Well, if the next season is no better than the last then good riddance.

Liked the show, but it jumped the shark so hard in Season 4 that this doesn't surprise me a bit.

That show started alright and got dull in a hurry.

/Plus I stopped holding out for the 3 wife orgy.
/Ever happen?

I was a fan until this season where Bill actually turned into the full time villain of the show. This thing went completely off the rails, still mostly enjoyable thouh.

Good. Now Bill Paxton can go back to doing what he does best: playing craven douche-bags in science fiction films!

While we were in the writers' room this year shaping our fifth season, we discovered that we were approaching the culmination of that story

By "culmination of the story," I assume they mean "Ginnifer Goodwin develops an incessant, compulsive masturbation habit."

Uzzah: While we were in the writers' room this year shaping our fifth season, we discovered that we were approaching the culmination of that story

By "culmination of the story," I assume they mean "Ginnifer Goodwin develops an incessant, compulsive masturbation habit."

I haven't had HBO since the second season, but I'd resubscribe for that. (er, wait... no I had HBO for the third season, I just didn't watch)

1) The joke is "Mormans", not "Mormons"
2) These aren't portraying Mormons.

Double fail by submitter.

Submitter also fails for calling it a cancellation.

The story has run its course, and they're wrapping it up by choice.

Calling that "cancelled" is like saying someone contracted to do a job is "fired" when he finishes.

gawd damn i farking hated that show

If only there was a phase Bil Paxton has said in the past that conveys the notion that something has ended.

helix400: 2) These aren't portraying Mormons.

They live in Utah, they are members of a church that has a big white temple in the center of Salt Lake City, they are members of a church with a history of polygamy.

I know the LDS church likes to say polygamists aren't Mormons anymore, but it's kind of like the Catholic Church saying there isn't a problem with priests touching boys.

Shows like this tend to have about a five-year shelf life. So. Yeah. Not really a big shocker here.

I'm glad they could admit they were out of ideas.

Vegan T-Rex: Submitter also fails for calling it a cancellation.

The story has run its course, and they're wrapping it up by choice.

Calling that "cancelled" is like saying someone contracted to do a job is "fired" when he finishes.

I had the same issue when everybody was saying 24 got canceled. Argh.

Everything has to die someday just so that new and better things can come about.

Hint hint Matt Groening and MacFarlane.

Oh, and also to everyone else doing a remake.

/I have a great screenplay for "The last, honestly the last, remake of Beau Jeste"
//Go read the original if you wanna see bad writing.

I hope the final 10 minutes of the last episode, Bill Paxton just lines up the wives and poops on their chests, one by one

GET A BRAIN, MORMONS MORMANS !!!

/Sorry, pet peeve

Wii.Tard: If only there was a phase Bil Paxton has said in the past that conveys the notion that something has ended.

"You're stewed, buttwad!"?

Wii.Tard: If only there was a phase Bil Paxton has said in the past that conveys the notion that something has ended.

"I'm Bill Paxton, now get the hell out of my house."

clovis69: helix400: 2) These aren't portraying Mormons.

They live in Utah, they are members of a church that has a big white temple in the center of Salt Lake City, they are members of a church with a history of polygamy.

I know the LDS church likes to say polygamists aren't Mormons anymore, but it's kind of like the Catholic Church saying there isn't a problem with priests touching boys.

And since you live in Anchorage, that makes you a Sarah Palin supporter, which makes you a Tea Party member, which makes you guilty of stomping on a woman's head.

Shame on you.

I admit the show eventually got horribly bizarre, but I always loved it for the many great character actors who had secondary parts: Harry Dean Stanton, Mary Kay Place, Bruce Dern, Grace Zabriski. I would've been happy watching a whole show just about the community of Juniper Creek.

angrygrizzly: And since you live in Anchorage, that makes you a Sarah Palin supporter, which makes you a Tea Party member, which makes you guilty of stomping on a woman's head.

Shame on you.

That's not even close to a valid rebuttal. If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, it's pretty safe to call it a duck. If it just lives in the same state as a duck, uh...

Go look up "association fallacies" and see if you can work out where you went wrong.

"Game over, man! Game over!"

I'm rooting for Margene paying Bill back the loan money and then leaving him to continue building her empire and rolling in it.

propasaurus: Vegan T-Rex: Submitter also fails for calling it a cancellation.

The story has run its course, and they're wrapping it up by choice.

Calling that "cancelled" is like saying someone contracted to do a job is "fired" when he finishes.

