I'm never 'inflammatory'. I'm always reasonable. The only thing I ever do is calmly and rationally make a point which other people choose to be inflammatory against. I myself rarely (if ever) make an argument personal. I'll strongly make my case, and I'm not afraid to point out hypocrisy and bigotry when I see it.

In this case, we have a bunch of people in this thread that are Mormon bashing. They claim it is 'official church policy' to cut off family members. All I have done is clearly state the facts. It is not official church policy to do anything of the sort, and anyone who IS doing such things is either (A) not LDS at all or (B) not a very good practicioner of thier faith. I fail to see how such an argument could possibly be 'inflammatory' except to a person who is bigoted and has an axe to grind.

seen your posts elsewhere

M'eh - if you find the prolix nature of my text to cumbersome or weighty to digest then feel free to move on. Addressing an issue requires thought. I am not a flippant, unthinking debator who is satisfied with simply making unsupported, profane accusations and calling it an 'argument'.

the whole point of the meeting (since the church's early days) is to allow the congregation their opportunity to be heard

From my understanding, it is also not considered a place for free-wheeling political arguments or discourse. Sunday worship services are places where people come to be uplifted, share faith building experiences, or otherwise console & strengthen each other. It is not the place to get up and tell everyone how much you think everyone sucks, or how great your new car is, or whatever crap you have dribbling out your mind. People going 'off topic' like that shouldn't be surprised to have the mic cut & the bishop tug at their sleeve to take it off-line.

Their website says that LDS meetings have 3 divisions of an hour each. The meeting he got up in looks like their first one where they take their sacraments. That's not the spot for his little stunt. There's Sunday School meeting where church doctrines get discussed, and another one they call 'priesthood' or 'relief society' where men & women get split up. If he had something to get off his chest, then Sunday School or Priesthood was the place for it. Not a meeting with children and youth. Ideally, this kind of discussion is more logically done with a Bishop in private. The fact that he lined up a cameraman and had his whole speech written out proves he wasn't making a heart-felt confession. He was out for attention.

And seriously, Pennypacker, I've seen your posts elsewhere, and they are always lengthy and difficult to understand the point. And you actually try to drown out the person who was present at the recording, who appears to have valid/interesting information. You offer anecdotal evidence to counter other peoples anecdotal evidence, and then denounce the use of anecdotal evidence. I struggle to see the value in your arguments; it seems like you just prefer to be as contrary as possible, but emotionally neutral, which is really boring to read through.

As a born and raised Mormon, now atheist, I can say this is appears pretty accurate for a fast and testimony, and the whole point of the meeting (since the church's early days) is to allow the congregation their opportunity to be heard. There is a distinct desire in the church to have it appear 'democratic', when it's really just a token gesture ("All who approve say 'aye'" to confirm member positions; in my 15 years no dissenters). While it is uncommon to see someone comment politically, it's a perfectly valid platform for addressing his concerns to his fellow congregants. He was respectful and spoke of his personal feelings towards the actions of the church as an organization.

That said, the bishop for the congregation is 'elected' on a volunteer basis, and it's an unpaid position. The church documents on their responsibilities are pretty bland, and essentially are concerned chiefly with getting tithing and making sure the money is accounted for. It's entirely possible the bishop is just a douche and non-representative, but that really comes down to where you church is. Mormon churches in California are a whole different animal than churches in Utah, and I'm sure that's true elsewhere.

The best I can surmise it, the altruism and goodwill of church members as more to do with the local community and individuals than the actual church itself. The church only provides a venue and a general structure. My impression of the church after leaving was that it would be great if it wasn't for all the mystical Jesus/Joseph Smith nonsense. But alas, that's the one crazy thread that binds it all together.

Relevant because the old couple's needs were relayed to the local church bishop by a concerned LDS neighbor. The old couple were members, but weren't regularly attending. I got this as I helped them haul off the trash. A need was seen and they stepped up. The couple was not 'alienated', and the service was not held over thier heads as a carrot.

