Do you have adblock enabled?
 
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(ELLE)   Elizabeth Smart is awesome for many reasons. Most of all - telling Nancy Grace to STFU   (elle.com ) divider line
    More: Hero, Elizabeth Smart, smart, Mormon Temples, abstinence education  
•       •       •

44879 clicks; posted to Main » on 21 May 2013 at 5:36 PM (3 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



181 Comments     (+0 »)
 
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Newest | Show all

 
2013-05-21 07:42:12 PM  

catmandu: Really?

A Christian is someone who believes Jesus Christ died on the cross to save them from their sins and give them eternal life.
John 3:16 says: "For God so loved the world that he gave his only Son, so that everyone who believes in him will not perish but have eternal life." (Love how fundies say gays cannot be Christian. what do they do with that "everyone"? But I digress)

Mormons deny the sufficiency of Christ's death for salvation. They also deny the Trinity and that there is one immortal God. The goal of Mormonism is that we all become as 'gods' becoming both immortal and divine, blurring the creator/creature distinction. They believe God the Father was once a man, just like you or me. For Mormons, Jesus isn't the only son of God, and he's not eternally begotten of the Father

NO TRUE SCOTSMAN!

You would be wrong, sir.

You would be wrong.
 
2013-05-21 07:44:35 PM  

Clutch2013: Meh, it's arguable.

I'm on mobile, so perhaps, if the article links to a video, someone can tell me what Ms. Smart's tone was. If her tone of voice was one like "Bring it up again, and I shall make it my life mission to end you", then that can be pretty damn effective.


Worse than that. It was more: "You, Nancy Grace, are not relevant or important."

Quite the killing blow, to that kind.
 
2013-05-21 07:44:38 PM  
She was within 10 minutes of walking distance at times during her 9 month ordeal.  Anyone who isn't smart enough to just walk home deserves to be kidnapped.
 
2013-05-21 07:49:00 PM  

lennavan: Killer Cars: lennavan: So I clicked, all giddy at the excitement of seeing someone tell Nancy Grace off.

"I really, to be frankly honest, don't appreciate you bringing this all up."

That's it?

This is actually a decent example of how ubiquitous the hyperbolic language of normal message board and blog chatter really is. Because someone wasn't directly compared to Hitler while being called Roseanne Barr's taint cheese, we literally don't recognize it as a tell off.

Alternatively, it was a really farking weak tell off.  It's definitely one of the two.

I'm pretty sure most people in this thread would agree Nancy Grace needs a bit more than a courteous "I don't appreciate that."  I guess I was just hoping for more.  Something more recent woulda been good too.


I would like to know how Grace responded to that. Gracelessly, I suspect.
 
2013-05-21 07:49:38 PM  
I'd give her a demerit for appearing on Nancy Grace's show to begin with, but sure, credit where credit is due.

If Nancy Grace were launched into the sun, I'd say nothing of value was lost. Except for the rocket that sent her there.
 
2013-05-21 07:49:50 PM  

skozlaw: catmandu: Really?

A Christian is someone who believes Jesus Christ died on the cross to save them from their sins and give them eternal life.
John 3:16 says: "For God so loved the world that he gave his only Son, so that everyone who believes in him will not perish but have eternal life." (Love how fundies say gays cannot be Christian. what do they do with that "everyone"? But I digress)

Mormons deny the sufficiency of Christ's death for salvation. They also deny the Trinity and that there is one immortal God. The goal of Mormonism is that we all become as 'gods' becoming both immortal and divine, blurring the creator/creature distinction. They believe God the Father was once a man, just like you or me. For Mormons, Jesus isn't the only son of God, and he's not eternally begotten of the FatherNO TRUE SCOTSMAN!

You would be wrong, sir.

You would be wrong.


Educamate me then. What is a Christian and how are Mormons a Christian denomination (and their name being Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints is Not sufficient).
 
2013-05-21 07:52:24 PM  

Antagonism: What a pointless article.

Oh well time to pile shiat on Nancy Grace.


She deserves it as do anyone involved with her crap that goes on air, or who even watches it for that matter
 
2013-05-21 07:55:39 PM  
In my house, we nickname people.

Nancy Grace is pronounced Nasty Grease.
 
2013-05-21 07:57:25 PM  

Anayalator: [ct.fra.bz image 500x299]


Matthew 24:11
 
2013-05-21 07:58:29 PM  
Really? This is news now?

Welcome to 2006!
 
2013-05-21 07:59:02 PM  

catmandu: skozlaw: catmandu: Really?

A Christian is someone who believes Jesus Christ died on the cross to save them from their sins and give them eternal life.
John 3:16 says: "For God so loved the world that he gave his only Son, so that everyone who believes in him will not perish but have eternal life." (Love how fundies say gays cannot be Christian. what do they do with that "everyone"? But I digress)

Mormons deny the sufficiency of Christ's death for salvation. They also deny the Trinity and that there is one immortal God. The goal of Mormonism is that we all become as 'gods' becoming both immortal and divine, blurring the creator/creature distinction. They believe God the Father was once a man, just like you or me. For Mormons, Jesus isn't the only son of God, and he's not eternally begotten of the FatherNO TRUE SCOTSMAN!

You would be wrong, sir.

You would be wrong.