Yeah... no. It got cancelled. The fact that the network pulled the plug in a way that lets them wrap up the storylines doesn't mean it wasn't cancelled. If the network had picked it up for another season, the producers already had storylines geared up for another season. It's not their 'choice'. HBO cancelled it.

That's an interesting and convoluted way of misusing a word and being indignant about it.

Not impressed.

This was actually a pretty cool show.
Everyone keeps saying the 4th season sucked.. I don't get it.
I like how it played out.
I'm curious how the 5th will also.
Sounds like coming 'out' so to speak... is not going to work out well for the family. Who knew ?

He will be Chet forever for me. He is great at douche bag alien feed too.

I just hope we get one appearance by a one-armed Hollis Green this season. He was by far my favorite secondary character in the series.

With Big Love and Entourage out the door I guess that leaves Boardwalk Empire to carry the awesome show torch. So far of what I have seen of Boardwalk Empire I think it will do just fine. Of course you also have True Blood and if it doesn't get better than last season you will be seeing Bill Compton getting staked before too long.

I couldn't stand the fourth season, but that's only because i hate the fact that Bill constantly thinks he has to prove himself. He has his lifestyle, and has 3 pain in the *ss wifes. He also had a successful business (now i said had) and a good start with a casino. The political run is/was stupid, and now the show has no where to go.

\best scene was when Nikki's dad was sitting in a hole outside of casino when the inspectors where coming. Dead. In a lawn chair. Wearing pajamas's and his damn cowboy hat.

I have to completely disagree with the haters of seasons 3 and 4.

In seasons 1 & 2 the writers were too cautious about passing judgment on Bill. They were trying too hard to be neutral with the intent of leaving it to the audience to judge him. In season 3 they dropped that and just came out with the fact that part of the appeal of plural marriage is the sex. It made Bill less sympathetic, but also more interesting. And after committing to that, everything came unhinged in season 4, as it should. Bill is incredibly selfish, and his wives are finally taking a stand.

Also, in seasons 1 & 2 there would be a conflict that would build for three episodes and then be unexpectedly resolved in 30 seconds. It became quite formulaic. The writers stopped doing this in season 3.

stlbluez: This was actually a pretty cool show.
Everyone keeps saying the 4th season sucked.. I don't get it.
I like how it played out.
I'm curious how the 5th will also.
Sounds like coming 'out' so to speak... is not going to work out well for the family. Who knew ?

I'm going with the they tried to do too much in too few episodes.
If they wiped out a couple of stories: Barbara & the Casino, the bird smuggling, Sissy Spacek, that eastern european chick, the artificial insemination & Nicki's daughter, the daughter moving to portland.

I don't blame the producers, there's just too much talent on the show, and you want everybody to get their part.

Bill turning into a raging asshole makes perfect sense to me in the Fundie tradition, absolute authority corrupts.

I heard Bill Paxton say in an interview (about five years ago), that if you were to total the gross earnings of all the films that he's been in, that figure would be greater than any other actor's total.

He might just be correct.

Why watch fake poligamy when they have the real thing out and complete with getting in trouble with the cops Sister Wives (new window)

The_Sponge: Speaking of HBO.....

Who the hell watches "In Treatment"? Yeesh.

I do. Of any show on television right now it reminds me the most of a dramatic stage play, exploring characters with great depth in a quiet but powerful manner. Besides, I'm sure the production cost of that show is obscenely low so they really don't need to have the kind of viewership that other shows need to be profitable.

Fark-the-Fnord: Of course you also have True Blood and if it doesn't get better than last season you will be seeing Bill Compton getting staked before too long.

Seriously? Are you trolling? The third season was critically acclaimed and arguably objectively superior to the first two seasons. I became addicted to the show after seeing the first two episodes of season two, but I was blown away by every single episode of last season. TB reminds me of ST:TNG, BtVS and other great shows: it took two seasons to finally hit its stride, but I'm sure all remaining seasons will continue to be as awesome as the third if not more so. Besides, there will be at least 13 books to the Sookie Stackhouse novels (ten are out now, and they're released on an annual basis), so they have a bumload of story lines and characters to cherry pick and tweak to their liking.

But, all of that aside, I'd much rather see more Russell Edington, Franklin Mott or Talbot than Bill Compton. Unfortunately, that's not going to happen. Hopefully, Eric Northman will officially become a lead character next season instead of being relegated to the ranks of side characters. His character is fantastic.

Fark-the-Fnord: With Big Love and Entourage out the door I guess that leaves Boardwalk Empire to carry the awesome show torch. So far of what I have seen of Boardwalk Empire I think it will do just fine. Of course you also have True Blood and if it doesn't get better than last season you will be seeing Bill Compton getting staked before too long.

