Tags for this video have been changed from 'John Safran, Race Relations' to 'John Safran, Race Relations, palestinian nurse' - edited by Fusionaut

Copyright claim by John Safran. *Dead.

>> ^EndAll:
I've always wanted to go door-to-door knocking, but not to advocate on the behalf of any religion - but rather for the opposite

you mean kinda like?:

http://www.videosift.com/video/John-Safran-vs-the-Mormons

This video has been declared a duplicate; transferring votes to the original video and killing this dupe - dupeof declared by EDD.

ah, well:
*dupeof=http://www.videosift.com/video/John-Safran-vs-the-Mormons

Tags for this video have been changed from 'mormons, evangelism, rant, salt n pepa' to 'john safran, mormons, evangelism, rant, salt n pepa, proselytizing' - edited by EDD

Joseph Heller, "Catch-22"

most things by Vonnegut (esp. Breakfast of Champions, Slaughterhouse-5, and Deadeye Dick)

Cormac McCarthy, "The Road"

Ronald J. Glasser, "365 Days"

Richard Bach, "Stranger to the Ground" (and many others)

Honourable mentions: William Gibson, "Neuromancer" -- Murray Peden, "A Thousand Shall Fall" (w/ Google Books preview) -- Tim O'Brien, "The Things They Carried" -- John Irving, "A Prayer For Owen Meany" -- George Orwell, "1984" -- , Nick Hornby, "High Fidelity" / "About A Boy" -- Roald Dahl, "Skin" / "Over To You" / many others -- Paul Theroux, "The Mosquito Coast" / "Half Moon Street" -- James Howard Kunstler, "The Long Emergency" (preview) -- Vladimir Nabokov, "Lolita" -- many by Bill Bryson -- J.D. Salinger, "The Catcher In The Rye" -- Andy McNab, "Bravo Two Zero" -- Jonathan Safran Foer, "Extremely Loud & Incredibly Close" -- Alice Sebold, "The Lovely Bones" -- Miriam Toews, "A Complicated Kindness" -- Antoine de St-Exupery, "Wind, Sand, and Stars" -- LGen Roméo Dallaire, "Shake Hands With The Devil" -- Ernest K. Gann, "Fate Is The Hunter" -- (and to be continued most likely)

I love Safran and his annoyingly whiny little voice. This is a brilliant demonstration of how people with a little bit of knowledge can easily pull the wool over the eyes of those with less knowledge (at least in a given field).

People go 'ooh, ahh' at these predictions (same with Nostradamus et al) and yet never bother to see that it's all just using 20 20 hindsight to look for things they already knew happened.

If they can reliably tell us BEFORE these things happen, then good on you, but NONE of these things have born out to be even close to predicting anything BEFORE it happened.

And people are really quick to forget all the PREdictions that never came true and prefer to only listen to the POSTdictions that they come up with with a bit of worldplay after the fact.

Although, we must listen to Mr Ice, because, he told us himself "Take heed 'cause I'm a lyrical poet".

>> ^dag:
Who's up for a bit of late night god talk - promote.
I'm not calling Mormons dumb - I've met some very sharp Saints. Anyone who calls a religious follower dumb, doesn't get it. Religious faith is not an intellectual exercise - there's no connection. Sure you could say that intellectuals and scientists are more likely to be atheists - but I would venture that this is because they are living much more within the natural world of math, biology and physics and less in the philosophical realm.
So, while I don't find the followers of mormonism "dumb", may I at least say that the tenants of Mormonism seem a bit far-fetched? Beyond all the plates and seeing stones- I find the religion built on very shaky foundations. J Smith was a first rate showman, polygamist and philanderer but hardly a prophet of god - unless you mean in the Jimmy Swaggart model.


Yes, they can seem extremely far-fetched. I admit that whole-heartedly. I just think that if people really invested some intelligent and unbiased thought into the whole deal, they would be surprised by how logical it can be. I agree with Safran when he said that he doesn't believe that Mormonism is any LESS logical than other religions. That is the primary point I'm trying to make. Don't single poor Mormons out. They are severely misunderstood, and perhaps people take for granted just how grounded other Christian faiths are. They can get pretty darn nutty, if you ask me. Often nuttier, more sheep-like, meaner, and less apt to follow the teachings of Christ than Mormons, in my opinion.