Educamate me then. What is a Christian and how are Mormons a Christian denomination (and their name being Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints is Not sufficient).


The term Christian is a self-identification tool. Arguing that the Nicean creed, or some kind of Protestant or Calvinistic ethic to the already retardedly murky concept of redemption and/or salvation is sufficient to the definition of Christian is like posting a sign outside the clubhouse door that says : "No girls allowed." It says a lot more about the people making the argument than the people being excluded from the club.

The Mormon concept of the trinity is a hell of a lot better than the Essence arguments that Protestant and Catholic theologies argue around in order to not make themselves look like Pagans by having multiple godlike entities.

Honestly, it pisses me off that this is still even an issue in what should be a pluralistic conversation, and one of the reasons why I suspect that the LDS church ever got involved in California. They wanted to be one of the 'Christian' churches.
 
2013-05-21 07:59:11 PM  
i140.photobucket.com
 
2013-05-21 08:01:28 PM  
The practicing Mormon boldly cited the belief that she was no longer "pure" after being raped by her captives as a reason for being afraid to run.

Am I reading that wrong or is it just written incorrectly?
 
2013-05-21 08:02:09 PM  

BATMANATEE: crab66: What a scatterbrained uninformative article.

It wasn't an article. It was an ad for an upcoming book.


Sort of this.

I watch Fox News. I notice there are many, many "guests" to provide input on a subject that have just published a book on the associated topic.

/You can winky-rink on my face
//Just don't tell me it's raining
///Slashies
 
2013-05-21 08:05:07 PM  

bugontherug: lennavan: So I clicked, all giddy at the excitement of seeing someone tell Nancy Grace off.

"I really, to be frankly honest, don't appreciate you bringing this all up."

That's it?

Coming as it did from a teenage girl recently kidnapped and repeatedly raped, I thought it was devastating in its polite understatement.


This.
 
2013-05-21 08:05:08 PM  

HortusMatris: flak attack: HortusMatris: GungFu: And she's a Mormon.

- 10

I know, right?  She escaped after being abducted and raped for a year to be a member of a religion that shows 18-year-old boys more respect than grandmothers and has a history of endorsing polygamy?  Wtf?

While I can't comment on the respect issue, mainstream Mormons haven't endorsed polygamy in over 120 years.

Yes.  Apparently God decided to change his mind about what he said through Brigham Young about polygamy and the whole "black people are cursed" thing.  I can see that everyone was really torn up about it, too, by the way their glorious university is still named after him.


it was Joseph Smith who actually was the one who founded the LDS church.  Brigham Young was a later leader and founder of Salt Lake City.
 
2013-05-21 08:09:01 PM  

Kinek: Milo Minderbinder: Mormons: nice people that are, for the most part, entirely blind to the absurdity of their religion. Joseph Smith was pedophillic con man that invented a history that has been proved to be false. If you want a good history of Smith, try "No Man Knows My History."

That book is a load of fallacious crap. If you want a good history, Try Rough Stone Rolling. Much better account. And by better, I mean it wasn't written by someone intent on a smear campaign and was written as actual historical work.


Rough Stone Rolling is the literary equivalent of blowjob for Joseph Smith.  I get the feeling that any book that is even slightly critical of that huckster would get called "fallacious" by you.
 
2013-05-21 08:12:16 PM  

Milo Minderbinder: Kinek: Milo Minderbinder: Mormons: nice people that are, for the most part, entirely blind to the absurdity of their religion. Joseph Smith was pedophillic con man that invented a history that has been proved to be false. If you want a good history of Smith, try "No Man Knows My History."

That book is a load of fallacious crap. If you want a good history, Try Rough Stone Rolling. Much better account. And by better, I mean it wasn't written by someone intent on a smear campaign and was written as actual historical work.

Rough Stone Rolling is the literary equivalent of blowjob for Joseph Smith.  I get the feeling that any book that is even slightly critical of that huckster would get called "fallacious" by you.


And anything that suggests that he's less than a demon is too soft? Rough stone is not, by any means, a blowjob. It covers everything /THAT CAN BE CITED/. You don't get to make stuff up and say, "Well, this ex-mormon 40 years after the fact told somebody that wrote it down in their diary after a night in the pub, therefore history." Seriously. Brodie's references are sketchy as fark. The trial in Palmyra for starters.
 
2013-05-21 08:14:00 PM  

Kinek: Actually, there are loads of Catholic doctrine, as well as Mormon doctrine (The only two religions I know well enough and that have a centralized figure) that suggest that a prophet or pope is indeed fallible, except when acting in certain offices or under certain circumstances. The biggest example being Moses.


Ugh, I feel like a total retard arguing about religion on the internet.  I know, I got myself into this mess.  How about this:  you win, and I'm going to get some actual work done.  Congratulations!
 
2013-05-21 08:14:07 PM  

Milo Minderbinder: Kinek: Milo Minderbinder: Mormons: nice people that are, for the most part, entirely blind to the absurdity of their religion. Joseph Smith was pedophillic con man that invented a history that has been proved to be false. If you want a good history of Smith, try "No Man Knows My History."

That book is a load of fallacious crap. If you want a good history, Try Rough Stone Rolling. Much better account. And by better, I mean it wasn't written by someone intent on a smear campaign and was written as actual historical work.