I know this motherfarker did not just forget to mention Kenny Powers.

It wasn't canceled, they're run their course with the story. I'll agree that they had a few really stupid things happen in season 4 but overall, I still absolutely love the show and will be sad to see it go.

tarkus1980: clovis69: helix400: 2) These aren't portraying Mormons.

They live in Utah, they are members of a church that has a big white temple in the center of Salt Lake City, they are members of a church with a history of polygamy.

I know the LDS church likes to say polygamists aren't Mormons anymore, but it's kind of like the Catholic Church saying there isn't a problem with priests touching boys.

You're only a Mormon if church records say you're a Mormon.

Depends on what church...theres the main LDs, the RLDS, and numerous splinter groups...

And they all KNOW they are the only ones who have it "right"

I quit watching it after a couple episodes in on season 2. I never knew it last this long. Did the show get better or did it continue to rehash the "we need to hide the fact i have 3 wives" plot?

Joliet_Jake: Fark-the-Fnord: With Big Love and Entourage out the door I guess that leaves Boardwalk Empire to carry the awesome show torch. So far of what I have seen of Boardwalk Empire I think it will do just fine. Of course you also have True Blood and if it doesn't get better than last season you will be seeing Bill Compton getting staked before too long.

I know this motherfarker did not just forget to mention Kenny Powers.

yeah, this is the best thing HBO has right now.

drunkness_monster00: I quit watching it after a couple episodes in on season 2. I never knew it last this long. Did the show get better or did it continue to rehash the "we need to hide the fact i have 3 wives" plot?

Oh it was first "i have 3 wives and a business owner", then "i have 3 wives, a business AND want to run the UEB", Then "1 have 3 wives and a business, and the UEB, AND now a casino partner"...ending up with running for public office.

Which for a guy who wants to SUPPOSEDLY keep his family protected, and not bring down all the attention to them, running for office seemed like the lamest idea ever. I mean, run a business, and a casino business, and 3 entire families, then to go--wait....i can be a politician too, why not? Seemed like complete stupidity.

Yo, that's "morons." Straight up.

Silvyrbug: tarkus1980: clovis69: helix400: 2) These aren't portraying Mormons.

They live in Utah, they are members of a church that has a big white temple in the center of Salt Lake City, they are members of a church with a history of polygamy.

I know the LDS church likes to say polygamists aren't Mormons anymore, but it's kind of like the Catholic Church saying there isn't a problem with priests touching boys.

You're only a Mormon if church records say you're a Mormon.

Depends on what church...theres the main LDs, the RLDS, and numerous splinter groups...

And they all KNOW they are the only ones who have it "right"

I think it's funny how Mormons whine and cry when told by mainstream denominations that they aren't "Christian", and then in the next breath turn around and say that all of those splinter groups aren't "mormons".

I've watched every original series on HBO for about ten years and the best one ever is In Treatment. Okay so I think Gabriel Byrne is hot but still --best acting ever. In my opinion. Great cast.Also must say I love Curb too. Larry you bald asshole

clovis69: helix400: 2) These aren't portraying Mormons.

They live in Utah, they are members of a church that has a big white temple in the center of Salt Lake City, they are members of a church with a history of polygamy.

I know the LDS church likes to say polygamists aren't Mormons anymore, but it's kind of like the Catholic Church saying there isn't a problem with priests touching boys.

Your simile is way off. If the pederasts left the Catholic Church and formed a tiny little NAMBLA Catholic Church, then THAT would parallel the modern LDS church.

You probably picked your nose at least once as a kid. Imagine if, as an adult, people constantly gave you shiat about that. You'd say, "Dude, I was a kid. That was years ago. That's not who I am now." They'd say, "Doesn't matter, Nose-Picker. Quit pickin' your nose." And you'd cry a little inside, 'cause you know that even though they're twisting and stretching the truth to suit their ignorant worldview of you, almost nothing you could do would change their behavior or shut them up. You'd soldier on, but in the back of your mind you'd always wonder why some people gotta be willfully-ignorant hater douchebags when they really ought to know better.

Soldier on, little nose-picker. Soldier on.

Tony Baloney: clovis69: helix400: 2) These aren't portraying Mormons.

They live in Utah, they are members of a church that has a big white temple in the center of Salt Lake City, they are members of a church with a history of polygamy.

I know the LDS church likes to say polygamists aren't Mormons anymore, but it's kind of like the Catholic Church saying there isn't a problem with priests touching boys.

Your simile is way off. If the pederasts left the Catholic Church and formed a tiny little NAMBLA Catholic Church, then THAT would parallel the modern LDS church.

