Conservapedia - User contributions [en]

Wikipedia police

2008-02-27T21:27:04Z

Aboganza:

The '''Wikipedia police''', or Wikipedia secret police, is a group of anonymous editors and administrators who quickly censor material that undermines the [[liberal]] and [[atheistic]] belief systems. This police has virtually no accountability to anyone and applies a complex set of rules in a completely one-sided manner. They almost never have user names reflecting their real names, (Such as [[User: Crocoite|"Crocoite"]], [[User:Karajou|"Karajou"]] and [[User: Conservative|"Conservative"]]) and often operate under childish or anti-intellectual user names.

The average age of the Wikipedia police is probably between 15 and 17 years old.
[[category:Wikipedia]]

==External Links==
*[http://www.nexusmagazine.com/articles/Wikipedia.html The Truths and Lies of WikiWorld] [[Philip Coppens]], ''[[Nexus Magazine]]'', Accessed February 27, 2008

Talk:Liberal tricks

2008-02-27T21:02:04Z

Aboganza:

It doesn't hurt to try? I assume this is in reference to drugs, alcohol, etc.? [[User:DanH|DanH]] 23:37, 23 February 2008 (EST)

==Paranoid personality disorder: Descriptive diagnosis per '''American''' DSM-IV-TR==

DSM-IV-TR 301.00 Paranoid Personality Disorder.

According to the DSM-IV-TR, this disorder is characterized by a pervasive distrust and suspicion of others such that their motives are interpreted as malevolent, beginning by early adulthood and present in a variety of contexts, as indicated by four (or more) of the following:

:* Suspects, without sufficient basis, that others are exploiting, harming, or deceiving him or her
:* Is preoccupied with unjustified doubts about the loyalty or trustworthiness of friends or associates
:* Is reluctant to confide in others because of unwarranted fear that the information will be used maliciously against him or her
:* Reads benign remarks or events as threatening or demeaning.
:* Persistently bears grudges, i.e., is unforgiving of insults, injuries, or slights
:* Perceives attacks on his or her character or reputation that are not apparent to others and is quick to react angrily or to counterattack
:* Has recurrent suspicions, without justification, regarding fidelity of spouse or sexual partner.

The traits, behaviors and characteristics

:* Do not occur exclusively during the course of a mood disorder accompanied by psychotic features nor other psychotic disorders.
:* Are not due to the direct physiological effects of a general medical condition.

Does this American definition sound familiar to ''anyone''?[[User:SiggyF|SiggyF]] 14:04, 24 February 2008 (EST)

Or was I too subtle? The profusion of Liberal (fill in the blank) articles is bordering on ridiculous to outright delusional. These overlapping articles on one man's opinion of a large albeit imaginary group of people seems rather---paranoid. [[User:SiggyF|SiggyF]] 16:12, 24 February 2008 (EST)
: I don't know of anyone here who fits those criteria. I suspect, however, that you have different ''opinions'' about some of the subjective parts of those criteria. For example, is the suspicion of the first point "without sufficient basis", or does it have sufficient basis? Is any preoccupation (second point) unjustified or justified? And so on. The way that ''I'' judge it, I can't see that list fitting anyone here. Does that answer your question, or was it more of a criticism than a question? [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 20:47, 24 February 2008 (EST)

== Confusing ==

Some of these are a bit confusing to me. I think if they are worded differently they would be more clear. (I'm taking specifically about the current numbers 1, 7, 9, and 15). [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 18:40, 24 February 2008 (EST)

== This page has issues too. ==

This page seems to be just an attempt to make liberals look bad. I would say that most liberals do not act like this page suggests.
A lot of these points are very questionable at best.
Others, while it is true that liberals use them, are used by others just as much as liberals.
--[[User:CPAdmin1|Tim]] (CPAdmin1)[[User talk:CPAdmin1|talk]] [[User:CPAdmin1/Polls|Vote in my NEW polls]] 22:26, 26 February 2008 (EST)

: There are liberal tricks, and this entry helps identify the more popular ones. Review how much the [[liberals]] here protested our entry [[Hollywood Values]], and watch how often the [[liberals]] on television and in magazines push [[Hollywood]]. That isn't coming from [[God]], and we know deceitful His opposite is. To be forewarned is to be prepared.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:27, 26 February 2008 (EST)

: So liberals (say folks like, Jimmy Carter, LBJ,Pierre Trudeau, Nelson Mandela and Barak Obama) are inspired by Satan, then? Or are devils themselves? what exactly are you getting at by linking liberalism to "God's opposite?" [[User:Aboganza|Aboganza]] 00:17, 27 February 2008 (EST)
:: Although I added a couple of points to this list, points that seem to fit the theme of the other items in the list, I later wondered if they where really ''tricks''. In many if not most cases, I would think that there is nothing deliberate about the use of these "tricks". I'm inclined to think that "tricks" is not the best name for the article. "Liberal fallacies", perhaps? And of course, these fallacies are not used exclusively by liberals, and not by all liberals. But I would be inclined to believe that they are used more by liberals than by non-liberals.
:: Regarding Aboganza's question, as Christians we believe that ''all'' the evil and error in the world is ultimately influenced by Satan. No, Andy's not saying that those people are devils themselves, but that they have been influenced by ideas that find their origin with Satan.
:: That leads on to whether or not liberalism can be equated with Satan. And that raises the question as to what is meant by "liberal". The word, of course, has different meanings in different contexts. To take one extreme, in Australia the more conservative of the two main political parties is the Liberal Party! I guess that Andy uses it (and I'm not suggesting that he's the only one) to mean someone who holds ideas that are contrary to biblical views, the latter being held to more so by conservatives. So if they are contrary to biblical views, they are, by definition, ultimately of Satan. We do need to be careful, however to distinguish whether particular views typically held by "liberals" ''are'' contrary to biblical views, or not. For example, although gun control is apparently promoted mainly by liberals in the U.S. and opposed mainly by conservatives, I know of nothing in the Bible that supports or opposes gun control (as distinct from the right to self defence, by the way).
:: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 06:36, 27 February 2008 (EST)
::So from your reply to my post, you are arguing that Nelson Mandela was "influenced by ideas that find their origin with Satan ?" Remarkable. What does that say about P.W. Botha, then? [[User:Aboganza|Aboganza]] 16:02, 27 February 2008 (EST)

Talk:Liberal tricks

2008-02-27T05:17:52Z

Aboganza:

Talk:Liberal tricks

2008-02-27T05:17:17Z

Aboganza:

Talk:Liberal tricks

2008-02-27T05:16:58Z

Aboganza:

Guerrilla

2008-02-27T01:59:46Z

Aboganza: a million homeschoolers banging on a million typrewriters....

'''Guerrillas''' are [[fighter]]s that do not use normal military [[tactics]]. Guerrillas do not wear standard military uniforms; rather they often disguise themselves as civilians. Guerrillas will also hide in wilderness areas. [[Terrorism]] is a form of guerrilla warfare.

[[Category:Military]]

Executive Branch

2008-02-27T01:56:14Z

Aboganza:

The '''Executive Branch''' of the United States' government as enumerated in Article II of the [[United States Constitution]] consists of the [[President of the United States of America|President]] and those offices and agencies as delineated by law.<ref>[http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/art2.htm]</ref>

==References==
<references/>
[[Category:United States]]

Bret Easton Ellis

2008-02-27T01:39:18Z

Aboganza:

'''Bret Easton Ellis''' (March 7 1964 - ) is a famous, though highly controversial, [[American]] author. Ellis was part of the new wave of [[American]] writing which appeared in the late 1980s and early 1990s. His novels usually are themed around young, morally corrupt, wealthy young adults (as Bret Easton Ellis was himself). His books detail their lives, promiscuity, drug abuse and apathy in a world of excesses which eventually finds the characters unable to grow morally or intellectually. The characters in his books frequently appear in his other novels and influence other characters.

To date Ellis has written five books, of which three have been made into popular films, and one book of short stories.

His novels are -

*''Less than Zero''

*''The Rules of Attraction''

*''American Psycho''

*''Glamorama''

*''Lunar Park''

== ''American Psycho'' ==

Ellis's most controversial novel, ''American Psycho'', tells the story of a rich, good looking young psychopath who lives in [[New York]]. The book's content is extremely graphic and was the cause, upon its release, of massive protest from feminist groups, religious groups and even the original publishers who eventually dropped the book due to its grisly nature. While some readings of the novel bring into question whether or not the protagonist is actually engaging in the horrific acts described in the narrative, Ellis has stated that it all happens character's imagination and that the character uses these disturbing thoughts to stimulate his mind as, despite all his excesses, he lives in a very unsatisfying world

It was made into a popular movie starring Christian Bale.

Bret Easton Ellis

2008-02-27T01:33:18Z

Aboganza: Basic writing stuff. Do you know any adjectives aside from "graphic?"

'''Bret Easton Ellis''' (March 7 1964 - ) is a famous, though highly controversial, [[American]] author. Ellis was part of the new wave of [[American]] writing which appeared in the late 1980's and early 1990's. His novels usually are themed around young, morally corrupt, wealthy young adults (as Bret Easton Ellis was himself). His books detail their lives, promiscuity, drug abuse and apathy in a world of excesses which eventually finds the characters unable to grow morally or intellectually. The characters in his books frequently appear in his other novels and influence other characters.

To date Bret Easton Ellis has written 5 books, of which 3 have been made into popular films, and one book of short stories.

His novels are -

*Less than Zero

*The Rules of Attraction

*American Psycho

*Glamorama

*Lunar Park

== American Psycho ==

Ellis's most graphic novel, American Psycho, details the life of a rich, good looking young psychopath who lives in [[New York]]. The book is extremely graphic and was the cause, upon its release, of massive protest from feminist groups, religious groups and even the original publishers who eventually dropped the book due to its graphic nature.taking place in his mind, Ellis has stated that it is all in the characters head and he uses these graphic thoughts to stimulate him as throughout the book you can see that, despite all his excesses, the character lives in a very unsatisfying world

It was made into a popular movie starring Christian Bale.

Talk:Liberal Christianity

2008-02-27T00:34:03Z

Aboganza: These faiths also oppose endorsing same-sex unions, because it is a liberal position.