Rough Stone Rolling is the literary equivalent of blowjob for Joseph Smith.  I get the feeling that any book that is even slightly critical of that huckster would get called "fallacious" by you.


RSR covers polygamy, the underage wives, the hat-stones, the lack of habeas corpus in Nauvoo. In what ways is it a blowjob?
 
2013-05-21 08:14:38 PM  

Kinek: catmandu: skozlaw: catmandu: Really?

A Christian is someone who believes Jesus Christ died on the cross to save them from their sins and give them eternal life.
John 3:16 says: "For God so loved the world that he gave his only Son, so that everyone who believes in him will not perish but have eternal life." (Love how fundies say gays cannot be Christian. what do they do with that "everyone"? But I digress)

Mormons deny the sufficiency of Christ's death for salvation. They also deny the Trinity and that there is one immortal God. The goal of Mormonism is that we all become as 'gods' becoming both immortal and divine, blurring the creator/creature distinction. They believe God the Father was once a man, just like you or me. For Mormons, Jesus isn't the only son of God, and he's not eternally begotten of the FatherNO TRUE SCOTSMAN!

You would be wrong, sir.

You would be wrong.

Educamate me then. What is a Christian and how are Mormons a Christian denomination (and their name being Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints is Not sufficient).

The term Christian is a self-identification tool. Arguing that the Nicean creed, or some kind of Protestant or Calvinistic ethic to the already retardedly murky concept of redemption and/or salvation is sufficient to the definition of Christian is like posting a sign outside the clubhouse door that says : "No girls allowed." It says a lot more about the people making the argument than the people being excluded from the club.

The Mormon concept of the trinity is a hell of a lot better than the Essence arguments that Protestant and Catholic theologies argue around in order to not make themselves look like Pagans by having multiple godlike entities.

Honestly, it pisses me off that this is still even an issue in what should be a pluralistic conversation, and one of the reasons why I suspect that the LDS church ever got involved in California. They wanted to be one of the 'Christian' churches.


I self-identify as charming, handsome and possessing a 17-inch prehensile penis.
 
2013-05-21 08:17:24 PM  

HortusMatris: Kinek: Actually, there are loads of Catholic doctrine, as well as Mormon doctrine (The only two religions I know well enough and that have a centralized figure) that suggest that a prophet or pope is indeed fallible, except when acting in certain offices or under certain circumstances. The biggest example being Moses.

Ugh, I feel like a total retard arguing about religion on the internet.  I know, I got myself into this mess.  How about this:  you win, and I'm going to get some actual work done.  Congratulations!


How about we call it a tie? It's only a win if everybody learns something!

Papal infallibility is a dogma of the Catholic Church which states that, in virtue of the promise of Jesus to Peter, the Pope is preserved from the possibility of error[1] "when, in the exercise of his office as shepherd and teacher of all Christians, in virtue of his supreme apostolic authority, he defines a doctrine concerning faith or morals to be held by the whole Church".[2]

How much is bullshiat, is left up to the viewer, and not something that can be argued. But the concept is there, and as far as I know, Prophetic fallibility is also a concept to the LDS church.
 
2013-05-21 08:20:15 PM  

werem00se: [i140.photobucket.com image 378x500]


Heh. I actually got thrown out of there, many years ago. Think their sign had something like, "Burgers By the Bagful!" So, me and my drunk buddy decided to buy a bag of burgers. Apparently you can't do that. You can't just tell them, "I don't care how many. Just fill up a bag."

But, what you really can't do is, when they decline your order, is to loudly protest (in an area surrounded by families with small children), "Look, lady, I'm just trying to get a bag of Dicks! Why won't you give me a bag of dicks?!"

/funnier back then, since it wasn't a phrase yet
 
2013-05-21 08:20:52 PM  

Milo Minderbinder: Kinek: catmandu: skozlaw: catmandu: Really?

A Christian is someone who believes Jesus Christ died on the cross to save them from their sins and give them eternal life.
John 3:16 says: "For God so loved the world that he gave his only Son, so that everyone who believes in him will not perish but have eternal life." (Love how fundies say gays cannot be Christian. what do they do with that "everyone"? But I digress)

Mormons deny the sufficiency of Christ's death for salvation. They also deny the Trinity and that there is one immortal God. The goal of Mormonism is that we all become as 'gods' becoming both immortal and divine, blurring the creator/creature distinction. They believe God the Father was once a man, just like you or me. For Mormons, Jesus isn't the only son of God, and he's not eternally begotten of the FatherNO TRUE SCOTSMAN!

You would be wrong, sir.

You would be wrong.

Educamate me then. What is a Christian and how are Mormons a Christian denomination (and their name being Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints is Not sufficient).

The term Christian is a self-identification tool. Arguing that the Nicean creed, or some kind of Protestant or Calvinistic ethic to the already retardedly murky concept of redemption and/or salvation is sufficient to the definition of Christian is like posting a sign outside the clubhouse door that says : "No girls allowed." It says a lot more about the people making the argument than the people being excluded from the club.

The Mormon concept of the trinity is a hell of a lot better than the Essence arguments that Protestant and Catholic theologies argue around in order to not make themselves look like Pagans by having multiple godlike entities.