You probably picked your nose at least once as a kid. Imagine if, as an adult, people constantly gave you shiat about that. You'd say, "Dude, I was a kid. That was years ago. That's not who I am now." They'd say, "Doesn't matter, Nose-Picker. Quit pickin' your nose." And you'd cry a little inside, 'cause you know that even though they're twisting and stretching the truth to suit their ignorant worldview of you, almost nothing you could do would change their behavior or shut them up. You'd soldier on, but in the back of your mind you'd always wonder why some people gotta be willfully-ignorant hater douchebags when they really ought to know better.

Soldier on, little nose-picker. Soldier on.

This is more like if you and your friends elevated probably the most notable practitioner of nose-picking to near-Godhood status, followed everything else the buddy said until nose-picking went out of style, and named a University after him.

Joliet_Jake: This is more like if you and your friends elevated probably the most notable practitioner of nose-picking to near-Godhood status, followed everything else the buddy said until nose-picking went out of style, and named a University after him.

So if your great- great- great-uncle by marriage was a goat rapist, and his descendants continued his proud tradition of goat-buggery to the present day, even though you and the rest of entire your family disowned them generations ago and refused to have anything to do with them, I still get to call you goat-farker and you have to take it and like it? Got it. Thanks for clearing that up for me and the wives, goat-farker!

clovis69: helix400: 2) These aren't portraying Mormons.

They live in Utah, they are members of a church that has a big white temple in the center of Salt Lake City, they are members of a church with a history of polygamy.

I know the LDS church likes to say polygamists aren't Mormons anymore, but it's kind of like the Catholic Church saying there isn't a problem with priests touching boys.

The big white polygamist temple is in Texas, not Salt Lake City. I've lived in SLC, I would have noticed the big polygamist temple.

/Morman!

tarkus1980: Silvyrbug: tarkus1980: clovis69: helix400: 2) These aren't portraying Mormons.

They live in Utah, they are members of a church that has a big white temple in the center of Salt Lake City, they are members of a church with a history of polygamy.

I know the LDS church likes to say polygamists aren't Mormons anymore, but it's kind of like the Catholic Church saying there isn't a problem with priests touching boys.

You're only a Mormon if church records say you're a Mormon.

Depends on what church...theres the main LDs, the RLDS, and numerous splinter groups...

And they all KNOW they are the only ones who have it "right"

I'll rephrase. The only church that has a big white temple in Salt Lake City is The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, unless you're going to make the argument that the splinter groups have equal claim to it but are unjustifiably exiled from it. You're not a member of that church unless the church records say you are.

The temple is actually grey, not white. Some of the nighttime pictures make it look white with the flood lights on, but it's made of grey granite.

I was channel surfing and saw Mac's mom from Sunny on there. that amused me.

clovis69: helix400: 2) These aren't portraying Mormons.

They live in Utah, they are members of a church that has a big white temple in the center of Salt Lake City, they are members of a church with a history of polygamy.

I know the LDS church likes to say polygamists aren't Mormons anymore, but it's kind of like the Catholic Church saying there isn't a problem with priests touching boys.

So, these fictional characters who aren't even part of a religious group that exists in reality are Mormons?



By the way, that crocodile is Catholic. Yes, Catholics don't have space popes. But, Futurama says they do. Therefore, the crocodile is Catholic.

I like this thread, people arguing over which sect of followers of a ridiculous con man are the true followers.

I bet I know how to tell which ones are the real Mormons, I'll put this special seer stone into my hat and look at it for a while and it will tell me who the real Mormons are.

helix400: 1) The joke is "Mormans", not "Mormons"
2) These aren't portraying mainstream Mormons.


Fixed that for you. Several elements of their religion either mirror the FLDS (the largest polygamist Mormon offshoot) or one of the Church of Christ offshoots, which also traces its lineage back to the LDS Church. They never out and out mention it to avoid backlash, but if you know anything about the equivalent of Mormon Protestantism, it's a pretty clear parallel.

taliesinwi: 2) These aren't portraying mainstream Mormons.

Mormons are an exclusive term to the LDS church. People who aren't LDS aren't Mormon. Same goes for people who leave the Catholic church. They can call themselves Catholic, but the term is used exclusively for members of the Catholic church.

If want a term to refer to anyone who believes in the Book of Mormon regardless of which religious group they're in, the term is "Latter Day Saints"

Tony Baloney: Joliet_Jake: This is more like if you and your friends elevated probably the most notable practitioner of nose-picking to near-Godhood status, followed everything else the buddy said until nose-picking went out of style, and named a University after him.