This page is much to kind to liberals. -- [[User:ChrisWa|ChrisWa]]
I suggest the addition of a section on criticisms or controversy.
:No, because then people like myself will whine. -_- [[User:Kektklik|Fuzzy]] 18:47, 26 February 2008 (EST)

I finally understand conservapedia: it's a [[satire]] of what passes for conservative thought in the more extreme reaches of the 'net. That aschlafly is an absolute [[master]] of irony. This article started out as a sober rendition of liberal Christianity -- boring, boring, boring -- until aschlafly put his magic touch to it. Now it's hilariously funny, as long as I remember that this whole site is a [[parody]] of an actual encyclopedia! The joke's on me: it just took me too long to fully appreciate the subtle irony that permeates this site. And aschlafly -- if you're following this; if you're not really a committee of professional comedians -- my hat's off to you, sir! Keep up the wickedly satirical work; and you can count on me to keep the joke quiet, so that other pilgrims can experience the belly laugh I'm enjoying right now. [[User:Mrb|Mrb]]

Mrb, I suggest you take your [[liberal bias]] elsewhere. -- [[User:ChrisWa|ChrisWa]]

== most popular ==

Could we list these "most popular denominations" for the benefit of those readers who don't know the popularity of various denominations? [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 19:31, 26 February 2008 (EST)

== These faiths also oppose endorsing same-sex unions, because it is a liberal position. ==

Are faiths opposed to liberal positions? Or are they not acting the way that they are because they believe they are following their god's teachings? Is it not the case for the truly faithful that their beliefs transcend mere politics? Or do gods actually have politics? [[User:Aboganza|Aboganza]] 19:34, 26 February 2008 (EST)

Talk:Abortionist

2008-02-26T23:59:10Z

Aboganza:

== Let's just pause for a minute ==

Shall we have a discussion rather than an edit war? --[[User:HMayo|HMayo]] 20:14, 23 February 2008 (EST)

It is inaccurate to say that an abortionist is someone who necessarily profits from abortion. It might well usually be so but it not necessarily so. --[[User:HMayo|HMayo]] 20:18, 23 February 2008 (EST)

: It's factual. Abortion is a profitable business, and there are no volunteer abortionists.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:22, 23 February 2008 (EST)

:: I understand that. But it has not always been so. Abortion has a long history and the procedure has not always been in the hands of trained (and paid) medical professionals. --[[User:HMayo|HMayo]] 20:28, 23 February 2008 (EST)

::: We're describing [[abortion]] today, and I don't agree with you about its history but there is no reason to waste time on it. {{unsigned|Aschlafly}}

:::: Unless we want produce an accurate article. Furthermore, the fact that a person gets paid is irrelevant. Are you suggesting that every job described here should include the phrase "and profits from"? --[[User:HMayo|HMayo]] 20:32, 23 February 2008 (EST)

== Reversions ==

It's liberal spin to call abortionists "medical professionals." Often abortionists are people kicked off hospital staffs for incompetence, and the [[Hippocratic Oath]] prohibits abortion.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:17, 23 February 2008 (EST)

::As an outside party, I have to say that when I read your comment, the wording ''did'' seem to imply that abortionists had taken the Hippocratic Oath and then violated it. The ''and'' connects one claim of transgression (incompetence in violation of the hospital rules they agreed to abide) with a second (abortions in violation of the Hippocratic Oath). The abortionists are posited as violators in both cases, and by a natural extension that implies that the Hippocratic Oath is a rule the abortionists also agreed to follow.

::Here's an analogous (made-up) example of liberal criticism of American enviromental policy:

::''"The USA has dumped toxic materials in habitats protected by legislation and the Kyoto Protocol prohibits unchecked greenhouse gas emissions."''

::Setting aside the outrageousness of the statement, let's just look at what it seems to imply. It sets up one case where the USA violates rules it agreed to, and then puts forth another rule that it's violating. The phrasing misleads the reader into assuming that the USA has signed the Kyoto Protocol and is now violating it. That's of course not true, but that's the interpretation that gets implied by the wording.

::Now I'm certainly not accusing you of being deceiving. I'm just trying to clarify how [[User:HMayo|HMayo]] and I (and others?) read your statement as an implication that abortionists had taken the Hippocratic Oath. [[User:Foxtrot|Foxtrot]] 17:04, 24 February 2008 (EST)

I would be interested to see some kind of factual data that backs the claim "Often abortionists are people kicked off hospital staffs for incompetence".
[[User:MetcalfeM|MetcalfeM]] 16:02, 25 February 2008 (EST)

== We don't censor here ==

Right... --[[User:HMayo|HMayo]] 21:17, 23 February 2008 (EST)

:: And what about the rest of the edit that you just wiped? Why didn't you just change "medical professionals"? --[[User:HMayo|HMayo]] 21:19, 23 February 2008 (EST)

::: Your other edits were also biased. You omitted the period of time or statistics about other lines of work, making your (dubious) statistic utterly meaningless.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:32, 23 February 2008 (EST)

:::: What statistics? 7 people have been murdered? Are you suggesting that before I can write that I have to compare it with violence against, say, plumbers? Dentists? Unicyclists?
:::: The point is that it is worthy of comment that there has been an orchestrated violent campaign by the chronically unhinged against abortionists. That is clearly a fact worthy of note in an article about abortionists. Isn't it? --[[User:HMayo|HMayo]] 21:51, 23 February 2008 (EST)
:::: Oh, and by the way, your comment about the Hippocratic oath seems a bit odd in light of the fact that the Conservapedia article on that oath states that less than 10% of modern Hippocratic oaths contain a prohibition against abortion. --[[User:HMayo|HMayo]] 22:00, 23 February 2008 (EST)

::::: Compare your statistics to other professions, and put in the context of a time period (over a decade ago, and over an extended period of time). Your "7" figure is already a distortion, since most of them were not even abortionists. Your other comment proves our points: liberals are the ones who have distorted the Oath.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:35, 23 February 2008 (EST)

:::::: No worries. What professions would you like me to compare them with? You just tell me. I'll do the research.

:::::: I don't see how you can say the 7 figure was a distortion since I clearly stated that 3 of them were doctors. The period, by the way, was 1993 to 1998 inclusive. I included that figure in a later edit which you also reverted.

:::::: Frankly, I just don't follow the logic of your last comment. I merely pointed out that your criticism of abortionists as "medical professionals" based on the fact that they took a Hippocratic oath which "prohibits abortion" was wrong according to Conservapedia. How does that prove that liberals have distorted the oath? --[[User:HMayo|HMayo]] 22:47, 23 February 2008 (EST)

::::::: I never said that [[abortionists]] "took a Hippocratic oath." What else have you made up? On this page, you did not clarify that most of the 7 were not even [[abortionists]].

::::::: Compare your statistic to that for psychiatrists. Or emergency room doctors. And why would you even insist upon highlighting anomalous statistics from over a decade ago in an entry today? It's misleading in suggesting that the statistics are representative of today.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:12, 23 February 2008 (EST)

:::::::: Here is the page content as I had it:

::::::::: An '''abortionist''' is one who performs (and profits from) [[abortion|abortions]].

::::::::: Abortionists are medical professionals who have periodically been the target of violent attack and even murder. In the [[United States]] seven people have died as a result of such attacks, including three doctors.

::::::::: == External links ==

::::::::: *[http://msnbc.com/modules/clinics/ Violence against abortion clinics]

::::::::: ==See Also==
::::::::: [[Abortion]]

::::::::: [[category:medicine]]

:::::::: You can see that I said "seven people have died as a result of such attacks, including three doctors". That seems pretty clear to me.

:::::::: As regards the Hippocratic oath, you said:

::::::::: "It's liberal spin to call abortionists "medical professionals." Often abortionists are people kicked off hospital staffs for incompetence, and the Hippocratic Oath prohibits abortion".

:::::::: I took your comment to be a criticism of abortionists for having taken the Hippocratic oath and then performing abortions. Exactly what is your point? They are medical doctors. They have taken the Hippocratic oath. And, according to Conservapedia's article you were wrong about the contents of the oath. Perhaps you can explain? But I would also be interested in getting the statistics that you are relying on for your assertion that abortionists are often people who have been "kicked off hospital staffs for incompetence". That's the sort of thing that probably should go in the article if it could be properly cited.

:::::::: Your suggestion that the violence against abortionists is irrelevant is very strange. The "anomalous statistics" that you talk about were people who were murdered based on the job that they were performing. The job that the article is supposed to be describing. If you are just interested in proganda then tell me. I will go and work on some other page (although I should probably steer clear of the Richard Dawkins page). But if you are genuinely interested in creating a decent article then how about including some accurate information about one of the striking aspects of this job - the fact that people have been murdered for doing it ''within'' the last ten years.

:::::::: Finally, I will see if I can find out if any psychiatrists have been killed ''for being psychiatrists'' or if many emergency room doctors have been killed ''for being emergency room doctors''. That would seem to be the proper basis for comparison. Unless you had something else in mind. --[[User:HMayo|HMayo]] 00:29, 24 February 2008 (EST)

::::::::: I never said the abortionists took the [[Hippocratic Oath]]. You don't seem willing to retract your false claim that I did, and you seem insistent on confusing people about what the [[Hippocratic Oath]] says about abortion. It prohibits it. We can continue this conversation when you let us know for comparison purposes how many psychiatrists were murdered in the last decade, which curiously you seem much less interested in.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 14:06, 24 February 2008 (EST)

:::::::::: 1. The Hippocratic Oath point was dealt with in HMayo's previous post. Also, I noticed that you went and changed the definition of Hippocratic oath part way through this discussion. Interesting. The article used to say that fewer than 10% of modern '''Hippocratic oaths''' prohibit abortion. That is to say over 90% contain no such prohibition. Even after you altered the article it still says: "...many medical schools now drop the prohibition on abortion and euthanasia from "modernized" versions of the Oath". I assume you made that change so that you could claim that the ''real'' Hippocratic oath did contain a prohibition and these modern medical schools are not using the genuine article. Some might regard that as deceitful.
:::::::::: 2. I am happy to inform you that no psychiatrists have been murdered in the last ten years for being psychiatrists. I find it curious that you say that it is curious that HMayo is less interested in psychiatrists. Perhaps he was trying to write an article about abortionists, not psychiatrists. --[[User:GDewey|GDewey]] 17:33, 24 February 2008 (EST)

::::::::::: It took me only 10 seconds to prove you wrong. See [http://www.expertclick.com/NewsReleaseWire/default.cfm?Action=ReleaseDetail&ID=13803].--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 17:24, 26 February 2008 (EST)

:::::::::::: Oh dear. You seem to be laboring under a misapprehension. The abortionists were murdered ''because they were abortionists''. There is no indication that Dr. Fenton's killer was motivated by the fact that she was a psychiatrist. I thought that this distinction was made pretty clear above. Perhaps if you spent more than 10 seconds... --[[User:GDewey|GDewey]] 17:33, 26 February 2008 (EST)

:::::::::::::Especially considering the murderer was the shrink's patient (first sentence.) I suppose if [[Bernard Slepian]] had performed an abortion on [[James Koop]], there might be a noteworthy parallel, but that's not really the case here, is it...[[User:Aboganza|Aboganza]] 17:56, 26 February 2008 (EST)

:::::::::::: Folks, the psychiatrist obviously was murdered because she was the killer's ''psychiatrist''. You're trying to draw a meaningless distinction for ideological reasons. Give it up, and start being productive on this site.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:55, 26 February 2008 (EST)

Can you not see the difference between a mentally-deranged person targetting someone with whom they had an intense and loaed relationship and a political murder where the victim was chosen in order to achieve a political goal? [[User:Aboganza|Aboganza]] 18:58, 26 February 2008 (EST) (And does your "final reply edit summary not constitute last wordism on your part?)