Honestly, it pisses me off that this is still even an issue in what should be a pluralistic conversation, and one of the reasons why I suspect that the LDS church ever got involved in California. They wanted to be one of the 'Christian' churches.

I self-identify as charmin ...


The fun part about that is that two of those three could be correct. Who am I to say that you aren't funny or charming? Am I the authority on such subjects? Of course not. However, I am jealous of your obviously grotesque penis. Sure you're not a barnacle?

/Fun fact of the day. Barnacles have giant penises.
 
2013-05-21 08:21:10 PM  
Kinek:
The term Christian is a self-identification tool. Arguing that the Nicean creed, or some kind of Protestant or Calvinistic ethic to the already retardedly murky concept of redemption and/or salvation is sufficient to the definition of Christian is like posting a sign outside the clubhouse door that says : "No girls allowed." It says a lot more about the people making the argument than the people being excluded from the club.

Is Warren Jeffs a mormon if he claims he is one?
 
2013-05-21 08:23:06 PM  

Kinek: Milo Minderbinder: Kinek: Milo Minderbinder: Mormons: nice people that are, for the most part, entirely blind to the absurdity of their religion. Joseph Smith was pedophillic con man that invented a history that has been proved to be false. If you want a good history of Smith, try "No Man Knows My History."

That book is a load of fallacious crap. If you want a good history, Try Rough Stone Rolling. Much better account. And by better, I mean it wasn't written by someone intent on a smear campaign and was written as actual historical work.

Rough Stone Rolling is the literary equivalent of blowjob for Joseph Smith.  I get the feeling that any book that is even slightly critical of that huckster would get called "fallacious" by you.

RSR covers polygamy, the underage wives, the hat-stones, the lack of habeas corpus in Nauvoo. In what ways is it a blowjob?


Its been five years since I read it, but recall that it never addressed the outright fabrications in the Book of Mormon, proven by virtue of archeology and genetics; something Brodie never had access to. That is the biggest failing: never critically examining the fact that he made the whole damn thing up. A quick look at Wikipedia shows Larry McMurtry described it as being difficult to tell when the biography ends and the apologetics begins.
 
2013-05-21 08:26:17 PM  

lennavan: So I clicked, all giddy at the excitement of seeing someone tell Nancy Grace off.

"I really, to be frankly honest, don't appreciate you bringing this all up."

That's it?


Nobody else does it.
 
2013-05-21 08:26:38 PM  
FTFA: "Here, we rounded up a few examples of why Elizabeth Smart is so awesome-you know, in addition to her being an unerring advocate for kidnapping victims and their families..."

So she's in favor of kidnapping victims and their families?!? How heroic! That's right up there with posting a scan of your NAMBLA Membership Card.
 
2013-05-21 08:28:20 PM  

Kinek: Milo Minderbinder: Kinek: catmandu: skozlaw: catmandu: Really?

A Christian is someone who believes Jesus Christ died on the cross to save them from their sins and give them eternal life.
John 3:16 says: "For God so loved the world that he gave his only Son, so that everyone who believes in him will not perish but have eternal life." (Love how fundies say gays cannot be Christian. what do they do with that "everyone"? But I digress)

Mormons deny the sufficiency of Christ's death for salvation. They also deny the Trinity and that there is one immortal God. The goal of Mormonism is that we all become as 'gods' becoming both immortal and divine, blurring the creator/creature distinction. They believe God the Father was once a man, just like you or me. For Mormons, Jesus isn't the only son of God, and he's not eternally begotten of the FatherNO TRUE SCOTSMAN!

You would be wrong, sir.

You would be wrong.

Educamate me then. What is a Christian and how are Mormons a Christian denomination (and their name being Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints is Not sufficient).

The term Christian is a self-identification tool. Arguing that the Nicean creed, or some kind of Protestant or Calvinistic ethic to the already retardedly murky concept of redemption and/or salvation is sufficient to the definition of Christian is like posting a sign outside the clubhouse door that says : "No girls allowed." It says a lot more about the people making the argument than the people being excluded from the club.

The Mormon concept of the trinity is a hell of a lot better than the Essence arguments that Protestant and Catholic theologies argue around in order to not make themselves look like Pagans by having multiple godlike entities.

Honestly, it pisses me off that this is still even an issue in what should be a pluralistic conversation, and one of the reasons why I suspect that the LDS church ever got involved in California. They wanted to be one of the 'Christian' churches.

I self-identify as charmin ...

The fun part about that is that two of those three could be correct. Who am I to say that you aren't funny or charming? Am I the authority on such subjects? Of course not. However, I am jealous of your obviously grotesque penis. Sure you're not a barnacle?

/Fun fact of the day. Barnacles have giant penises.


If you believe those three things, then I understand why you cannot critically examine the life of Joseph Smith.
 
2013-05-21 08:28:42 PM  

Kinek:

The term Christian is a self-identification tool. Arguing that the Nicean creed, or some kind of Protestant or Calvinistic ethic to the already retardedly murky concept of redemption and/or salvation is sufficient to the definition of Christian is like posting a sign outside the clubhouse door that says : "No girls allowed." It says a lot more about the people making the argument than the people being excluded from the club.

The Mormon concept of the trinity is a hell of a lot better than the Essence arguments that Protestant and Catholic theologies argue around in order to not make themselves look like Pagans by having multiple godlike entities.