Guys like dystopian are claiming that the official church position is to 'cut them off'. "OK now be good and come to church or NO AC UNIT FOR YOU...!" I relate this story (and I've got a ton more) to point out that the image of horrible LDS people cutting off family & friends as a matter of official church policy is baloney. When it happens, then it's an isolated case of individuals who are NOT following church doctrine. If such behavior was brought to the attention of an LDS bishop, they'd call such persons to repent.

I've seen LDS communities in Virginia, Illinois, Utah, Michigan, California, Missouri, and Texas. It's pretty much the same wherever you go. They are generally honest, hard working, family oriented, service minded people. I reject the erroneous, misleading claim that it is official church position to be isolationist and cruel. Bad experiences are not the result of official church doctrine. Like most cases where people slam religion - it is a matter where bad people are doing bad things and the "Church" gets blamed for it. Blame the individuals for being jackasses, and quit trying to say that they represent the entire population and organization.

Rick Riordan had a great comment in one of his Olympian books... The god Posiedon was explaining to the main character (his son) why Anteus had killed so many people in Posidon's name. "Just because people do things in my name does not mean that I approve of their actions. When people do terrible things in the name of a God, it usually says more about them than about us."

That nails it 100%. These people who are 'cutting off' thier family members are not doing it because Church told them to, or because "God" told them too. They're doing it because they're jerks, and they'd do the same thing no matter what religion (or non-religion) they belonged to. They're just using the church as an excuse to justify what they're doing when the church would tell them to do the opposite.

1) No offense, but you are absolutely terrible at analogies.

I create perfect analogies that biased people reject. Mr. Prop 8 horned into a meeting set aside for worship with a political diatribe. Wilson interrupted a national address with his political opinion. Neither was done in the right time or place. The only difference that exists is the bias in the mind of the observer. I have no party affiliation, so I have no problem calling out both for being rude and out of line. Others perhaps are tainted with political bias, and are therefore put in a position where they have to be an apologist for one side or the other. I imagine it's a hard life to be a shill.

The Mormon Church is famous for encouraging members to cut off communication with family members who have either left the church, been excommunicated or are of different religious beliefs.

I lived in Utah for years and had a number of LDS friends, neighbors and acquaintances. One story... An older couple on my street was in a house that was a total dump. The family didn't lift a finger. The guy was a vet, and sick all the time. LDS people frequently worked on the house make thier situation better. The bishop donated a window from his own house so they could knock a hole in the wall, install an insulated window, and another guy gave them a window AC unit so they didn't have to keep using a leaky swamp cooler which aggravated the guy's lungs (he got flu all the time). Their back yard was a literal jungle, and a bunch of LDS guys and their kids came in and hauled off two whole dump-trucks full of trees & junk one weekend. That's one story, and I personally witnessed many more. When people were in need, these folks came and helped out and never asked for a dime or expected jack in return either in the form of church attendance or recompense. It was service in its purest form.

Now - as I said - I'm sure there are exceptions. There are always a few bad apples in the bunch. But I know for a fact that the official CHURCH position is that it bad to alienate family or friends. I've seen their manuals, and thier documents. Family is everything to them. They don't as a matter of policy 'cut off' anyone. Anyone 'cutting off' someone is not following the LDS church's official positions, doctrines, or Christ's example. It sounds to me more like you're fixating on a few people that are breaking step with church doctrine.

So - not to put too fine a point on it - but your claim that it is official church position to cut off communication with family members is complete and utter shash. I suggest you supply some sort of documentation for your claim, or your argument has to be relegated into the "unsupported rumors" pile where most crap arguments belong.

It's been pretty well documented that "the church" did not spend bazillions of dollars on prop 8 aside from a pittance in travel expenses. Church members donated a lot from their own pockets, but that's cool. I think official church policy states that they don't support political parties or candidates, but encourages all members to be involved politically however their conscience dictates.

So for this guy to be getting all testy over prop 8 is just goofy because he had to have known for years (if he is what he claims) what church policy was. From what I can see, Sunday meetings are not a proper venue for political brouhahas. Pretending this is 'censorship' is baloney. Church is not the time to have a political debate. If he's so outraged, then he should go talk to the Bishop in private. Pulling a grandstand in a church meeting isn't courage. That's just rude. Bishop there was probably not thinking 'gotta censor this guy!'... He was probably thinking, 'not the right time and place'.