Talk:Abortionist

2008-02-26T23:58:09Z

Aboganza:

Liberal Christianity

2008-02-26T23:46:07Z

Aboganza: No - "equal" - as in "the right to do the same things as non - homosexuals.

'''Liberal Christianity''' is a term used in the [[United States]] to describe [[Christians]] who hold theologically, socially, or politically [[liberal]] views.

Liberal Christianity may refer to liberal theologic movements, which take many forms in modern Christianity. In some Christian denominations, support for the ordination of women might be regarded as a liberal position. The blessing by the Church of same-sex unions is a position supported by some liberal Christians, as is the question of equal rights for homosexuals.

Liberal Christianity may refer to an opinion or advocacy position on certain political issues. Liberal Christians may oppose the death penalty because of their religious views; they may believe that their faith requires them to support efforts to alleviate poverty; opposition to torture may be justified based on liberal Christianity; a liberal Christian may believe that the obligation to be a good steward of God's creation logically leads one to support efforts to environmentalist movements.
[[Category:Christian movements]]
[[Category:Politics]]

Mulch

2008-02-26T23:39:09Z

Aboganza:

'''Mulch''' is a protective covering such as straw or leaves that is spread on the ground. Its primary function is to reduce evaporation or control weeds<ref>The Merrian-Webster Concise School and Office Dictionary, Merrian-Webster Inc, 1991</ref>. It usually includes some form of plant material.

Mulch is commonly used in [[gardening]].

==References==

<References/>

[[Category:Plants]]

Texas Democrats and Reconstruction

2008-02-26T23:38:13Z

Aboganza:

==Texas Democrats and Reconstruction==

[[Democrats]] have played key roles in [[Texas]] [[politics]] for decades, having substantial roles in Texas during the [[Civil War]] and [[Reconstruction era]]. Democrats were much as they are today, supporting [[welfare]] and being critical of big business.

Like all [[Confederate]] states, Democrats had a dominant hold on Texas. However, as Texas was a “tag-a-long” Confederate, secession still received substantial opposition, characterized by [[Sam Houston]], and his refusal to except the oath of governor under Confederate Texas. Though his efforts were futile, Houston made it more difficult for Texas to secede than other states. Houston was then replaced and Texas seceded.

Democrats, supporting [[slavery]], controlled Texas politics throughout the Civil War. But after losing the Civil War, the governor position was occupied by [[Radical Republican]] Edmund Davis. Davis was opposed by Democrats, and inadvertently created massive public debt, as farmers refused to pay higher taxes.

[[Category:United States History]]

Abolitionist

2008-02-26T23:34:59Z

Aboganza:

The '''abolitionists''' were those who were actively against [[slavery]]. The term usually refers to the abolitionist movement as it took place in the [[United States]] or in [[Britain]]. The [[abolitionist movement]] reached its peak during the 1800's up through the period of the [[American Civil War]] when slavery was ultimately outlawed. The forces that were lined up for the continuation of slavery were strong, but so were the abolitionists who were often guided by a strong belief in the [[Bible]] and the moral need to right a horrible wrong.

One of the strongest and most compelling arguments against the cause of slavery came from the [[Bible]] - the parable  of "The Selling of [[Joseph]]."  Abolitionists argued that the action of capturing Africans and selling them as slaves was as bad as the capture and selling of Joseph had been.

==Famous Abolitionists==
*[[John Brown]]
*[[Harriet Beecher Stowe]]
*[[Levi Coffin]]
*[[Frederick Douglass]]
*[[Sojourner Truth]]
*[[Harriet Tubman]]
*[[Charles Finney]]
*[[William Lloyd Garrison]]
*[[William Wilberforce]]

==See Also==
[[Abolitionism]]

[[Category:American Civil War]]

Talk:Abolitionist

2008-02-26T23:34:35Z

Aboganza: "To a lesser extent in Britain"

Perhaps we should remove the History section here. I think it might be more appropriate for the [[Abolitionism]] article. Plus it seems strange to have a direct quote represent the history of abolitionists. --[[User:Colest|Colest]] 12:25, 12 June 2007 (EDT)
:I agree that the history would be more appropriate in the [[Abolitionism]] article since it's the history of the movement itself. I thought it would be prudent to make it clear that the current history section is a direct quote from a previously uncited, copyrighted source. When moving it to Abolitionism it would probably be best to rewrite it to avoid the quoting.--[[User:Brian|Brian]] 12:32, 12 June 2007 (EDT)

Thank you for your work. I support whatever you gentlemen decide. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 12:37, 12 June 2007 (EDT)

: I've removed the quote from this article, and fixed up the [[Abolitionism]] article a bit.--[[User:Colest|Colest]] 14:52, 12 June 2007 (EDT)

== "To a lesser extent in Britain" ==

Seeing as how Great Britain abolished the slave trade, and slavery in its colonies and at home decades before American slave owners <s>thought</s> were forced to do so, I wonder if the "to a lesser extent" passage was really relevant? [[User:Aboganza|Aboganza]] 18:34, 26 February 2008 (EST)

Subway

2008-02-26T23:22:40Z

Aboganza:

A '''Subway''' is the North American term for a rapid transit system that runs underground for much or all of its route. Outside North America, they may be known as an underground, metro, or mass transit railway. Subways require large populations to run efficiently and run at a "grade separation" from other vehicles and run frequently. This means that they exist in the largest cities.

The first subway was opened in [[London]] in 1863, (where it is called the "[[Underground]]") although many more major cities now have subways systems. The [[Boston]] subway opened in 1901 and the [[New_York_City|New York]] subway first opened in 1904.

==List of cities with subways==
{| class="wikitable" style="text-align:left"
|+
'''Subways of the World'''
|-
! City !! System Name
|-
|[[Beijing]], [[China]] || Beijing Metro
|-
|[[Berlin]], [[Germany]] || U-Bahn
|-
|[[Boston]], [[United States]]|| Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority (or "T")
|-
|[[Budapest]], [[Hungary]] || Budapest Metro
|-
|[[Chicago]], [[United States]]|| Chicago "L"
|-
|[[Edmonton]], [[Canada]]|| Light Rail Transit (LRT)
|-
|[[Glasgow]], [[United Kingdom]]|| Glasgow Subway
|-
|[[Hong Kong]], [[China]]|| 地铁 Mass Transit Railway (MTR)
|-
|[[London]], [[United Kingdom]]|| [[London Underground|Underground (official)]] Tube (colloquial)
|-
|[[Montreal]], [[Canada]]|| Metro de Montréal
|-
|[[New York City]], [[United States]]|| Subway
|-
|[[Washington DC]], [[United States]]|| [[Metrorail]]
|-
|[[Paris]], [[France]] || Métropolitain (abbreviated Métro)
|-
|[[Philadelphia]], [[United States]]||SEPTA
|-
|[[San Francisco]] Bay Area, [[United States]]|| [[Bay Area Rapid Transit]] (BART)
|-
|[[Shenzhen]], [[China]] || 深圳地铁 Shenzhen Metro
|-
| [[Shanghai]], [[China]] || Shanghai Metro
|-
|[[Singapore]] || Mass Rapid Transit (MRT)
|-
|[[Toronto]], [[Canada]] || Toronto Transit Commision (TTC)
|-

[[Category: Rail transport]]

Liberal arts

2008-02-26T23:21:32Z

Aboganza:

'''Liberal arts''' refers to the non-technical disciplines ordinarily taught as part of a baseline [[college]] education at American colleges. These include [[philosophy]], [[history]] and [[English]] literature, and sometimes [[Latin]], which lay the foundation for a [[Bachelor of Arts]] (B.A.) degree. As such, many American colleges are referred to as "liberal arts institutions." Technical fields of study are common, but not included under the aegis "liberal arts." In Europe and Canada the Liberal arts are generally called the 'Humanities'.

The term bears no connection with the modern political ideology of [[liberal|liberalism]], save in the classic, historical sense.

[[Category:Education]]

Talk:Abortionist

2008-02-26T22:57:11Z

Aboganza:

Talk:Abortionist

2008-02-26T22:56:50Z

Aboganza:

== Let's just pause for a minute ==

Shall we have a discussion rather than an edit war? --[[User:HMayo|HMayo]] 20:14, 23 February 2008 (EST)

It is inaccurate to say that an abortionist is someone who necessarily profits from abortion. It might well usually be so but it not necessarily so. --[[User:HMayo|HMayo]] 20:18, 23 February 2008 (EST)

: It's factual. Abortion is a profitable business, and there are no volunteer abortionists.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:22, 23 February 2008 (EST)

:: I understand that. But it has not always been so. Abortion has a long history and the procedure has not always been in the hands of trained (and paid) medical professionals. --[[User:HMayo|HMayo]] 20:28, 23 February 2008 (EST)

::: We're describing [[abortion]] today, and I don't agree with you about its history but there is no reason to waste time on it. {{unsigned|Aschlafly}}

:::: Unless we want produce an accurate article. Furthermore, the fact that a person gets paid is irrelevant. Are you suggesting that every job described here should include the phrase "and profits from"? --[[User:HMayo|HMayo]] 20:32, 23 February 2008 (EST)

== Reversions ==

It's liberal spin to call abortionists "medical professionals." Often abortionists are people kicked off hospital staffs for incompetence, and the [[Hippocratic Oath]] prohibits abortion.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:17, 23 February 2008 (EST)

::As an outside party, I have to say that when I read your comment, the wording ''did'' seem to imply that abortionists had taken the Hippocratic Oath and then violated it. The ''and'' connects one claim of transgression (incompetence in violation of the hospital rules they agreed to abide) with a second (abortions in violation of the Hippocratic Oath). The abortionists are posited as violators in both cases, and by a natural extension that implies that the Hippocratic Oath is a rule the abortionists also agreed to follow.