Honestly, it pisses me off that this is still even an issue in what should be a pluralistic conversation, and one of the reasons why I suspect that the LDS church ever got involved in California. They wanted to be one of the 'Christian' churches.


Christians claim to believe that the Bible is the Word of God. The Bible describes what a Christian is. Everythng else from the Nicean creed onward is just man's attempt to interpret it. That is my only point. Mormons are not Christians as described in the Bible.

Once again, I am only looking at this as an irreligious historian. I have no interest in claiming that any religion or denomination is better than another.
 
2013-05-21 08:45:21 PM  

Kinek: HortusMatris: Kinek: Actually, there are loads of Catholic doctrine, as well as Mormon doctrine (The only two religions I know well enough and that have a centralized figure) that suggest that a prophet or pope is indeed fallible, except when acting in certain offices or under certain circumstances. The biggest example being Moses.

Ugh, I feel like a total retard arguing about religion on the internet.  I know, I got myself into this mess.  How about this:  you win, and I'm going to get some actual work done.  Congratulations!

How about we call it a tie? It's only a win if everybody learns something!

Papal infallibility is a dogma of the Catholic Church which states that, in virtue of the promise of Jesus to Peter, the Pope is preserved from the possibility of error[1] "when, in the exercise of his office as shepherd and teacher of all Christians, in virtue of his supreme apostolic authority, he defines a doctrine concerning faith or morals to be held by the whole Church".[2]

How much is bullshiat, is left up to the viewer, and not something that can be argued. But the concept is there, and as far as I know, Prophetic fallibility is also a concept to the LDS church.


No, I am obviously the loser because you're still trying to educate me.  I over-simplified.  I know that prophets are only really supposed to be infallible when speaking on behalf of God.  Sorry.  It's all absurd to me, anyway, and I really don't care.
 
2013-05-21 08:48:04 PM  

Milo Minderbinder: Kinek: Milo Minderbinder: Kinek: Milo Minderbinder: Mormons: nice people that are, for the most part, entirely blind to the absurdity of their religion. Joseph Smith was pedophillic con man that invented a history that has been proved to be false. If you want a good history of Smith, try "No Man Knows My History."

That book is a load of fallacious crap. If you want a good history, Try Rough Stone Rolling. Much better account. And by better, I mean it wasn't written by someone intent on a smear campaign and was written as actual historical work.

Rough Stone Rolling is the literary equivalent of blowjob for Joseph Smith.  I get the feeling that any book that is even slightly critical of that huckster would get called "fallacious" by you.

RSR covers polygamy, the underage wives, the hat-stones, the lack of habeas corpus in Nauvoo. In what ways is it a blowjob?

Its been five years since I read it, but recall that it never addressed the outright fabrications in the Book of Mormon, proven by virtue of archeology and genetics; something Brodie never had access to. That is the biggest failing: never critically examining the fact that he made the whole damn thing up. A quick look at Wikipedia shows Larry McMurtry described it as being difficult to tell when the biography ends and the apologetics begins.


That's not under the purview of history, and at least on the genetics side, could be argued about. Not in the way you think, but the genetics paper purported to disprove the Book of Mormon (I know the one you're talking about) assumes a lot of things. A lot of things that are assumed from cultural Mormonism, but not actually part of history. The most glaring one being where it actually is supposed to have taken place (It's not mentioned by the book itself, and I can give a long and contradictory account of where multiple people have placed it. This would be important for a genetic study). The other being where the study actually took SNP haplotypes from to compare Jewishness and who they compared them to. Again, it's not an issue of Yes it did, No it didn't. It's that the study made assumptions, therefore there's still a gap. Can't make a call one way or another. Could be wrong or right. But to say that genetics has presented proof, I would argue.

Archeaology, sure, I have no authority to argue about that, but again, we're talking about a history book. It talks about history.
The biggest and most glaring gaps are things like Horses and curiously enough, the weighting system. All of these fly in the face of archaeology. And sure, he could've talked about these, but this is a history book again.

And this brings up another point. Mormon history tends (I say tends, because there are a few good observational studies by disinterested parties) to be written by 3 sorts of people. The white washers, the apologetics, and the anti-mormons. None of these people will present the whole argument, but it's my opinion that the apologetics, at least the good apologetics, will wander around the truth more closely than the white washers or the anti-mormons.
 
2013-05-21 08:48:32 PM  

skozlaw: Nobody ever used reason to become religious so you can't expect the religious to act reasonably when faced with a challenge. She was fourteen, it's not her fault her parents failed her.


No, man, it is so much worse than that. Let's presume, for the sake of argument, that it is TRUE that being raped makes you impure. She then goes one more, and asserts that it is this impurity that is making her fearful specifically against running. In other words, the fearfulness about the conditions of her impurity abate, provided that she is sitting on her ass. But if she run...here come the fear of impurity.

That's why it's strike one AND two. Because even if you buy the impurity aspect...it's still totally farking tarded.
 
2013-05-21 08:51:22 PM  

Milo Minderbinder: Kinek: Milo Minderbinder: Kinek: catmandu: skozlaw: catmandu: Really?