And the presence of the camera rolling before he had even started making his point? Come on. No one sits there and records people talking in church. The cameraman knew that this guy was going to be saying something controversial. Mr. Prop 8 had his little 'talk' all written out on paper in advance. Speech in advance. Cameraman in place. Yeah - this is totally a publicity stunt being done by a guy who wants controvery. It wouldn't surprise me if in a few days there was another video from this guy talking about his 'harrowing experience' and the 'agonizing fallout' of his little stunt. Pht - when you plan something you know is going to be controversial in advance fella then you don't get to whine about it.

You guys were all upset at the congressman who shouted out during Obama's speech. Howcome you're all, "This guy has guts to do this..." for the rudeness of Mr. Prop 8, but you're all like, "What a jerk!" for Mr. "Liar!"? Howcome one guy is 'couragous' and the other is 'rude' when they're both doing publically pre-arranged stunts for the purpose of generating controversy?

Chapter 1 courtesy of the http://richarddawkins.net/article,4217,Extract-from-Chapter-One-of-The-Greatest-Show-on-Earth,Richard-Dawkins---Times-Online

Imagine that you are a teacher of Roman history and the Latin language, anxious to impart your enthusiasm for the ancient world — for the elegiacs of Ovid and the odes of Horace, the sinewy economy of Latin grammar as exhibited in the oratory of Cicero, the strategic niceties of the Punic Wars, the generalship of Julius Caesar and the voluptuous excesses of the later emperors. That’s a big undertaking and it takes time, concentration, dedication. Yet you find your precious time continually preyed upon, and your class’s attention distracted, by a baying pack of ignoramuses (as a Latin scholar you would know better than to say ignorami) who, with strong political and especially financial support, scurry about tirelessly attempting to persuade your unfortunate pupils that the Romans never existed. There never was a Roman Empire. The entire world came into existence only just beyond living memory. Spanish, Italian, French, Portuguese, Catalan, Occitan, Romansh: all these languages and their constituent dialects sprang spontaneously and separately into being, and owe nothing to any predecessor such as Latin.

Instead of devoting your full attention to the noble vocation of classical scholar and teacher, you are forced to divert your time and energy to a rearguard defence of the proposition that the Romans existed at all: a defence against an exhibition of ignorant prejudice that would make you weep if you weren’t too busy fighting it.

If my fantasy of the Latin teacher seems too wayward, here’s a more realistic example. Imagine you are a teacher of more recent history, and your lessons on 20th-century Europe are boycotted, heckled or otherwise disrupted by well-organised, well-financed and politically muscular groups of Holocaust-deniers. Unlike my hypothetical Rome-deniers, Holocaustdeniers really exist. They are vocal, superficially plausible and adept at seeming learned. They are supported by the president of at least one currently powerful state, and they include at least one bishop of the Roman Catholic Church. Imagine that, as a teacher of European history, you are continually faced with belligerent demands to “teach the controversy”, and to give “equal time” to the “alternative theory” that the Holocaust never happened but was invented by a bunch of Zionist fabricators.

Fashionably relativist intellectuals chime in to insist that there is no absolute truth: whether the Holocaust happened is a matter of personal belief; all points of view are equally valid and should be equally “respected”.

The plight of many science teachers today is not less dire. When they attempt to expound the central and guiding principle of biology; when they honestly place the living world in its historical context — which means evolution; when they explore and explain the very nature of life itself, they are harried and stymied, hassled and bullied, even threatened with loss of their jobs. At the very least their time is wasted at every turn. They are likely to receive menacing letters from parents and have to endure the sarcastic smirks and close-folded arms of brainwashed children. They are supplied with state-approved textbooks that have had the word “evolution” systematically expunged, or bowdlerized into “change over time”. Once, we were tempted to laugh this kind of thing off as a peculiarly American phenomenon. Teachers in Britain and Europe now face the same problems, partly because of American influence, but more significantly because of the growing Islamic presence in the classroom — abetted by the official commitment to “multiculturalism” and the terror of being thought racist.