::Here's an analogous (made-up) example of liberal criticism of American enviromental policy:

::''"The USA has dumped toxic materials in habitats protected by legislation and the Kyoto Protocol prohibits unchecked greenhouse gas emissions."''

::Setting aside the outrageousness of the statement, let's just look at what it seems to imply. It sets up one case where the USA violates rules it agreed to, and then puts forth another rule that it's violating. The phrasing misleads the reader into assuming that the USA has signed the Kyoto Protocol and is now violating it. That's of course not true, but that's the interpretation that gets implied by the wording.

::Now I'm certainly not accusing you of being deceiving. I'm just trying to clarify how [[User:HMayo|HMayo]] and I (and others?) read your statement as an implication that abortionists had taken the Hippocratic Oath. [[User:Foxtrot|Foxtrot]] 17:04, 24 February 2008 (EST)

I would be interested to see some kind of factual data that backs the claim "Often abortionists are people kicked off hospital staffs for incompetence".
[[User:MetcalfeM|MetcalfeM]] 16:02, 25 February 2008 (EST)

== We don't censor here ==

Right... --[[User:HMayo|HMayo]] 21:17, 23 February 2008 (EST)

:: And what about the rest of the edit that you just wiped? Why didn't you just change "medical professionals"? --[[User:HMayo|HMayo]] 21:19, 23 February 2008 (EST)

::: Your other edits were also biased. You omitted the period of time or statistics about other lines of work, making your (dubious) statistic utterly meaningless.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:32, 23 February 2008 (EST)

:::: What statistics? 7 people have been murdered? Are you suggesting that before I can write that I have to compare it with violence against, say, plumbers? Dentists? Unicyclists?
:::: The point is that it is worthy of comment that there has been an orchestrated violent campaign by the chronically unhinged against abortionists. That is clearly a fact worthy of note in an article about abortionists. Isn't it? --[[User:HMayo|HMayo]] 21:51, 23 February 2008 (EST)
:::: Oh, and by the way, your comment about the Hippocratic oath seems a bit odd in light of the fact that the Conservapedia article on that oath states that less than 10% of modern Hippocratic oaths contain a prohibition against abortion. --[[User:HMayo|HMayo]] 22:00, 23 February 2008 (EST)

::::: Compare your statistics to other professions, and put in the context of a time period (over a decade ago, and over an extended period of time). Your "7" figure is already a distortion, since most of them were not even abortionists. Your other comment proves our points: liberals are the ones who have distorted the Oath.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:35, 23 February 2008 (EST)

:::::: No worries. What professions would you like me to compare them with? You just tell me. I'll do the research.

:::::: I don't see how you can say the 7 figure was a distortion since I clearly stated that 3 of them were doctors. The period, by the way, was 1993 to 1998 inclusive. I included that figure in a later edit which you also reverted.

:::::: Frankly, I just don't follow the logic of your last comment. I merely pointed out that your criticism of abortionists as "medical professionals" based on the fact that they took a Hippocratic oath which "prohibits abortion" was wrong according to Conservapedia. How does that prove that liberals have distorted the oath? --[[User:HMayo|HMayo]] 22:47, 23 February 2008 (EST)

::::::: I never said that [[abortionists]] "took a Hippocratic oath." What else have you made up? On this page, you did not clarify that most of the 7 were not even [[abortionists]].

::::::: Compare your statistic to that for psychiatrists. Or emergency room doctors. And why would you even insist upon highlighting anomalous statistics from over a decade ago in an entry today? It's misleading in suggesting that the statistics are representative of today.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:12, 23 February 2008 (EST)

:::::::: Here is the page content as I had it:

::::::::: An '''abortionist''' is one who performs (and profits from) [[abortion|abortions]].

::::::::: Abortionists are medical professionals who have periodically been the target of violent attack and even murder. In the [[United States]] seven people have died as a result of such attacks, including three doctors.

::::::::: == External links ==

::::::::: *[http://msnbc.com/modules/clinics/ Violence against abortion clinics]

::::::::: ==See Also==
::::::::: [[Abortion]]

::::::::: [[category:medicine]]

:::::::: You can see that I said "seven people have died as a result of such attacks, including three doctors". That seems pretty clear to me.

:::::::: As regards the Hippocratic oath, you said:

::::::::: "It's liberal spin to call abortionists "medical professionals." Often abortionists are people kicked off hospital staffs for incompetence, and the Hippocratic Oath prohibits abortion".

:::::::: I took your comment to be a criticism of abortionists for having taken the Hippocratic oath and then performing abortions. Exactly what is your point? They are medical doctors. They have taken the Hippocratic oath. And, according to Conservapedia's article you were wrong about the contents of the oath. Perhaps you can explain? But I would also be interested in getting the statistics that you are relying on for your assertion that abortionists are often people who have been "kicked off hospital staffs for incompetence". That's the sort of thing that probably should go in the article if it could be properly cited.

:::::::: Your suggestion that the violence against abortionists is irrelevant is very strange. The "anomalous statistics" that you talk about were people who were murdered based on the job that they were performing. The job that the article is supposed to be describing. If you are just interested in proganda then tell me. I will go and work on some other page (although I should probably steer clear of the Richard Dawkins page). But if you are genuinely interested in creating a decent article then how about including some accurate information about one of the striking aspects of this job - the fact that people have been murdered for doing it ''within'' the last ten years.

:::::::: Finally, I will see if I can find out if any psychiatrists have been killed ''for being psychiatrists'' or if many emergency room doctors have been killed ''for being emergency room doctors''. That would seem to be the proper basis for comparison. Unless you had something else in mind. --[[User:HMayo|HMayo]] 00:29, 24 February 2008 (EST)

::::::::: I never said the abortionists took the [[Hippocratic Oath]]. You don't seem willing to retract your false claim that I did, and you seem insistent on confusing people about what the [[Hippocratic Oath]] says about abortion. It prohibits it. We can continue this conversation when you let us know for comparison purposes how many psychiatrists were murdered in the last decade, which curiously you seem much less interested in.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 14:06, 24 February 2008 (EST)

:::::::::: 1. The Hippocratic Oath point was dealt with in HMayo's previous post. Also, I noticed that you went and changed the definition of Hippocratic oath part way through this discussion. Interesting. The article used to say that fewer than 10% of modern '''Hippocratic oaths''' prohibit abortion. That is to say over 90% contain no such prohibition. Even after you altered the article it still says: "...many medical schools now drop the prohibition on abortion and euthanasia from "modernized" versions of the Oath". I assume you made that change so that you could claim that the ''real'' Hippocratic oath did contain a prohibition and these modern medical schools are not using the genuine article. Some might regard that as deceitful.
:::::::::: 2. I am happy to inform you that no psychiatrists have been murdered in the last ten years for being psychiatrists. I find it curious that you say that it is curious that HMayo is less interested in psychiatrists. Perhaps he was trying to write an article about abortionists, not psychiatrists. --[[User:GDewey|GDewey]] 17:33, 24 February 2008 (EST)

::::::::::: It took me only 10 seconds to prove you wrong. See [http://www.expertclick.com/NewsReleaseWire/default.cfm?Action=ReleaseDetail&ID=13803].--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 17:24, 26 February 2008 (EST)

:::::::::::: Oh dear. You seem to be laboring under a misapprehension. The abortionists were murdered ''because they were abortionists''. There is no indication that Dr. Fenton's killer was motivated by the fact that she was a psychiatrist. I thought that this distinction was made pretty clear above. Perhaps if you spent more than 10 seconds... --[[User:GDewey|GDewey]] 17:33, 26 February 2008 (EST)

:::::::::::::Especially considering the murderer was the shrinks patient (first sentence. I suppose if [[Bernard Slepian]] had performed an abortion on [[James Koop]], there might be a noteworthy parallel, but that's not really the case here, is it...[[User:Aboganza|Aboganza]] 17:56, 26 February 2008 (EST)

Talk:Abortionist

2008-02-26T22:56:22Z

Aboganza:

== Let's just pause for a minute ==

Shall we have a discussion rather than an edit war? --[[User:HMayo|HMayo]] 20:14, 23 February 2008 (EST)

It is inaccurate to say that an abortionist is someone who necessarily profits from abortion. It might well usually be so but it not necessarily so. --[[User:HMayo|HMayo]] 20:18, 23 February 2008 (EST)

: It's factual. Abortion is a profitable business, and there are no volunteer abortionists.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:22, 23 February 2008 (EST)

:: I understand that. But it has not always been so. Abortion has a long history and the procedure has not always been in the hands of trained (and paid) medical professionals. --[[User:HMayo|HMayo]] 20:28, 23 February 2008 (EST)

::: We're describing [[abortion]] today, and I don't agree with you about its history but there is no reason to waste time on it. {{unsigned|Aschlafly}}

:::: Unless we want produce an accurate article. Furthermore, the fact that a person gets paid is irrelevant. Are you suggesting that every job described here should include the phrase "and profits from"? --[[User:HMayo|HMayo]] 20:32, 23 February 2008 (EST)

== Reversions ==

It's liberal spin to call abortionists "medical professionals." Often abortionists are people kicked off hospital staffs for incompetence, and the [[Hippocratic Oath]] prohibits abortion.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:17, 23 February 2008 (EST)

::As an outside party, I have to say that when I read your comment, the wording ''did'' seem to imply that abortionists had taken the Hippocratic Oath and then violated it. The ''and'' connects one claim of transgression (incompetence in violation of the hospital rules they agreed to abide) with a second (abortions in violation of the Hippocratic Oath). The abortionists are posited as violators in both cases, and by a natural extension that implies that the Hippocratic Oath is a rule the abortionists also agreed to follow.

::Here's an analogous (made-up) example of liberal criticism of American enviromental policy:

::''"The USA has dumped toxic materials in habitats protected by legislation and the Kyoto Protocol prohibits unchecked greenhouse gas emissions."''