A Christian is someone who believes Jesus Christ died on the cross to save them from their sins and give them eternal life.
John 3:16 says: "For God so loved the world that he gave his only Son, so that everyone who believes in him will not perish but have eternal life." (Love how fundies say gays cannot be Christian. what do they do with that "everyone"? But I digress)

Mormons deny the sufficiency of Christ's death for salvation. They also deny the Trinity and that there is one immortal God. The goal of Mormonism is that we all become as 'gods' becoming both immortal and divine, blurring the creator/creature distinction. They believe God the Father was once a man, just like you or me. For Mormons, Jesus isn't the only son of God, and he's not eternally begotten of the FatherNO TRUE SCOTSMAN!

You would be wrong, sir.

You would be wrong.

Educamate me then. What is a Christian and how are Mormons a Christian denomination (and their name being Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints is Not sufficient).

The term Christian is a self-identification tool. Arguing that the Nicean creed, or some kind of Protestant or Calvinistic ethic to the already retardedly murky concept of redemption and/or salvation is sufficient to the definition of Christian is like posting a sign outside the clubhouse door that says : "No girls allowed." It says a lot more about the people making the argument than the people being excluded from the club.

The Mormon concept of the trinity is a hell of a lot better than the Essence arguments that Protestant and Catholic theologies argue around in order to not make themselves look like Pagans by having multiple godlike entities.

Honestly, it pisses me off that this is still even an issue in what should be a pluralistic conversation, and one of the reasons why I suspect that the LDS church ever got involved in California. They wanted to be one of the 'Christian' churches.

...


Humor and wit may be subjective. What I may not find funny, others may find charming and endearing. The beauty of a pluralistic society is that subjective viewpoints may all be simultaneously correct. I don't have the defining call on whether you're charming or not, and so, I'll fudge it in your favor. Your penis on the other hand is most likely between 4-7 inches, and if it's not, well, then I'd like you to get a plane ticket. There's a dissecting table with your name on it.
 
2013-05-21 08:53:06 PM  

skankboy: Nancy Grace can eat a bag of dicks. (Not that she needs my prodding)


She's lying, disbarred lawyer who would falsify evidence to convict her mother of prostitution.
 
2013-05-21 08:56:26 PM  
After responding to Grace's questions, with steely stares, one "can you believe this chick?" side glance, and finally, a flat-out refusal to go along with Grace's line of questioning, Smart said, "I really, to be frankly honest, don't appreciate you bringing this all up." Schooled.
=====================================================

What the shiat?

Who wrote this? A five year old?
 
2013-05-21 08:56:49 PM  

catmandu: Kinek:

The term Christian is a self-identification tool. Arguing that the Nicean creed, or some kind of Protestant or Calvinistic ethic to the already retardedly murky concept of redemption and/or salvation is sufficient to the definition of Christian is like posting a sign outside the clubhouse door that says : "No girls allowed." It says a lot more about the people making the argument than the people being excluded from the club.

The Mormon concept of the trinity is a hell of a lot better than the Essence arguments that Protestant and Catholic theologies argue around in order to not make themselves look like Pagans by having multiple godlike entities.

Honestly, it pisses me off that this is still even an issue in what should be a pluralistic conversation, and one of the reasons why I suspect that the LDS church ever got involved in California. They wanted to be one of the 'Christian' churches.

Christians claim to believe that the Bible is the Word of God. The Bible describes what a Christian is. Everythng else from the Nicean creed onward is just man's attempt to interpret it. That is my only point. Mormons are not Christians as described in the Bible.

Once again, I am only looking at this as an irreligious historian. I have no interest in claiming that any religion or denomination is better than another.


Psalm 119:151-2, 160
Thou art near, O LORD; and all thy commandments are truth. Concerning thy testimonies, I have known of old that thou hast founded them for ever. (vv.151-2)
Thy word is true from the beginning: and every one of thy righteous judgments endureth for ever. (v.160)
Ecclesiastes 12:13
Fear God, and keep his commandments: for this is the whole duty of man.
Malachi 4:4
Remember ye the law of Moses.
Matthew 5:18-19
Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or tittle shall nowise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled. Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven.
Luke 16:17
It is easier for heaven and earth to pass, than one tittle of the law to fail


Alright, so part one of our argument. We've established that the Mosaic law is still in force during the New testament era.
Part 2 of our argument:

Literally the entire retarded mosaic law. Linens. Stonings. The whole shebang.

So. Either Christians are not defined by the Bible, or Nobody except the Amish are Christian.

Unless of course this is an utterly retarded argument. Ex-biblical arguments are the bread and butter of schisms.
 
2013-05-21 09:01:48 PM  
*Sigh*  This thread is so full of fail without pics of Grace's love melons spilling out all over the place.
 
2013-05-21 09:10:25 PM  

Kinek: Milo Minderbinder: Kinek: Milo Minderbinder: Kinek: Milo Minderbinder: Mormons: nice people that are, for the most part, entirely blind to the absurdity of their religion. Joseph Smith was pedophillic con man that invented a history that has been proved to be false. If you want a good history of Smith, try "No Man Knows My History."

That book is a load of fallacious crap. If you want a good history, Try Rough Stone Rolling. Much better account. And by better, I mean it wasn't written by someone intent on a smear campaign and was written as actual historical work.

Rough Stone Rolling is the literary equivalent of blowjob for Joseph Smith.  I get the feeling that any book that is even slightly critical of that huckster would get called "fallacious" by you.