It is frequently, and rightly, said that senior clergy and theologians have no problem with evolution and, in many cases, actively support scientists in this respect. This is often true, as I know from the agreeable experience of collaborating with the Bishop of Oxford, now Lord Harries, on two separate occasions. In 2004 we wrote a joint article in The Sunday Times whose concluding words were: “Nowadays there is nothing to debate. Evolution is a fact and, from a Christian perspective, one of the greatest of God’s works.” The last sentence was written by Richard Harries, but we agreed about all the rest of our article. Two years previously, Bishop Harries and I had organised a joint letter to the Prime Minister, Tony Blair.

[In the letter, eminent scientists and churchmen, including seven bishops, expressed concern over the teaching of evolution and their alarm at it being posed as a “faith position”at the Emmanuel City Technology College in Gateshead.] Bishop Harries and I organised this letter in a hurry. As far as I remember, the signatories to the letter constituted 100 per cent of those we approached. There was no disagreement either from scientists or from bishops.

The Archbishop of Canterbury has no problem with evolution, nor does the Pope (give or take the odd wobble over the precise palaeontological juncture when the human soul was injected), nor do educated priests and professors of theology. The Greatest Show on Earth is a book about the positive evidence that evolution is a fact. It is not intended as an antireligious book. I’ve done that, it’s another T-shirt, this is not the place to wear it again. Bishops and theologians who have attended to the evidence for evolution have given up the struggle against it. Some may do so reluctantly, some, like Richard Harries, enthusiastically, but all except the woefully uninformed are forced to accept the fact of evolution.

They may think God had a hand in starting the process off, and perhaps didn’t stay his hand in guiding its future progress. They probably think God cranked the Universe up in the first place, and solemnised its birth with a harmonious set of laws and physical constants calculated to fulfil some inscrutable purpose in which we were eventually to play a role.

But, grudgingly in some cases, happily in others, thoughtful and rational churchmen and women accept the evidence for evolution.

What we must not do is complacently assume that, because bishops and educated clergy accept evolution, so do their congregations. Alas there is ample evidence to the contrary from opinion polls. More than 40 per cent of Americans deny that humans evolved from other animals, and think that we — and by implication all of life — were created by God within the last 10,000 years. The figure is not quite so high in Britain, but it is still worryingly large. And it should be as worrying to the churches as it is to scientists. This book is necessary. I shall be using the name “historydeniers” for those people who deny evolution: who believe the world’s age is measured in thousands of years rather than thousands of millions of years, and who believe humans walked with dinosaurs.

To repeat, they constitute more than 40 per cent of the American population. The equivalent figure is higher in some countries, lower in others, but 40 per cent is a good average and I shall from time to time refer to the history-deniers as the “40percenters”.

To return to the enlightened bishops and theologians, it would be nice if they’d put a bit more effort into combating the anti-scientific nonsense that they deplore. All too many preachers, while agreeing that evolution is true and Adam and Eve never existed, will then blithely go into the pulpit and make some moral or theological point about Adam and Eve in their sermons without once mentioning that, of course, Adam and Eve never actually existed! If challenged, they will protest that they intended a purely “symbolic” meaning, perhaps something to do with “original sin”, or the virtues of innocence. They may add witheringly that, obviously, nobody would be so foolish as to take their words literally. But do their congregations know that? How is the person in the pew, or on the prayer-mat, supposed to know which bits of scripture to take literally, which symbolically? Is it really so easy for an uneducated churchgoer to guess? In all too many cases the answer is clearly no, and anybody could be forgiven for feeling confused.

Think about it, Bishop. Be careful, Vicar. You are playing with dynamite, fooling around with a misunderstanding that’s waiting to happen — one might even say almost bound to happen if not forestalled. Shouldn’t you take greater care, when speaking in public, to let your yea be yea and your nay be nay? Lest ye fall into condemnation, shouldn’t you be going out of your way to counter that already extremely widespread popular misunderstanding and lend active and enthusiastic support to scientists and science teachers? The history-deniers themselves are among those who I am trying to reach. But, perhaps more importantly, I aspire to arm those who are not history-deniers but know some — perhaps members of their own family or church — and find themselves inadequately prepared to argue the case.