::Setting aside the outrageousness of the statement, let's just look at what it seems to imply. It sets up one case where the USA violates rules it agreed to, and then puts forth another rule that it's violating. The phrasing misleads the reader into assuming that the USA has signed the Kyoto Protocol and is now violating it. That's of course not true, but that's the interpretation that gets implied by the wording.

::Now I'm certainly not accusing you of being deceiving. I'm just trying to clarify how [[User:HMayo|HMayo]] and I (and others?) read your statement as an implication that abortionists had taken the Hippocratic Oath. [[User:Foxtrot|Foxtrot]] 17:04, 24 February 2008 (EST)

I would be interested to see some kind of factual data that backs the claim "Often abortionists are people kicked off hospital staffs for incompetence".
[[User:MetcalfeM|MetcalfeM]] 16:02, 25 February 2008 (EST)

== We don't censor here ==

Right... --[[User:HMayo|HMayo]] 21:17, 23 February 2008 (EST)

:: And what about the rest of the edit that you just wiped? Why didn't you just change "medical professionals"? --[[User:HMayo|HMayo]] 21:19, 23 February 2008 (EST)

::: Your other edits were also biased. You omitted the period of time or statistics about other lines of work, making your (dubious) statistic utterly meaningless.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:32, 23 February 2008 (EST)

:::: What statistics? 7 people have been murdered? Are you suggesting that before I can write that I have to compare it with violence against, say, plumbers? Dentists? Unicyclists?
:::: The point is that it is worthy of comment that there has been an orchestrated violent campaign by the chronically unhinged against abortionists. That is clearly a fact worthy of note in an article about abortionists. Isn't it? --[[User:HMayo|HMayo]] 21:51, 23 February 2008 (EST)
:::: Oh, and by the way, your comment about the Hippocratic oath seems a bit odd in light of the fact that the Conservapedia article on that oath states that less than 10% of modern Hippocratic oaths contain a prohibition against abortion. --[[User:HMayo|HMayo]] 22:00, 23 February 2008 (EST)

::::: Compare your statistics to other professions, and put in the context of a time period (over a decade ago, and over an extended period of time). Your "7" figure is already a distortion, since most of them were not even abortionists. Your other comment proves our points: liberals are the ones who have distorted the Oath.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:35, 23 February 2008 (EST)

:::::: No worries. What professions would you like me to compare them with? You just tell me. I'll do the research.

:::::: I don't see how you can say the 7 figure was a distortion since I clearly stated that 3 of them were doctors. The period, by the way, was 1993 to 1998 inclusive. I included that figure in a later edit which you also reverted.

:::::: Frankly, I just don't follow the logic of your last comment. I merely pointed out that your criticism of abortionists as "medical professionals" based on the fact that they took a Hippocratic oath which "prohibits abortion" was wrong according to Conservapedia. How does that prove that liberals have distorted the oath? --[[User:HMayo|HMayo]] 22:47, 23 February 2008 (EST)

::::::: I never said that [[abortionists]] "took a Hippocratic oath." What else have you made up? On this page, you did not clarify that most of the 7 were not even [[abortionists]].

::::::: Compare your statistic to that for psychiatrists. Or emergency room doctors. And why would you even insist upon highlighting anomalous statistics from over a decade ago in an entry today? It's misleading in suggesting that the statistics are representative of today.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:12, 23 February 2008 (EST)

:::::::: Here is the page content as I had it:

::::::::: An '''abortionist''' is one who performs (and profits from) [[abortion|abortions]].

::::::::: Abortionists are medical professionals who have periodically been the target of violent attack and even murder. In the [[United States]] seven people have died as a result of such attacks, including three doctors.

::::::::: == External links ==

::::::::: *[http://msnbc.com/modules/clinics/ Violence against abortion clinics]

::::::::: ==See Also==
::::::::: [[Abortion]]

::::::::: [[category:medicine]]

:::::::: You can see that I said "seven people have died as a result of such attacks, including three doctors". That seems pretty clear to me.

:::::::: As regards the Hippocratic oath, you said:

::::::::: "It's liberal spin to call abortionists "medical professionals." Often abortionists are people kicked off hospital staffs for incompetence, and the Hippocratic Oath prohibits abortion".

:::::::: I took your comment to be a criticism of abortionists for having taken the Hippocratic oath and then performing abortions. Exactly what is your point? They are medical doctors. They have taken the Hippocratic oath. And, according to Conservapedia's article you were wrong about the contents of the oath. Perhaps you can explain? But I would also be interested in getting the statistics that you are relying on for your assertion that abortionists are often people who have been "kicked off hospital staffs for incompetence". That's the sort of thing that probably should go in the article if it could be properly cited.

:::::::: Your suggestion that the violence against abortionists is irrelevant is very strange. The "anomalous statistics" that you talk about were people who were murdered based on the job that they were performing. The job that the article is supposed to be describing. If you are just interested in proganda then tell me. I will go and work on some other page (although I should probably steer clear of the Richard Dawkins page). But if you are genuinely interested in creating a decent article then how about including some accurate information about one of the striking aspects of this job - the fact that people have been murdered for doing it ''within'' the last ten years.

:::::::: Finally, I will see if I can find out if any psychiatrists have been killed ''for being psychiatrists'' or if many emergency room doctors have been killed ''for being emergency room doctors''. That would seem to be the proper basis for comparison. Unless you had something else in mind. --[[User:HMayo|HMayo]] 00:29, 24 February 2008 (EST)

::::::::: I never said the abortionists took the [[Hippocratic Oath]]. You don't seem willing to retract your false claim that I did, and you seem insistent on confusing people about what the [[Hippocratic Oath]] says about abortion. It prohibits it. We can continue this conversation when you let us know for comparison purposes how many psychiatrists were murdered in the last decade, which curiously you seem much less interested in.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 14:06, 24 February 2008 (EST)

:::::::::: 1. The Hippocratic Oath point was dealt with in HMayo's previous post. Also, I noticed that you went and changed the definition of Hippocratic oath part way through this discussion. Interesting. The article used to say that fewer than 10% of modern '''Hippocratic oaths''' prohibit abortion. That is to say over 90% contain no such prohibition. Even after you altered the article it still says: "...many medical schools now drop the prohibition on abortion and euthanasia from "modernized" versions of the Oath". I assume you made that change so that you could claim that the ''real'' Hippocratic oath did contain a prohibition and these modern medical schools are not using the genuine article. Some might regard that as deceitful.
:::::::::: 2. I am happy to inform you that no psychiatrists have been murdered in the last ten years for being psychiatrists. I find it curious that you say that it is curious that HMayo is less interested in psychiatrists. Perhaps he was trying to write an article about abortionists, not psychiatrists. --[[User:GDewey|GDewey]] 17:33, 24 February 2008 (EST)

::::::::::: It took me only 10 seconds to prove you wrong. See [http://www.expertclick.com/NewsReleaseWire/default.cfm?Action=ReleaseDetail&ID=13803].--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 17:24, 26 February 2008 (EST)

:::::::::::: Oh dear. You seem to be laboring under a misapprehension. The abortionists were murdered ''because they were abortionists''. There is no indication that Dr. Fenton's killer was motivated by the fact that she was a psychiatrist. I thought that this distinction was made pretty clear above. Perhaps if you spent more than 10 seconds... --[[User:GDewey|GDewey]] 17:33, 26 February 2008 (EST)
::::::::::::Especially considering the murderer was the shrinks patient (first sentence. I suppose if [[Bernard Slepian]] had performed an abortion on [[James Koop]], there might be a noteworthy parallel, but that's not really the case here, is it...[[User:Aboganza|Aboganza]] 17:56, 26 February 2008 (EST)

Liberal Christianity

2008-02-26T22:06:02Z

Aboganza:

Conservapedia talk:Are atheists productive

2008-02-26T13:57:08Z

Aboganza: "The Minister's Son"

Statements like this require data. It would be a very interesting study, and not that hard to do, for a real researcher. As it stands, there is no data to support the assertion, although it may be right.[[User:KarlJ|KarlJ]] 23:41, 25 February 2008 (EST)

: I welcome more research. The [[Google]] search is a start, and speaks for itself.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:42, 25 February 2008 (EST)--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:42, 25 February 2008 (EST)
::Seeing as the phrase "second generation atheist" (in quotation marks) only yields 849 Google hits to begin with (a pretty meager number), I wonder if this isn't slightly begging the question. [[User:Aboganza|Aboganza]] 23:45, 25 February 2008 (EST)
:::Well, my personal anecdote is about as valid as andy's google search. Me and my sisters are all second generation atheists, and we are all successful professionals with great families.[[User:KarlJ|KarlJ]] 23:47, 25 February 2008 (EST)
::::I'll save Aschlafly the trip - see item 5 in [[Liberal logic]] [[User:Aboganza|Aboganza]] 23:52, 25 February 2008 (EST)

:::: You beat me to it by a matter of seconds! Also, KarlJ, your grammar is atrocious, rendering your claim somewhat dubious.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:53, 25 February 2008 (EST)
:::::Good point, sir. I will attempt to improve both my language and grammar. I will achieve heights of eloquence never before reached by man!![[User:KarlJ|KarlJ]] 23:55, 25 February 2008 (EST)
:::::And you still need to tell me how a search string that generates such a tiny number of hits can't be seen as a case of number 32 in [[Liberal style]] . [[User:Aboganza|Aboganza]] 23:57, 25 February 2008 (EST)
:::::: The tiny number of hits for the term reinforces the point rather than detracts from it.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 00:06, 26 February 2008 (EST)
::::::: Your point being, presumably, that because it is a term nobody uses it must mean that so-called second generation atheists are not doing notable things in the world. Genius. --[[User:GDewey|GDewey]] 00:11, 26 February 2008 (EST)

:::::::: No, you're clueless. The term is used, as in "second generation Christian." But when the set of accomplished subjects is virtually the null set, as in [[second generation atheists]], very little shows up.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 00:12, 26 February 2008 (EST)
:::::::::I ''told'' you he was smarter than you, Dewey. You shoulda believed me.[[User:KarlJ|KarlJ]] 00:13, 26 February 2008 (EST)
:::::::::: Well. I get 862 hits for "second generation atheist" and 2090 for "second generation christian". Looks like neither group are making much of an impression. --[[User:GDewey|GDewey]] 00:16, 26 February 2008 (EST)
:::::::::: Actually, according to Conservapedia atheists make up only 4% of the US population. Christians are at (I believe) about 80%. That puts the second generation atheists well ahead of the second generation Christians on a Google hit per capita basis, doesn't it? --[[User:GDewey|GDewey]] 00:32, 26 February 2008 (EST)

The only fair way to compare "second generation atheists" with "second generation Christians" is on a per-capita basis. The number of Google hits ''might'' reflect the relative numbers of the two groups, but says ''nothing'' about the relative per-capita productiveness of the two groups. As such, although it wouldn't surprise me to find the claims in the article to be true, as it stands the article is without any substantiation. I expect people making claims to me to be able to back them up, and in return I would not use an argument, such as this one, that I could not back up.