Views about Joseph Smith are hard to form objectively. We didn't know the guy. I think philanderer is probably the most innapropriate term for him that you used, but that's just my opinion.

Mind if I rant about polygamy for a while? No? Thanks!

I think that to view polygamy as some kind of twisted sex game as a rule is ignorant at best. Ethnocentric, too. As a woman, I am deeply abhorred by it at times, but when I really try to think about it with an open mind, I am surprised by what I find. And I'm a feminist, if you can believe that. And if you read early accounts of it among Mormons, you might be surprised by what you find. People jump to conclusions about Smith quite easily when they hear "polygamy".

This is a hard topic to discuss in light of what just happened with those TOTALLY NOT MORMONS in Texas. That is polygamy at its worst.

I heard this guy on the radio years ago and he made a point that made me laugh and ultimately think about polygamy differently. He said that people have less and less of a problem with infidelity these days, and polygamy isn't much different except that you're married to the women, and your wife gives her permission. I don't agree with him, and I think infidelity is disgusting, but there you have it.

If you study ethics and philosophy, there is this concept that I agree with. I can't remember the name of it. Whether or not something seems wrong to you, it should not be against the law if it does not hurt anyone (increases the happiness in the world) and is done between consenting adults. If two men and a woman go into a hotel room and all three of them come out smiling, what difference does it make what happened in there as far as the law is concerned? Now, in the case of this polygamist colony, abuse was occuring. But in the case of the early Mormon church, polygamy was HIGHLY exclusive, monitored, and to my knowledge everyone was perfectly happy and the families were functional. Often the women were widowed and needed support. Or they had no marriage prospects. So, what's the big problem? Well educated and dedicated Mormons don't even try to distance themselves from polygamy like some do. That's because there isn't anything wrong with it if it's done for the right reasons. If a guy is just horny and wants sex slaves, it's obviously immoral. But if he is just trying to do what he thinks is right and treats his wives and children well, more power to him, I say. Mormons actually only discontinued it because the U.S. government started imprisoning, fining, and otherwise abusing church members. A dark chapter in the history of famous U.S. "religious tolerance", in my opinion.

I might be crazy, but at least I'm open-minded-ish?

>> ^budzos:
What about the magic underpants?


>> ^MINK:
i think what's wrong with it is: it's kinda bullshit from a lot of perspectives, both in content and by omission. but upvote because it's interesting to see all sides.


I appreciate the upvote and the comment that it is good to see all sides. I agree, and I think the Mormon side is sadly underrepresented, especially on videosift.

See, what this video does is it states the IMPORTANT elements of the church. Because most of the time people choose to focus on the unusual things and take them out of context, people think certain things are far more important to the church than they really are. For instance, the sacred garments that they wear (which, by the way, is not unheard of in other religions) are not by any means a main focus of their faith. You won't hear them talking about them in church because they are sacred to them, and they don't want the issue misunderstood and trampled under the feet of cruel people like Safran. They are not considered magic in any way, they are simply a reminder to the members of the church of the covenants that they make with God to keep his commandments. People choose to make such a big deal out of them it amazes me. I watched that video where Mormons are seen talking about how the garments protect them from danger and all of that, but most members don't believe that stuff. Those people are just superstitious wackos that you get in any religion. That kind of Mormon is pretty common in Utah, as you can imagine. The symbols are not supposed to protect you from evil. They are just symbolic reminders to resist temptation. I love how that guy asks Mormon critics for information about the garments instead of, say, a BISHOP? Wouldn't that be a novel idea?

What about the content is misleading? And what did they omit that is more important than what they included?

This is a dupe...
http://www.videosift.com/video/John-Safran-vs-the-Mormons

i thought safran had a yellowish hue. no?

upvote for Safran any day.

Sounds like John Safran asking the questions...

I have been to that sanctuary and it is a really cool place. Koalas are just the most adorable creatures on earth!

From Wikipedia concerning "John Safran vs. God":

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_safran_vs._god