Evolution is a fact. Beyond reasonable doubt, beyond serious doubt, beyond sane, informed, intelligent doubt, beyond doubt evolution is a fact. The evidence for evolution is at least as strong as the evidence for the Holocaust, even allowing for eye witnesses to the Holocaust. It is the plain truth that we are cousins of chimpanzees, somewhat more distant cousins of monkeys, more distant cousins still of aardvarks and manatees, yet more distant cousins of bananas and turnips . . . continue the list as long as desired. That didn’t have to be true. It is not self-evidently, tautologically, obviously true, and there was a time when most people, even educated people, thought it wasn’t. It didn’t have to be true, but it is. We know this because a rising flood of evidence supports it. Evolution is a fact, and [my] book will demonstrate it. No reputable scientist disputes it, and no unbiased reader will close the book doubting it.

Why, then, do we speak of “Darwin’s theory of evolution”, thereby, it seems, giving spurious comfort to those of a creationist persuasion — the history-deniers, the 40-percenters — who think the word “theory” is a concession, handing them some kind of gift or victory? Evolution is a theory in the same sense as the heliocentric theory. In neither case should the word “only” be used, as in “only a theory”. As for the claim that evolution has never been “proved”, proof is a notion that scientists have been intimidated into mistrusting.

Influential philosophers tell us we can’t prove anything in science.

Mathematicians can prove things — according to one strict view, they are the only people who can — but the best that scientists can do is fail to disprove things while pointing to how hard they tried. Even the undisputed theory that the Moon is smaller than the Sun cannot, to the satisfaction of a certain kind of philosopher, be proved in the way that, for example, the Pythagorean Theorem can be proved. But massive accretions of evidence support it so strongly that to deny it the status of “fact” seems ridiculous to all but pedants. The same is true of evolution. Evolution is a fact in the same sense as it is a fact that Paris is in the northern hemisphere. Though logic-choppers rule the town,* some theories are beyond sensible doubt, and we call them facts. The more energetically and thoroughly you try to disprove a theory, if it survives the assault, the more closely it approaches what common sense happily calls a fact.

We are like detectives who come on the scene after a crime has been committed. The murderer’s actions have vanished into the past.

The detective has no hope of witnessing the actual crime with his own eyes. What the detective does have is traces that remain, and there is a great deal to trust there. There are footprints, fingerprints (and nowadays DNA fingerprints too), bloodstains, letters, diaries. The world is the way the world should be if this and this history, but not that and that history, led up to the present.

Evolution is an inescapable fact, and we should celebrate its astonishing power, simplicity and beauty. Evolution is within us, around us, between us, and its workings are embedded in the rocks of aeons past. Given that, in most cases, we don’t live long enough to watch evolution happening before our eyes, we shall revisit the metaphor of the detective coming upon the scene of a crime after the event and making inferences. The aids to inference that lead scientists to the fact of evolution are far more numerous, more convincing, more incontrovertible, than any eyewitness reports that have ever been used, in any court of law, in any century, to establish guilt in any crime. Proof beyond reasonable doubt? Reasonable doubt? That is the understatement of all time.

*Not my favourite Yeats line, but apt in this case.

© Richard Dawkins 2009

Someone *doublepromote this, please, even if just for the revelation (6:08 into part 2) that the current pope issued the order that everyone in the church -- priests, workers, bishops, EVEN VICTIMS -- must protect priests who rape children. Not kidding.

oh, man, i would so love to have the title "Mr. Fuck"
"hello, i'm the mayor of Fucking"
or "i'm the bishop at the church of Fucking"

Does this mean I will have my own Bishop who can do the thing with the knife soon?

>> ^charliem:
These women would tear me in half.


Like Bishop in Aliens, sticky white fluid everywhere.

I just had to register a new account to reply to this.