GDewey, your comparison is flawed if you are comparing ''American'' figures with ''world-wide'' Google hits.

Furthermore, a proper study could (in theory) be done, and the results might be quite interesting, but a proper study would need to have clear criteria. As the article stands, there is no clear definition of "productive" and "accomplishments".

[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 03:30, 26 February 2008 (EST)

: My dear boy! Don't you know data is no substitute for faith? I mean, just look at the [[minister's son]] article. No attempt to examine or explain the supposed phenomenon, no definition of "success", no hard data, a quote that seems to suggest that the sons of dentists seem to outperform the sons of ministers in terms of success, and frequent appeal to hallowed antiquity where the clergy was a method whereby commoners could launder their caste origins and become essentially petty nobility whose offspring could indeed engage in scientific or philosophical enquiry while the serf had no such liberty. How indeed are we to know someone is a second generation atheist? It matters not. All that matters is that we have faith that atheists are intellectually inferior to the theist. --[[User:CabbageCrate|CabbageCrate]] 06:08, 26 February 2008 (EST)
:: Yet the [[minister's son]] article ''does'' have some substantiation, even if it's not a proper study. And the quote ''does'' indicate that sons of dentists outperform the sons of ''Presbyterian'' ministers, not ministers generally, and isn't the Presbyterian church in America pretty liberal? Your dismissal of the examples seems to be more misinformation than fact. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 06:56, 26 February 2008 (EST)

'''Applying the same logic:'''
A second-generation wingnut is one descended and raised in a wingnut environment by parents who are both wingnuts. It is difficult, if not impossible, to find accomplishments by second generation wingnuts ... As of Feb. 26, 2008, Google retrieves no sites referring to second generation wingnuts. In contrast, liberal Australians have been strikingly productive. [[User:Humblpi|Humblpi]] 06:14, 26 February 2008 (EST)

"Your search - "second generation theist" - did not match any documents."--[[User:KimSell|KimSell]] 06:22, 26 February 2008 (EST)

: You didn't apply the "same logic," because those terms are not used. The term [[second generation atheist]] obviously is used, but the problem is that so few productive examples exist. A formal study of that group might yield some tragic discoveries about depression, anxiety, loneliness, drug abuse and other unfortunately afflictions. Any suggestions on how to proceed with such a study?--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 08:45, 26 February 2008 (EST)
::Well, for a start, don't base the research on a google search for one little-used phrase that you have dreamt up! Seriously, though, it is an interesting question - but I think defining the samples on which to base the research would be fraught with all sorts of biases. How do you in fact track down second-generation atheists, and a control group of atheists brought up by religious parents (I assume that would be the control group), without falling foul of biases inherent in the way people describe themselves, and in how others describe them? Offhand, I don't know - but I rather doubt that a few google-searches will come up with anything meaningful. Going away to think about it ... And in the meantime I would seriously question the value of an article like this, based purely on self-defined terms and speculation - unless of course the intent is to make Conservapedia a laughing stock by means of self-parody. [[User:Humblpi|Humblpi]] 08:56, 26 February 2008 (EST)

== "The Minister's Son" ==

I wonder if you thought to exclude all the Google hits that were referring to the Prime "Minister's son" the Finance "Minister's son," and other similar "ministers" when you calculated how much "better" "Minister's sons" (Never mind their daughters, I guess...) were doing then "second-generation atheists." [[User:Aboganza|Aboganza]] 08:57, 26 February 2008 (EST)

Conservapedia talk:Are atheists productive

2008-02-26T04:57:22Z

Aboganza:

Conservapedia talk:Are atheists productive

2008-02-26T04:52:19Z

Aboganza:

Conservapedia talk:Are atheists productive

2008-02-26T04:51:58Z

Aboganza:

Conservapedia talk:Are atheists productive

2008-02-26T04:45:52Z

Aboganza:

Talk:Liberal bias in academia

2008-02-26T04:28:53Z

Aboganza:

Fine, let's add some citations. No one seriously doubts that [[liberal grading]] occurs.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:26, 25 February 2008 (EST)
:As undeniable as [[liberal bias]], [[liberal tricks]] and [[liberal hypocrisy]] - well, actually, [[liberals]] probably do [[liberal denial|deny]] those, haha. :-) [[User:Feebasfactor|Feebasfactor]] 19:38, 25 February 2008 (EST)

:: Indeed they do deny it, along with the long list at [[liberal denial]].--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:41, 25 February 2008 (EST)

== Parody ==

This page was created as a parody, and I don't think that we should have it. While I do believe that some teachers would actually grade like that, I think that it is rare enough to not warrant it's own page. --[[User:CPAdmin1|Tim]] (CPAdmin1)[[User talk:CPAdmin1|talk]] [[User:CPAdmin1/Polls|Vote in my NEW polls]] 23:27, 25 February 2008 (EST)
:Looking at the edit history, it would seem that Aschlafly might disagree. Indeed. [[User:Aboganza|Aboganza]] 23:28, 25 February 2008 (EST)

Talk:Liberals and friendship

2008-02-26T04:24:48Z

Aboganza:

So let me get this straight. Are you saying that liberals will often, or even usually, only make friends with a conservative for the purpose of converting them? Isn't that ascribing an awful lot of malice without real cause? And where's the evidence for this? I have a number of liberal friends. We argue quite a lot about politics, but it doesn't mean we don't remain friends. Do you have ''any'' liberal friends, Andy? [[User:SSchultz|SSchultz]] 22:19, 25 February 2008 (EST)
:I'm an apathetic-liberal. So, yes, Mr. Schlafly does have liberal friends. -^_^- [[User:Kektklik|Fuzzy]] 22:42, 25 February 2008 (EST)
::And are you his friend only to convert him to your heathen liberal ways? [[User:SSchultz|SSchultz]] 23:17, 25 February 2008 (EST)
==Another take==
A '''Christian friendship''' is a friendship on [[Christian]] terms, as in requiring acceptance, allowance or lack of criticism of [[Christian]] values. It is often the product of [[peer pressure]]. Someone in a '''Christian friendship''' can expect loss of the friendship if he dares to express dismay or disapproval of the [[Christian]] values.

A '''Christian friendship''' can occur wherever [[Christians]] apply [[peer pressure]] to spread their belief system. It can occur in college, in relationships, and in the workplace.

In contrast, [[atheists]] virtually never require censorship or acceptance of [[atheist]] principles as a condition of friendship.

:I like this take, here's another one:

:A cheese eating friendship can occur whenever cheese eaters apply peer pressure to spread their belief in eating cheese. It can occur in college, in relationships and in the workplace.

:You must eat Feta and Stilton or I won't be your friend anymore, even if you don't like cheese! [[User:SSchultz|SSchultz]] 23:22, 25 February 2008 (EST)
::I'm lactose intolerant. Please don't shoot me, okay? [[User:Aboganza|Aboganza]] 23:24, 25 February 2008 (EST)

Talk:The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints

2008-02-26T01:53:01Z

Aboganza: African Americans...

==The Mountain Meadows Massacre==
Should something about that be included in the controversy?
http://www.mtn-meadows-assoc.com/
That's a reference, but if that's not what you guys want, you can find myriads more by just putting "Mountain Meadows Massacre" into Google. [[User:ObiBinks|ObiBinks]] 19:44, 28 October 2007 (EDT)

==Arthur Conan Doyle and Zane Grey==
I said they "depicted the Mormons as 'bad guys'" but really that's putting it mildly. On checking these books again, "rabid anti-Mormonism" would probably be more like it. But I am reluctant to quote the passages that would support that view, as they are so virulent that I think even quoting them would be inappropriate. I think they're so "way out" as to be funny, but I expect a Mormon might not see it that way. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 13:43, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

:Cut from article:
::The Mormons, like other small denominations, have been the target of discrimination. Mormons are depicted as "bad guys" in Arthur Conan Doyle's 1890 novel, ''A Study in Scarlet,'' and Zane Grey's 1912 ''Riders of the Purple Sage.''

:Novels don't prove discrimination. This cheapens the claim.

:Anyway, I read ''Riders'' last year, and the Mormons in it were depicted as mostly a lowdown, lying, thieving gossiping, backbiting kind lot of people as well as a decent, hardworking, lawabiding, friendly lot. I seem to recall a saintly lady, who befriended the downtrodden and helpless, as being a Mormon. Correct me if I'm wrong. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 13:53, 5 April 2007 (EDT)

::Oops, on the other hand I forgot about the bishop's conspiracy and cruelty.
::*The Mormons are represented as a sinister, powerful force of evil, and in this respect, the comparison with earlier myth - 'conventional captivity plot' - is again noticeable. Their sadistic cruelty, for example - as depicted in the foiled attempt at whipping Venters. Or another passage which mentions the gratuitous blinding of Lassiter's horse. [http://roddocs.org/zanegrey.html]

::My question is whether ZG was using the novel to tar all Mormons with one brush, or more to illustrate what can happen when ANY faction turns fanatic. I must learn more about this. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 14:03, 5 April 2007 (EDT)
They are depicted really barbarously in ''A Study in Scarlet,'' as rapists, liars, and murderers.... about as negative depection as you could have.... [[User:Pandeism|Pandeism]] 21:14, 28 January 2008 (EST)

== "the Mormon church said very adamantly that Mormons were NOT Christians. " ==

Re the statement:
:though in the 1970s the Mormon church said very adamantly that Mormons were NOT Christians.
I '''really''' want to see a source citation for this before putting it in the article. What, exactly, did the church say in their own words? And was it, in fact, the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints as opposed to one of the small splinter groups? [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 21:57, 18 March 2007 (EDT)

My suspicion is that they did not say "Mormons are not Christians" or anything close to it. They probably said something that some other group ''interpreted'' to mean "Mormons are not Christians." [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 22:07, 18 March 2007 (EDT)

---

Well, you may be right. I can't find the exact reference, but it is my understanding that the Church of Jesus Christ of the Latter Day Saints made it clear that they did not want to be affiliated with Christianity during the 70s, when Christianity was not very popular, but now that Christianity has become popular again, LDS Evangelists or Outreachers or whatever you call the people who stop you on the street to talk about Mormonism often say very early in their talk that "Mormons are Christians, too", when in the 70s they would not, and would make it a point to say that Mormonism was not Christianity. So, perhaps saying that they said "Mormons were not Christians" was a gross oversimplification, and for that I apologize, but the sentiment is similar. [[User:ChristianHero|ChristianHero]] 22:51, 1 April 2007 (EDT)

---

I think the reason people use the quote "Mormons aren't Christians" is because "Members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints aren't Christians" is too hard to say with a straight face.