RSR covers polygamy, the underage wives, the hat-stones, the lack of habeas corpus in Nauvoo. In what ways is it a blowjob?

Its been five years since I read it, but recall that it never addressed the outright fabrications in the Book of Mormon, proven by virtue of archeology and genetics; something Brodie never had access to. That is the biggest failing: never critically examining the fact that he made the whole damn thing up. A quick look at Wikipedia shows Larry McMurtry described it as being difficult to tell when the biography ends and the apologetics begins.

That's not under the purview of history, and at least on the genetics side, could be argued about. Not in the way you think, but the genetics paper purported to disprove the Book of Mormon (I know the one you're talking about) assumes a lot of things. A lot of things that are assumed from cultural Mormonism, but not actually part of history. The most glaring one being where it actually is supposed to have taken place (It's not mentioned by the book itself, and I can give a long and contradictory account of where multiple people have placed it. This would be important for a genetic study). The other being where the study actually took SNP haplotypes from to compare Jewishness and who they compared them to. Again, it's not an issue of Yes it did, No it didn't. It's that the study made assumptions, therefore there's still a gap. Can't make a call one way or another. Could be wrong or right. But to say that genetics has presented proof, I would argue.

Archeaology, sure, I have no authority to argue about that, but again, we're talking about a history book. It talks about history.
The biggest and most glaring gaps are things like Horses and curiously enough, the weighting system. All of these fly in the face of archaeology. And sure, he could've talked about these, but this is a history book again.

And this brings up another point. Mormon history tends (I say tends, because there are a few good observational studies by disinterested parties) to be written by 3 sorts of people. The white washers, the apologetics, and the anti-mormons. None of these people will present the whole argument, but it's my opinion that the apologetics, at least the good apologetics, will wander around the truth more closely than the white washers or the anti-mormons.


So a "history" cannot include critical analysis from other disciplines? Who made up that rule?

Smith writes a book, claiming divine revelation. The content of that book is later PROVEN to be bullshiat, making the author a liar. And you are arguing that a good biography should not address this fact?
 
2013-05-21 09:16:02 PM  

Kinek:


Unless of course this is an utterly retarded argument. Ex-biblical arguments are the bread and butter of schisms.


It is an utterly retarded argument because there is only one passage in the Bible that tells how one becomes what we now call a Christian ( a person saved to eternal life by belief in Jesus as the only, eternal son of God) John 3:16. Everything else that is not "historical" or describing what is happening is telling God's people how they should act.
 
2013-05-21 09:16:11 PM  

catmandu: Kinek:

The term Christian is a self-identification tool. Arguing that the Nicean creed, or some kind of Protestant or Calvinistic ethic to the already retardedly murky concept of redemption and/or salvation is sufficient to the definition of Christian is like posting a sign outside the clubhouse door that says : "No girls allowed." It says a lot more about the people making the argument than the people being excluded from the club.

The Mormon concept of the trinity is a hell of a lot better than the Essence arguments that Protestant and Catholic theologies argue around in order to not make themselves look like Pagans by having multiple godlike entities.

Honestly, it pisses me off that this is still even an issue in what should be a pluralistic conversation, and one of the reasons why I suspect that the LDS church ever got involved in California. They wanted to be one of the 'Christian' churches.

Christians claim to believe that the Bible is the Word of God. The Bible describes what a Christian is. Everythng else from the Nicean creed onward is just man's attempt to interpret it. That is my only point. Mormons are not Christians as described in the Bible.

Once again, I am only looking at this as an irreligious historian. I have no interest in claiming that any religion or denomination is better than another.


The Bible isn't necessarily the end-all be-all of Christianity. As with any major religion, Christianity is an umbrella term and many sects place a great importance on texts outside of the Bible. Pauline Christianity is what most people in the West would identify as Christianity, but take a glance at Gnostic Christianity and Catharism for examples of how much variation in beliefs and practices can exist under the name of Christianity. As for what makes someone a Christian, every sect has its own criteria and some may not even place importance on such a label.
 
2013-05-21 09:17:09 PM  

catmandu: What is a Christian and how are Mormons a Christian denomination


They're crazy people who think a magical Jewish zombie got up and started walking around about 1980 years ago.
 
2013-05-21 09:19:46 PM  
Even worse, its boring bullshiat. At least a con man like L. Ron made his fiction interesting. The Book of Mormon is the worst religious tract ever. My favorite Book of Mormon drinking game? Open to any page and do a shot everytime you read "And it came to pass." Its like the man had only one way to start an idea. If God exists, I'm pretty sure he's a better author than that.
 
2013-05-21 09:20:49 PM  

bugontherug: Coming as it did from a teenage girl recently kidnapped and repeatedly raped, I thought it was devastating in its polite understatement.


She is 25 and has been free of her kidnappers for 10 years, just to put things in perspective.
 
2013-05-21 09:29:35 PM  

Kinek: catmandu: Kinek:

The term Christian is a self-identification tool. Arguing that the Nicean creed, or some kind of Protestant or Calvinistic ethic to the already retardedly murky concept of redemption and/or salvation is sufficient to the definition of Christian is like posting a sign outside the clubhouse door that says : "No girls allowed." It says a lot more about the people making the argument than the people being excluded from the club.