So if your great- great- great-uncle by marriage was a goat rapist, and his descendants continued his proud tradition of goat-buggery to the present day, even though you and the rest of entire your family disowned them generations ago and refused to have anything to do with them, I still get to call you goat-farker and you have to take it and like it? Got it. Thanks for clearing that up for me and the wives, goat-farker!

No, but what I'm saying is the people who are living in the same way that Brigham Young did have every right to the moniker of 'Mormon' as the modern Church of Latter Day Saints. You can say they aren't members of the modern organized LDS church, but they're still Mormons.

helix400: taliesinwi: 2) These aren't portraying mainstream Mormons.

Mormons are an exclusive term to the LDS church. People who aren't LDS aren't Mormon. Same goes for people who leave the Catholic church. They can call themselves Catholic, but the term is used exclusively for members of the Catholic church.

If want a term to refer to anyone who believes in the Book of Mormon regardless of which religious group they're in, the term is "Latter Day Saints"

See, I was told the exact opposite of that, by several mainstream LDS members in multiple states, over a period of years.

LDS = mainstream church
Mormon = LDSers and all the offshoots. FLDS, Church of Christ, etc.

Mormon refers to the belief in Mormonism, LDS refers to the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, which is a church formed _around_ Mormonism. Kind of like how all Catholics are Christian but not all Christian are Catholic - Catholicism is the church, Christianity is the general belief system.

And Wikipedia seems to back me up on that too.

I'm baptized and confirmed Catholic. I'm, according to doctrine, Catholic until the day I die, regardless of the fact I haven't attended church in 20 years. I could still call myself Catholic, and be utterly correct, if it wasn't for the fact I happen to no longer believe in the tenets of the church I was raised in.

tukatz: Good. Anyone watching and enjoying that show should feel dirty....

Oh so dirty....


(Plus Paxton couldn't act his way out of a Marcus Theatre)

But apparently is one of the nicest guys working in Hollywood. So that's something.

Joliet_Jake: Tony Baloney: Joliet_Jake: This is more like if you and your friends elevated probably the most notable practitioner of nose-picking to near-Godhood status, followed everything else the buddy said until nose-picking went out of style, and named a University after him.

So if your great- great- great-uncle by marriage was a goat rapist, and his descendants continued his proud tradition of goat-buggery to the present day, even though you and the rest of entire your family disowned them generations ago and refused to have anything to do with them, I still get to call you goat-farker and you have to take it and like it? Got it. Thanks for clearing that up for me and the wives, goat-farker!

No, but what I'm saying is the people who are living in the same way that Brigham Young did have every right to the moniker of 'Mormon' as the modern Church of Latter Day Saints. You can say they aren't members of the modern organized LDS church, but they're still Mormons.

Fair enough. That still doesn't justify perpetuating the pigeon-holing implication of "ZOMG!!!11!, all Mormons are polygamists!" used here but hey, whatever you say, Aberforth. ;-)

taliesinwi: helix400: taliesinwi: 2) These aren't portraying mainstream Mormons.

Mormons are an exclusive term to the LDS church. People who aren't LDS aren't Mormon. Same goes for people who leave the Catholic church. They can call themselves Catholic, but the term is used exclusively for members of the Catholic church.

If want a term to refer to anyone who believes in the Book of Mormon regardless of which religious group they're in, the term is "Latter Day Saints"

See, I was told the exact opposite of that, by several mainstream LDS members in multiple states, over a period of years.

LDS = mainstream church
Mormon = LDSers and all the offshoots. FLDS, Church of Christ, etc.

Mormon refers to the belief in Mormonism, LDS refers to the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, which is a church formed _around_ Mormonism. Kind of like how all Catholics are Christian but not all Christian are Catholic - Catholicism is the church, Christianity is the general belief system.

And Wikipedia seems to back me up on that too.

I'm baptized and confirmed Catholic. I'm, according to doctrine, Catholic until the day I die, regardless of the fact I haven't attended church in 20 years. I could still call myself Catholic, and be utterly correct, if it wasn't for the fact I happen to no longer believe in the tenets of the church I was raised in.

I've never understood that whole "we're Mormon, but don't call us 'Mormons'" issue either -- well, I guess I sorta do, I mean they were obviously trying to distance themselves from the offshoots and nutjob cults that were budding off -- but it's still weird. The even weirder thing is the mainstream is on a campaign to take "Mormon" back. All the ads and whatnot that come out now use "I'm a Mormon" as the preferred phrase. The website's even mormon.org. Go figure.