Seriously, though, what the church said was that Mormons aren't PROTESTANTS. They consider protestants to be reformers, and that Joseph Smith was a RESTORER. They like Protestants, and consider Martin Luther and other reformers to have been inspired by God, but consider their church was a restoration of the same church that Christ set up on the earth, not a protest against the catholic church or simply an attempt to set up a church they felt was closer to what Christ wanted.

But saying you aren't a protestant isn't the same thing as saying you aren't Christian.[[User:JustMe|JustMe]] 12:26, 19 June 2007 (EDT)

==Question about scripture:==
Is the KJV of the Bible really the one used for scripture? Didn't Joseph Smith do some minor re-translating of certain passages of a Bible, and that version is used? (I may be mistaken that it's authoritative as scripture, though.) If it is the preferred translation of the Scripture, then that can't really be called the KJV, right? (Also, out of curiosity, what translation of the Bible do LDS for whom English is not their native language use? I hope that they don't try to translate the KJV into another language.) [[User:Kolbe|Kolbe]] 18:53, 3 April 2007 (EDT)
: Yes, the Church uses the KJV of the Bible. There is a version published by the Church which includes ''footnotes'' to JST (Joseph Smith Translation) verses and ''footnotes'' for references to other LDS scriptures like the Book of Mormon, Doctrine and Convenants and Pearl of Great Price but the main text is the unchanged KJV.
: I don't know about other languages - something for me to reasearch. [[User:Crocoite|Crocoite]][[User Talk:Crocoite|talk]] 19:15, 3 April 2007 (EDT)
::Here's a statement from someone in the church "The goal of the typical Bible society, usually a collaboration of numerous different Christian denominations, has been to take a translated Bible to every people—a work which deserves our praise and gratitude. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints does not make translations of the Bible itself at this point, but chooses carefully a translation available in a particular language for use among its members who speak that language." [http://www.lds.org/portal/site/LDSOrg/menuitem.b12f9d18fae655bb69095bd3e44916a0/?vgnextoid=2354fccf2b7db010VgnVCM1000004d82620aRCRD&locale=0&sourceId=7717aeca0ea6b010VgnVCM1000004d82620a____&hideNav=1 Lenet H. Read, “How the Bible Came to Be: Part 8, The Power of the Word,” Ensign, Sep 1982, 64] [[User:Crocoite|Crocoite]][[User Talk:Crocoite|talk]] 19:57, 3 April 2007 (EDT)
:::Thanks. I didn't realize that the Joseph Smith just added footnotes. I thought he had actually re-translated or re-written certain passages. [[User:Kolbe|Kolbe]] 00:10, 4 April 2007 (EDT)
::::Let me clarify this issue. Joseph Smith did indeed re-translate certain verses. Those re-translated verses do NOT appear in the KJV text. They appear as footnotes in the version published by the Church. [[User:Crocoite|Crocoite]][[User Talk:Crocoite|talk]] 11:39, 4 April 2007 (EDT)
== The Mormon problem. ==

Joseph Smith, Jr., like L. Ron Hubbard, or Helena Blavatsky or Ellen White or Mary Baker Eddy, or Mohammed, were frauds, mountebanks. Mitt Romney is a religious fraud; he is a polytheist who believes in gods from outer space, in other words, a religious whacko.
:I've never seen anything in Mormon literature about "gods from outer space". And Mormons certainly are not polytheists, and neither are Muslims. --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 03:10, 4 April 2007 (EDT)
::They believe the persons in the Trinity are three separate beings, right? Are they not all gods? (And if not, do they not believe that Jesus is divine?) At least, this is my understanding of LDS teaching. Am I mistaken? (I don't think the original commenter was calling Muslims polytheists. He was calling Muhammad a fraud.) [[User:Kolbe|Kolbe]] 03:58, 4 April 2007 (EDT)
:::''They believe the persons in the Trinity are three separate beings, right?'' Yes, we believe that Heavenly Father (God the Father) and Jesus Christ (The Son of God) have glorified, perfected bodies of flesh and bones; the Holy Ghost is also part of the Godhead but is a personage of Spirit in the form of a man.
:::''Are they not all gods?'' Yes. [[User:Crocoite|Crocoite]][[User Talk:Crocoite|talk]] 11:54, 4 April 2007 (EDT)
::::Yes they are not all gods, or yes they are all gods? That's a bit of a confusing answer (to a poorly-phrased question, I guess). [[User:Kolbe|Kolbe]] 12:30, 4 April 2007 (EDT)
:::::Yes, they are all gods. "The Church's first article of faith states, "We believe in God, the Eternal Father, and in His Son, Jesus Christ, and in the Holy Ghost." These three beings make up the Godhead. They preside over this world and all other creations of our Father in Heaven." [LDS.org Gospel Topics:Godhead] [[User:Crocoite|Crocoite]][[User Talk:Crocoite|talk]] 14:38, 4 April 2007 (EDT)
::::::If there are three gods, and they are each separate beings, how is that not polytheism? (Or, at least, it's not "certainly" not polytheism, since it does appear to be polytheistic, lacking some equivocation about how they're not really all god, or not really three distinct persons.) [[User:Kolbe|Kolbe]] 15:02, 4 April 2007 (EDT)
::::::::I was always just taught that the Trinity were three forms of the same being.--[[User:Elamdri|Elamdri]] 15:13, 4 April 2007 (EDT)
::::::::"They are distinct beings, but They are one in purpose and effort. They are united as one in bringing to pass the grand, divine plan for the salvation and exaltation of the children of God." [LDS.org ''In These Three I Believe'' by President Gordon B. Hinckley] [[User:Crocoite|Crocoite]][[User Talk:Crocoite|talk]] 15:22, 4 April 2007 (EDT)
:::::::::What about the Mormon doctrine of "eternal progression"? That Jesus is the firstborn son of an exalted "man" who became the "god" of this world because of his good works on another planet somewhere out in the universe. He "earned" godhood, and was then appointed by a counsel of other "gods" in the heavens to his high position as the "god" of planet Earth. The Mormon's god of this world was a man, like all men, who became a god. This is what the celestial marriage and the temple vows are all about. LDS men, by doing their temple work, are striving for exaltation by which they, too, shall one day become gods. Their wives will be the mother goddesses of "their" world and with their husband will produce the population of their world... See also http://www.carm.org/lds/ldsprogression.htm That isn't really "Christianity", is it? [[Image:User Fox.png]] [[User:Fox|Fox]] ([[User talk:Fox|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Fox|contribs]]) 16:45, 12 June 2007 (EDT)
::::::::::''What about the Mormon doctrine of "eternal progression"?'' You are presenting an incredibly simplistic viewpoint on the Subject. You are also going into detail about things God has only touched lightly upon. There is some 'fact' to what you speak of. But the details about it are not going to happen as you presented them. No one "earn's" their 'godhood'. After all we can do we still fall short of the necessary "perfection" to return to God's presence. Christ's atonement "makes up the difference", to coin a phrase. We are "saved" by the grace and power of Christ's atonement. There is a different phraseology used by the LDS faith and otheres as to what it means to be "saved". As far as what God has in mind for all of his children, please read Romans 8: 16-17.
::::::::::The LDS faith is not "polytheisitc". We worship God the Eternal Father. We direct our prayers to him in His Son's name, Jesus Christ. That is "monotheism" defined. God, Jesus, and the Holy Ghost being separate beings and members of the "Godhood" does not mean they are the "God's" that should be worshiped. Jesus laid the foundation when he organized his followers. He instructed them to pray to the Father in his name. All that we do should be done in the name of Jesus, directed to the glorification of our Father in Heaven.

(reset indent)
According to ''Mormon Doctrine'' "there is an infinite number of holy personages, drawn from worlds without number, who have passed on to exaltation and are thus Gods." Joseph Smith: " "God himself, the Father of us all was once a man like us." (''History of the Church''). On salvation through Christ: "Believe in God, believe in Jesus, and believe in Joseph [Smith] his prophet, and Brigham his successor, and you shall be saved. No man or woman in this dispensation will ever enter into the Celestial Kingdom of God without the consent of Joseph Smith" (Brigham Young). Your comments are deliberate obfuscation. Also, the recent edits to the article, such as the extermination order, fail to mention the reason why it was issued, that Smith had raised a militia in Missouri that was attacking non-mormon settlers. [[Image:User Fox.png]] [[User:Fox|Fox]] ([[User talk:Fox|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Fox|contribs]]) 16:43, 29 June 2007 (EDT)
==Origins of the church==

Cut from intro;

:, who claimed to have received a revelation of the Father -God-and his son, Jesus Christ 1820. Years later, he also claims to have recieved further instruction from the Angel Moroni

I see no need for jabs like this. Anyway, he started the church after a long and fruitless search for the "true" religion. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 13:46, 5 April 2007 (EDT)

::It's not a "jab". Smith claimed he saw God and Jesus in 1820, and claims that three years later, he was visited by the angel Moroni who told him about the golden plates.--[[User:Epicurius|Epicurius]] 13:56, 5 April 2007 (EDT)
::Thanks for the cut Ed. I totally agree. [[User:Crocoite|Crocoite]][[User Talk:Crocoite]] 14:47, 5 April 2007 (EDT)

When I read this stuff, I thank god I'm an atheist.

==Presentation of Mormons' relationship to Christianity==
It seems to me a little tendentious to lead off with the opinions of the Lutheran Church Missouri Synod. Courtesy seems to me to requires call for a short summary of the Mormons' position on this first. Then we can proceed to the views of the (relatively liberal) Methodists and the (relatively conservative) Lutheran Church Missouri Synod and the Southern Baptists.