1. You're basing "design" on how we, as humans, consider it. So, as a designer myself, I know that when you design something, it is not streamlined. It won't perform the best way. It's a concept! You iterate, change things, modify how stuff works.. So therefore design *evolves*. An evolution of design throws a kink into the idea of a God getting it right the first time and gives more credence to Darwin's theory.
2. Bad example using the hotel. You're not proving your point, nor discrediting his.
3. You're completely avoiding the answer objectively. You're saying that there must be a God to give moral authority if there is none to begin with. That's very very presumptuous. Humans create moral authority based on majority opinion. They're called "laws" and they existed for a long, long time even before civilized society.
4. I would echo what Shuac had to say. On top of that, if people of the world are to obey the first commandment, God would have people's undivided attention if he just appeared one day to the world saying, "Hey guys I'm here," performed a miracle or two, and left. Whamo, you have one world under one religion instantly.
5. Proof of God interests me. It would change me. But right now, there will be a day where Science will indeed disprove many more religious beliefs. Science will evolve. How will the church respond? Will they edit the bible? What human has that authority? Won't that cast doubt on the credibility of religion?

I have questions too:

1. Why does God want us to worship him?
2. Why do we need the Pope, Cardinals, Bishops, and Clergymen, and why should they dress up the way they do? Why should they have any authority over anyone?

And finally:

3. Generally, are people smarter and/or more intelligent than people 2000 years ago? Reason I ask is that I look through history and I see plain ignorance guiding lives. A century ago, people were fascinated by magicians. Some probably thought they had supernatural ability. During the Salem Witch Trials, people were burnt at the stake for doing things that were misunderstood or suspicious. Earlier than that, some cultures murdered babies for being deformed. Cultures sacrificed virgins to volcanoes to appease their gods. Crazy huh?

Isn't it then a matter of fact that people, generally, were more stupid and gullible 2000 years ago than they were today? If you did a magic card trick to the Apostles, they would think you had special powers too..

aw for a second there i thought he had the super cool native name of "Bishop Dancing Windstyle"

Yea, it's called "Fringe." As in fringe science. As in things that are not quite science. As in pseudoscience. I'm sorry that you've lost your ability to just sit back and enjoy something without overthinking it. But I'm certain many science-respecting individuals can enjoy something that is obviously not meant to be taken as gospel - Also known as fiction.

And sorry, but no, I don't see any paradoxes so far. It's stated very clearly in the show that the timeline has always occurred in this particular manner. That they always went back in time and always shaped the future. You want time travel conundrums, look to the Terminator series. Those are full of holes. Do you suck the fun out of those, too?

But seriously, fuck you, dude. You may disagree with me, but to come over to my profile and hurl insults is really lame. Lighten up and enjoy some TV.

In reply to this comment by EDD:
I made it private because I genuinely thought you weren't being serious and that you might want to keep up the appearance. Actually, a part of me still hopes you're being over-the-top absurd just to have a go at me. If not:

"Fringe is another terrific show."
You honestly have got be kidding me. Haven't you ever tried looking past the characters - yes, some of them might be mildly to very interesting (Ben Linus and Walter Bishop in Fringe), but almost everything else apart from CGI and production values completely sucks in those shows, there's just no denying it. I mean, come on, no science-respecting individual could like what Fringe is doing, which is advertising pseudosciences and shitting on top of actual science all the damn time.

"Usually time travel opens up plot holes, but here it is done very well."
Oh boy, you really haven't thought it through once, have you? Lost has the same paradox going on that was oh-so-evident in the Harry Potter books - they've made it so that events that are occurring currently (NOW) are supposedly shaping the past, which in turn shapes recent history (which leads to the NOW). It's a paradox for a reason, which means, even if any of the theorized time-travel were possible, that's exactly what would never, ever occur. And saying "it's destiny" isn't making sense out of time-travel, it's copping-out and side-stepping any explanations to pander to the intellectually-challenged, pure and simple.

Jesus-on-a-stick, I really hope you're just pulling my leg with these bucketloads of absurd.

Comment hidden because you are ignoring dag. (show it anyway)

Bushels of bishops

If I recall correctly, the bishop had a switchblade in his staff.

Good times.