Joliet_Jake: You can say they aren't members of the modern organized LDS church, but they're still Mormons.

Yes. Just like you can say a guy who watched Star Trek once is a Trekkie.
/rolls eyes.

Tony Baloney:
I've never understood that whole "we're Mormon, but don't call us 'Mormons'" issue either -- well, I guess I sorta do, I mean they were obviously trying to distance themselves from the offshoots and nutjob cults that were budding off -- but it's still weird. The even weirder thing is the mainstream is on a campaign to take "Mormon" back. All the ads and whatnot that come out now use "I'm a Mormon" as the preferred phrase. The website's even mormon.org. Go figure.

That's exactly how it was originally explained to me by a LDSer - Mormons COULD be referring to the offshoot "kooks", so LDS narrows down who you're talking about. And you're also absolutely right about the "taking back Mormon" thing, but it's almost in a direct response to "FLDS" becoming the main boogeyman in the public's mind - FLDS is too close to LDS, so we'll go back to being Mormons now. It's along the lines of the "if you can't beat 'em, at least conform on your terms" philosophy the movement practices, stretching all the way back to the renunciation of polygamy in the first place.

taliesinwi: And Wikipedia seems to back me up on that too.

Nope.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Latter_Day_Saint_movement#Latter_Day_Saint_vs._Mo r m on

Heroic Poser: Joliet_Jake: You can say they aren't members of the modern organized LDS church, but they're still Mormons.

Yes. Just like you can say a guy who watched Star Trek once is a Trekkie.
/rolls eyes.

You obviously don't understand how religious schisms work. It's okay, a lot of people don't. Let me go through some to help you understand the difference.

One of the most important religious schisms in history happened during what is now referred to as The Reformation. Martin Luther was upset with a number of practices of the Catholic Church, especially the practice of Indulgence¹. Those who agreed with him eventually broke apart from the Catholic Church, and form what is known today as the Lutheran Church.

Sometimes schisms don't occur for reasons which are strictly related to doctrine or practices, but are more political in nature. This tends to happen when a church has a strong central figure who dies without leaving a clear heir. This is largely responsible for the rift between the Sunni and shiate sects of Islam, and has also happened for a number of Christian Denominations as well.

There's a third kind of schism which is most notable in the Mormon tradition and the tradition of the Jewish people, but is also seen in the Amish. The schisms between followers of the various branches of the religion tend to differ in how directly they follow the cultural history of their people, rather than any specific doctrinal disagreements. The Jewish people have the Hasidic People, they have the Orthodox, and they have a much more liberal tradition. The schism in the Mormon church is much different, because while the Jewish community, from a doctrinal standpoint, tends to be kind of loose, the LDS Church has a very strict structure which can be traced back all the way to Brigham Young, in much the same way that the Catholic Church exists as an institution.

This means that when the Church supported by this actual institution, the Church of Latter Day Saints, makes cultural changes to their policy, such as the ban on polygamy, there are followers who are left behind. These people were Mormons for their entire lives, and when the policy changed, they continued to call themselves that, and established churches of their own, outside of the oversight and control of the centralized LDS Church. While some of the more recent examples of this have no historical ties to the LDS Church and tend to just be excuses to practice polygamy, there is a historic link to the church that can't really be ignored.

Christians who broke away from the Catholic church during the reformation didn't stop being Christians, but they stopped associating with the church that stood before it. The same is true of the varying Muslim sects, and their followers. For this reason, it's kind of silly to say that someone who watched one episode of Star Trek is a Trekkie is a valuable or even a reasonable comparison to Mormon sects which follow an older cultural version of the religion. The term describes their adherence to the doctrine and the history of the Mormon people and the Book of Mormon. They are Mormons, they just aren't members of the Church of Latter Day Saints. I feel kind of poorly about how I referred to the way Mormons revere Brigham Young, because as a Catholic there are figures in our history who are just as controversial. But I accept the mistakes of the Church as part of its history and part of its legacy. You can't unbind the two.

¹Indulgence was the Catholic practice of accepting money or goods in exchange for the direct absolution of sin.

Joliet_Jake: ...as a Catholic there are figures in our history who are just as controversial. But I accept the mistakes of the Church as part of its history and part of its legacy. You can't unbind the two.

Borgias FTW!!! One of my best friends went through the Catholic seminary (only barely avoided becoming a priest because he knew he couldn't give up women - oh, and he's still a very devout practicing Catholic) and we rib each other about this sort of thing all the time. :-)

I'm not sure anyone but me had the patience to read your entire wall o' text, but I gotta say I'm impressed with your reasoning (and ability to be reasonable). You're absolutely right: it's hard to get away from the uglier parts of history. I'm less interested in what our respective churches were in more ignorant times than I am in what they are today. The failings are of men, not God - times change but the core principles are still there. So long as those are maintained, I'm not worried.