The Mormon concept of the trinity is a hell of a lot better than the Essence arguments that Protestant and Catholic theologies argue around in order to not make themselves look like Pagans by having multiple godlike entities.

Honestly, it pisses me off that this is still even an issue in what should be a pluralistic conversation, and one of the reasons why I suspect that the LDS church ever got involved in California. They wanted to be one of the 'Christian' churches.

Christians claim to believe that the Bible is the Word of God. The Bible describes what a Christian is. Everythng else from the Nicean creed onward is just man's attempt to interpret it. That is my only point. Mormons are not Christians as described in the Bible.

Once again, I am only looking at this as an irreligious historian. I have no interest in claiming that any religion or denomination is better than another.


Psalm 119:151-2, 160
Thou art near, O LORD; and all thy commandments are truth. Concerning thy testimonies, I have known of old that thou hast founded them for ever. (vv.151-2)
Thy word is true from the beginning: and every one of thy righteous judgments endureth for ever. (v.160)
Ecclesiastes 12:13
Fear God, and keep his commandments: for this is the whole duty of man.
Malachi 4:4
Remember ye the law of Moses.
Matthew 5:18-19
Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or tittle shall nowise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled. Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven.
Luke 16:17
It is easier for heaven and earth to pass, than one tittle of the law to fail

Alright, so part one of our argument. We've established that the Mosaic law is still in force during the New testament era.
Part 2 of our argument:

Literally the entire retarded mosaic law. Linens. Stonings. The whole shebang.

So. Either Christians are not defined by the Bible, or Nobody except the Amish are Christian.

Unless of course this is an utterly retarded argument. Ex-biblical arguments are the bread and butter of schisms.


You are correct. It is vitally important that Jews abide by Mosaic Law. Thankfully, the very vast majority of Christians are not Jewish.
 
2013-05-21 09:32:19 PM  
I actually admire Smith; he ran probably the greatest con in history. Do you have any idea how many times I have tried the "God-told-me-that-you-are-going-to-hell-if-you-don't-let-me-bang-all-t hese-underage-chicks" bit with my wife? However, I never get it to work. That's what I get for marrying a woman that is much less gullible than yer average Mormon.
 
2013-05-21 09:36:00 PM  

jshine: Anayalator: [ct.fra.bz image 500x299]

Mormons are Christians who took the "red pill".


You must've done a lot of LDS to think that's what's in the red pill
 
2013-05-21 09:45:39 PM  

lostcat: The practicing Mormon boldly cited the belief that she was no longer "pure" after being raped by her captives as a reason for being afraid to run.

Am I reading that wrong or is it just written incorrectly?


I had to re-read that a number of times as well. It's awkwardly written. "Boldly" has no place in that sentence, in my opinion. It gives the impression that she endorses this belief, when she is in fact actively working to discredit it. I would have written that she "boldly  admitted she believed she was no longer pure..."

/farking English. How does it work?
 
2013-05-21 10:03:12 PM  

scalpod: [www.popfi.com image 225x300]

"I'll take Mythology for $1000, Alex."

[www.tv-live.org.uk image 300x200][i2.cdn.turner.com image 340x200][25.media.tumblr.com image 200x200]

"What is a harpy?"

[guycodeblog.mtv.com image 380x240]

"Correct. We would have also accepted gorgon." [shudder]


img.photobucket.com

/would lol again
 
2013-05-21 10:04:06 PM  

Walter Paisley: catmandu: Kinek:

The term Christian is a self-identification tool. Arguing that the Nicean creed, or some kind of Protestant or Calvinistic ethic to the already retardedly murky concept of redemption and/or salvation is sufficient to the definition of Christian is like posting a sign outside the clubhouse door that says : "No girls allowed." It says a lot more about the people making the argument than the people being excluded from the club.

The Mormon concept of the trinity is a hell of a lot better than the Essence arguments that Protestant and Catholic theologies argue around in order to not make themselves look like Pagans by having multiple godlike entities.

Honestly, it pisses me off that this is still even an issue in what should be a pluralistic conversation, and one of the reasons why I suspect that the LDS church ever got involved in California. They wanted to be one of the 'Christian' churches.

Christians claim to believe that the Bible is the Word of God. The Bible describes what a Christian is. Everythng else from the Nicean creed onward is just man's attempt to interpret it. That is my only point. Mormons are not Christians as described in the Bible.

Once again, I am only looking at this as an irreligious historian. I have no interest in claiming that any religion or denomination is better than another.

The Bible isn't necessarily the end-all be-all of Christianity. As with any major religion, Christianity is an umbrella term and many sects place a great importance on texts outside of the Bible. Pauline Christianity is what most people in the West would identify as Christianity, but take a glance at Gnostic Christianity and Catharism for examples of how much variation in beliefs and practices can exist under the name of Christianity. As for what makes someone a Christian, every sect has its own criteria and some may not even place importance on such a label.


Correct.

Try reading a Catholic bible. It is full of historical footnotes explaining the context in ancient Judaism and at the time of Christ.

The bible is definitely NOT the inalienable word of God for Catholics. Yet they were the first Christians.
 
Displayed 50 of 181 comments


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Newest | Show all


View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter








In Other Media
  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report