4:48:53 GMT -5
No. Rather, I'm disappointed that so few are willing to scratch the surface and truly look at the hows and whys. It's kinda like how for a long while no one wanted to talk about the treatment of Native Americans living in the United States. No, Sky....just...no....You didn't seriously compare the treatment of Mormons to the treatment of Native Americans did you? Are you ignorant or just a complete asshole? Do you enjoy cheapening the memory of the genocide of nearly an entire race of people or something? Considering that it was YOUR CHURCH which preached that non-whites were inherently sinful, you have absolutely no fucking right to compare what they went through to what your cult went through Believe it or not, I think he was trying to "argue" that everyone else was doing it, so the mormons should be allowed to do it too, and the fact that they made up an entire story and pack of lies and interwove it into the entire fabric of their religion is something we shouldn't talk about because his spin can't handle it...
|
|
|
Post by Julian on Apr 4, 2009 4:45:48 GMT -5
BTW, the Tanners were actually sued twice a few years ago, once for intellectual property violations (publishing a chapter from a copyrighted text w/o permission) and again for violating the settlement terms from the first suit (linking to an Australian website that had the same copyrighted material). I know you have nothing else to fall back on, but I'll say it again. We. Don't. Care. Attempting to undermine critics around here just seems to be pissing people off, not eliciting the response you're wanting. Perhaps you should change tactics? Oh should I quote the definition of insanity? Actually, this one's quite interesting! Ol'dumbass just found ANOTHER way to shoot himself in the foot! Said 'copyrighted' material was a mormon handbook. Said suers were the mormon church. A few years ago was 7-10. Charges were only ever laid in order to try to get them to remove the material... So, Sky... How does lack of permission to publish the material AFFECT the material? wikileaks.org/wiki/Mormon_Church_attempts_to_gag_Internet_over_handbook
|
|
|
Post by Julian on Apr 3, 2009 7:18:20 GMT -5
Feel free to add you own. Starters: www.exmormon.org/whylft39.htmo That the Garden of Eden was in Missouri o That God sanctioned polygamy o That God sanctioned a racial policy and changed it o That American Indians are brown Israelites o That the papyrus were really translated by Joseph o That Reformed Egyptian was a real language spoken in the New World o That Jaredites came to the New World in submarine-like barges o That Israelites traveled to the New World on three separate occasions o That the LDS Temple ordinances of today were practiced by Adam, Noah, Moses and Jesus and that these rites preceded the Masonic rites they resemble. o That there are logical reasons for Paul to be quoted in the Book of Mormon before he was born o That the ancient Americans really prophesied; the birth of Christ in far greater detail than Isaiah, the voyage of Columbus, the pilgrims, the creation of the United States, the 3 witnesses, the restoration of the gospel by Joseph Smith and even foretold the lost manuscripts and devised a plan to remedy their loss (2000 years before Martin Harris lost them). o That Mark Hofman's deceiving of "the Brethren" can be explained in light of modern-day revelation (refer to news pictures of Spencer Kimball and counselors examining forged documents with Mark Hofman at their side, years before he was arrested). o That Gordon B. Hinckley represents God here on earth. o That Christ drank grape juice not wine. o That baptism for the dead is essential to salvation. o That 9 million Mormons are right and 4.5 billion others are wrong.
|
|