Tony Baloney: Joliet_Jake: ...as a Catholic there are figures in our history who are just as controversial. But I accept the mistakes of the Church as part of its history and part of its legacy. You can't unbind the two.

Borgias FTW!!! One of my best friends went through the Catholic seminary (only barely avoided becoming a priest because he knew he couldn't give up women - oh, and he's still a very devout practicing Catholic) and we rib each other about this sort of thing all the time. :-)

I'm not sure anyone but me had the patience to read your entire wall o' text, but I gotta say I'm impressed with your reasoning (and ability to be reasonable). You're absolutely right: it's hard to get away from the uglier parts of history. I'm less interested in what our respective churches were in more ignorant times than I am in what they are today. The failings are of men, not God - times change but the core principles are still there. So long as those are maintained, I'm not worried.

Well, the main problem with Christianity, at least, is that the core principles have changed. The early church would be astounded with the heresy represented by something like the Prosperity Gospel, or people justifying wars based on strips of land. I can really only speak from the New Testament, but since moving to the Bible Belt, it's amazing how little people actually understand about what Christian Doctrine is who self-identify as Christians. I can completely see someone's Christian religion driving their politics (as a number of my views are either reinforced or directly driven by my faith) but I can't understand any of them identifying with the modern Republican party.

The biggest thing to me which represents the disconnect between what I consider traditional Christianity and what the modern Christian Conservative movement represents is the issue of Climate Change. I cannot tell you how often I run into people who say something along the lines of "Human-driven climate change can't be real because God wouldn't let us destroy part of creation" or "It doesn't matter because we're not going to spend any more time on this Earth." The fundamental Christian idea of free will contradicts the first, and the fundamental Christian idea of corporeal resurrection contradicts them both. Without these ideas, Christianity becomes a completely meaningless religion, yet these people who model their entire lives around what they believe their religion to be have it completely backwards.

Donkey Hodie: Silvyrbug: tarkus1980: clovis69: helix400: 2) These aren't portraying Mormons.

They live in Utah, they are members of a church that has a big white temple in the center of Salt Lake City, they are members of a church with a history of polygamy.

I know the LDS church likes to say polygamists aren't Mormons anymore, but it's kind of like the Catholic Church saying there isn't a problem with priests touching boys.

You're only a Mormon if church records say you're a Mormon.

Depends on what church...theres the main LDs, the RLDS, and numerous splinter groups...

And they all KNOW they are the only ones who have it "right"

I think it's funny how Mormons whine and cry when told by mainstream denominations that they aren't "Christian", and then in the next breath turn around and say that all of those splinter groups aren't "mormons".

The mormoms worship a god who isn't God and don't recognize Jesus as the Messiah. Those are the tenants of what it is to be Christian. Kind of a no-brainer.

Joliet_Jake: Tony Baloney: Joliet_Jake: ...as a Catholic there are figures in our history who are just as controversial. But I accept the mistakes of the Church as part of its history and part of its legacy. You can't unbind the two.

Borgias FTW!!! One of my best friends went through the Catholic seminary (only barely avoided becoming a priest because he knew he couldn't give up women - oh, and he's still a very devout practicing Catholic) and we rib each other about this sort of thing all the time. :-)

I'm not sure anyone but me had the patience to read your entire wall o' text, but I gotta say I'm impressed with your reasoning (and ability to be reasonable). You're absolutely right: it's hard to get away from the uglier parts of history. I'm less interested in what our respective churches were in more ignorant times than I am in what they are today. The failings are of men, not God - times change but the core principles are still there. So long as those are maintained, I'm not worried.

Well, the main problem with Christianity, at least, is that the core principles have changed. The early church would be astounded with the heresy represented by something like the Prosperity Gospel, or people justifying wars based on strips of land. I can really only speak from the New Testament, but since moving to the Bible Belt, it's amazing how little people actually understand about what Christian Doctrine is who self-identify as Christians. I can completely see someone's Christian religion driving their politics (as a number of my views are either reinforced or directly driven by my faith) but I can't understand any of them identifying with the modern Republican party.

The biggest thing to me which represents the disconnect between what I consider traditional Christianity and what the modern Christian Conservative movement represents is the issue of Climate Change. I cannot tell you how often I run into people who say something along the lines of "Human-driven climate change can't be real because God wouldn't let us destroy part of creation" or "It doesn't matter because we're not going to spend any more time on this Earth." The fundamental Christian idea of free will contradicts the first, and the fundamental Christian idea of corporeal resurrection contradicts them both. Without these ideas, Christianity becomes a completely meaningless religion, yet these people who model their entire lives around what they believe their religion to be have it completely backwards.

The Prosperity Gospel was adapted partially from the Mormon and Jehova's Witnesses and teaches the very things that all Christians should have learned in the story of the Garden of Eden. It will be its own undoing.

Nemo's Brother: Donkey Hodie: Silvyrbug: tarkus1980: clovis69: helix400: 2) These aren't portraying Mormons.

They live in Utah, they are members of a church that has a big white temple in the center of Salt Lake City, they are members of a church with a history of polygamy.

I know the LDS church likes to say polygamists aren't Mormons anymore, but it's kind of like the Catholic Church saying there isn't a problem with priests touching boys.

You're only a Mormon if church records say you're a Mormon.

Depends on what church...theres the main LDs, the RLDS, and numerous splinter groups...

And they all KNOW they are the only ones who have it "right"

I think it's funny how Mormons whine and cry when told by mainstream denominations that they aren't "Christian", and then in the next breath turn around and say that all of those splinter groups aren't "mormons".

The mormoms worship a god who isn't God and don't recognize Jesus as the Messiah. Those are the tenants of what it is to be Christian. Kind of a no-brainer.

From the LDS Articles of Faith:

1. We believe in God, the Eternal Father, and in His Son, Jesus Christ, and in the Holy Ghost.

3. We believe that through the Atonement of Christ, all mankind may be saved, by obedience to the laws and ordinances of the Gospel.

Hmm. You seem to be a little off the mark. And "tenants" should be "tenets", just for the record.

helix400: taliesinwi: And Wikipedia seems to back me up on that too.

Nope.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Latter_Day_Saint_movement#Latter_Day_Saint_vs._Mo r m on

Well then the several members of the church that have told me the opposite need to pay attention more or something. I stand corrected. :)

angrygrizzly: Nemo's Brother: Donkey Hodie: Silvyrbug: tarkus1980: clovis69: helix400: 2) These aren't portraying Mormons.

They live in Utah, they are members of a church that has a big white temple in the center of Salt Lake City, they are members of a church with a history of polygamy.

I know the LDS church likes to say polygamists aren't Mormons anymore, but it's kind of like the Catholic Church saying there isn't a problem with priests touching boys.

You're only a Mormon if church records say you're a Mormon.

Depends on what church...theres the main LDs, the RLDS, and numerous splinter groups...

And they all KNOW they are the only ones who have it "right"

I think it's funny how Mormons whine and cry when told by mainstream denominations that they aren't "Christian", and then in the next breath turn around and say that all of those splinter groups aren't "mormons".

The mormoms worship a god who isn't God and don't recognize Jesus as the Messiah. Those are the tenants of what it is to be Christian. Kind of a no-brainer.

From the LDS Articles of Faith:

1. We believe in God, the Eternal Father, and in His Son, Jesus Christ, and in the Holy Ghost.

3. We believe that through the Atonement of Christ, all mankind may be saved, by obedience to the laws and ordinances of the Gospel.

Hmm. You seem to be a little off the mark. And "tenants" should be "tenets", just for the record.

The issue gets a bit dicey when you consider that the Doctrine and Covenants put the Celestial Kingdom and the residents of it - those who are sealed in a Temple ceremony and become exalted - on par with Jesus as Jesus is on par with God. "Then shall they be gods, because they have no end; therefore shall they be from everlasting to everlasting, because they continue; then shall they be above all, because all things are subject unto them. Then shall they be gods, because they have all power, and the angels are subject unto them. "
This puts them a little outside all other major branches of Christianity which at no time teach you that you may become equal to God or Jesus no matter what you do. You'll get to Heaven and all that but at no time do you cease to be subjects of God the Father.
It's a sticky point, and I can see both sides of the argument. Personally I don't see the harm in Mormons being identified outside the Christian umbrella (neither are Jews or Muslims, and they're all Abrahamic religions with common sources), but it's a sore point for them because their belief includes the idea that their church is original Christianity restored on earth. As a Mormon friend once told me, "of course we're Christian, we have Christ in the name of our church." My reply would be "yeah, but East Germany was called the German Democratic Republic, and it was neither a democracy or a republic. Simply having something in your name doesn't make it true."
Regardless, at the end it all comes down to labels, and which human on earth that supposedly speaks for God you throw your allegiance behind.