(And I have to wonder whether, in this matter, the Lutheran Church, Missouri Synod truly speaks for "the vast majority of Christian denominations in the United States," but if they said it I guess we can quote it). [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 19:08, 24 May 2007 (EDT)

==Word of Wisdom==
The main article was changed to "Church members follow a law of health known as the Word of Wisdom that promotes healthy eating as well as avoiding tobacco, alcohol, coffee, tea, caffeine in general, and illegal drugs."
Hoji reverted my edit [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Church_of_Jesus_Christ_of_Latter-day_Saints&diff=prev&oldid=175993 added caffeine without removing coffee and tea, as all three are correct]. All three are NOT correct. I have been a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints for over 30 years and I know that the Word of Wisdom does NOT include caffeine. Some Church members observe the practice of avoiding caffeine, but it is not Church doctrine. See this reference for the Church's official position.[http://www.mormon.org/mormonorg/v/index.jsp?vgnextoid=7a45055b23710110VgnVCM1000003a94610aRCRD&locale=0&sourceId=1f476db0580a1110VgnVCM100000176f620a____ Obey the Word of Wisdom]. [[User:Crocoite|Crocoite]] [[User_talk:Crocoite|Talk]] [[Conservapedia:Requests for adminship#Support|Support my RfA]]) 16:42, 27 May 2007 (EDT)
:From my interactions with a Mormons (I live in an area with a large number of Mormons), I have always been told that caffeine is to be avoided, and drinks like Mountain Dew, Coke, Pepsi, etc. are out of the question. I am not a professional on the issue, though, and this was probably a community-specific regulation. You know more than I do about this, Crocoite, and I'll trust your judgement from now on. --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Ĥøĵĭmåçħôńğ''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 17:22, 27 May 2007 (EDT)
::Thanks for the correction Hoji. I'm not a General Authority of the Church, but we can use the discussion page to clarify issues for the main article. [[User:Crocoite|Crocoite]] [[User_talk:Crocoite|Talk]] [[Conservapedia:Requests for adminship#Support|Support my RfA]]) 22:54, 27 May 2007 (EDT)
:::It has been suggested by Leaders of the LDS Church that caffeine should be avoided. Like people of all religions, different Mormons have interpreted those statements in different ways. Officially, (letter of the law kind of thing), Caffeine is not forbidden, and is technically not part of the Word of Wisdom. However, as it is a suggestion by LDS Church leaders, many (could I say most?) Mormons do not drink caffeine. [[User:Tirrian|Tirrian]] 18:50, 19 July 2007 (EDT)

== redo ==

After reading this article, I would say a rewrite is in order. [[User_talk:Geo.plrd|Geo.]][[User_talk:Geo.plrd|Complain!]] 16:34, 29 June 2007 (EDT)
:this article says nothing about the schism. [[User_talk:Geo.plrd|Geo.]][[User_talk:Geo.plrd|Complain!]] 16:37, 29 June 2007 (EDT)
:Agreed, a rewrite is in order. Rather than edit warring on the article, can we please draft up sections here on talk? [[Image:User Fox.png]] [[User:Fox|Fox]] ([[User talk:Fox|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Fox|contribs]]) 16:43, 29 June 2007 (EDT)
::Yeah! Someone finally says something intelligent. [[User_talk:Geo.plrd|Geo.]][[User_talk:Geo.plrd|Complain!]] 19:17, 1 July 2007 (EDT)

==Page Improvement; Article Neutrality; Information Sources; Offensive Content==

I am a lifelong member of the LDS church. I just found out about this website and was curious to see what the entry for my church looked like. Although I don't have time to do a complete rewrite, I do heartily agree that some serious work is needed, and I have spent a few minutes correcting some typos and trying to add some accurate information.

Although I understand that the creators of ''conservapedia'' apparently have some issue with ''Wikipedia'', one aspect of that website I hope they (and its contributors) respect is ''Neutral Point of View''. The accurate and unbiased description of a religion's beliefs should be allowed without disrespect and meanness. I may disagree with the beliefs of other religions, but I do not believe that gives me the right to mock or ridicule those beliefs simply because they are different than my own.

I caution the usage of and reference to "non-Mormon" websites as primary sources for explanations of LDS beliefs. Although they can be useful for comparisons of understanding and response, sole reliance on such sources can lead to the perpetuation of myths, increased misunderstanding, and outright prejudice. Often, the outside point-of-view can result in a description of beliefs so altered that even members of the church would not recognize it as their own. I have corrected several occurrences in this article, including the erroneous assertions that Mormons "do not believe in the diety of Christ" (?!) and that Mormons "believe in salvation through works". Where a group openly proclaims its beliefs, the honest scholar will allow the group to do so and may ''respond'' to them but will never ''misrepresent'' them.

The scriptural references I included are in no way an attempt to "prove" LDS beliefs, but rather are simply to indicate to the reader one of the sources of those beliefs, understanding that it is perfectly reasonable that one may have alternate beliefs or interpretations of the same.

Finally, although I understand the original author's intent to point the reader to both supporting and opposing views, I found the "Mormon" and "Anti-Mormon" subheadings under the External Links section to be quite offensive. If consistency is a desirable characteristic of ''conservapedia'', this would necessitate adding an "Anti-Semitic" section to the Judaism article, which I (and I hope many others) would also find offensive. If a contributor would like to write an article about those who criticize the LDS church, or the criticism itself, then please take the time to do so, and provide a link to that page, and allow this page to be about the church itself.[[User:Doady|Doady]] 17:50, 15 August 2007 (EDT)

:Doady, I am a convert to the church and I don't like the tone of this article either. Your comments are like music to my ears. Keep in mind though, at Conservapedia, we don't try to take a NPOV. There will be articles from a Conservative POV. And [[Wikipedia]] doesn't really have a NPOV - they just advertise that. WP articles have a [[liberal bias]] that we don't allow here [[Examples of Bias in Wikipedia]].

:Unfortunately this article has been edited by anti-Mormons and it is difficult to accurately portray the church. I encourage you to continue your improvements to this article and others here. --[[User:Crocoite|Crocoite]] 18:25, 15 August 2007 (EDT)

== Wikipedia smears the religious again ==

I am here because of wikipedia's prejudicial treatment of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints and its members. Case in point is its article on Fawn Brodie, a woman who was the niece of one of the Church's presidents and yet still managed to apostatize and become one of the most embittered and destructive "anti-mormons" of all time. Simply put, wikipedia's article on her refers almost exclusively to another apostate in the citation of its sources, and has plenty of improvable comments that are derogatory toward Latter Day Saints. I have attempted several times to correct language in the article that I felt was unnecessarily negative or misleading. Every time I made a correction, even if it was nothing more than to clear up an obvious grammatical error, every single time the page was reverted back to its previous condition by the next day at the latest.

If wikipedia is going to present itself as an encyclopedia to which anyone can contribute, they ought not to shut down attempts by people like me to purge articles of bigotry and lies. I went so far as to make posts on the discussion page for the article, explaining my changes. One of the moderators claimed to sympathize and agreed that some of the wording was prejudicial sounding, but told me that my corrections were not good enough to stand as they were. I’m talking about correcting comments that did not have citations and therefore should have been afforded no more consideration than my corrections of them.

I have also stumbled upon two separate articles in wikipedia that contained nude photographs, and many more containing obscenities. It would not be hard to photoshop those photographs to the point that you could tell the person was nude but not have to see their privates. While it may not be possible to police the entire internet for pornography, surely a wikipedia page with its own moderator(s) could be bothered to keep their own page free of filth.

Consequently, I have independently come to the conclusion that wikipedia is not a quality encyclopedia, and that if you seek to remove anti-Christian bigotry from it, or have traditional American sensibilities, your voice doesn’t count.

Then I heard about conservapedia. I decided to check it out and find out if a Latter Day Saint could expect a fair shake here. I am glad to say that most of what I am seeing here about the Church and its members is fair and correct. In fact, my only complaint is that the articles are too short. That’s understandable given the relatively short time conservapedia’s been around. And at any rate it’s a far better option than moderator protected bigotry under the banner of a encyclopedia that you can edit.

This brings me to my last point. Since conservapedia is succeeding where wikipedia is cravenly failing, I decided to join. I intend to add my knowledge to it, particularly but not only in the areas of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints. I have one request: please be patient with me if my edits aren’t up to the standard. I am just starting out here and while I do not intend to break any posting rules, I can’t guarantee that in my rookie state I won’t overlook something. Thank you for your consideration.--[[User:ChetGustavson|ChetGustavson]] 16:38, 15 September 2007 (EDT)

== Racism ==

Right up until 1978 The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints didn't allow black men in to the priesthood and it didn't allow black men and women to take part in the most important temple services. Even now the Church refuses to repudiate its racist past and has even been accused of trying to cover it up. Surely this is worth mentioning in the controversy section? {{unsigned|RM}}

== African Americans... ==

Claim is fully sourced. Please do not remove w/out discussion or a source for counter-claims. [[User:Aboganza|Aboganza]] 20:53, 25 February 2008 (EST)

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints

2008-02-26T01:52:11Z

Aboganza: Replaced - with references...

[[Image:Birmingham temple.jpg|right|Birmingham temple]]
The '''Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints,'''<ref>[http://www.lds.org/ldsnewsroom/v/index.jsp?vgnextoid=ca07ae4af9c7e010VgnVCM1000004e94610aRCRD Style Guide - The Name of the Church] LDS.org</ref> informally known as the '''Mormon Church''', was organized on 6 April 1830 in Fayette, New York, by [[Joseph Smith]]. As the Church grew, new converts gathered in Ohio and Missouri. While the Latter-day Saints in Kirtland, Ohio, experienced persecution, those gathered in Missouri were repeatedly driven from town to town by angry mobs. Having been forced from Missouri in 1839, Church members gathered in Illinois and built a thriving city called Nauvoo in a swampy bend of the Mississippi River. However, within seven years they were again forced from their homes. Led by [[Brigham Young]], these pioneers fled 1,300 miles (2,092 kilometers) westward to the Salt Lake Valley, to escape persecution, and founded [[Salt Lake City]], [[Utah]], where the Latter-Day Saint Church continues to be headquartered today. The church has now expanded to more than 12.5 million members.<ref>[http://www.lds.org/ldsnewsroom/v/index.jsp?vgnextoid=86e6635a56d8f010VgnVCM100000176f620aRCRD&vgnextchannel=3e0511154963d010VgnVCM1000004e94610aRCRD History of the Church]</ref><ref>[http://www.lds.org/ldsnewsroom/v/index.jsp?vgnextoid=d10511154963d010VgnVCM1000004e94610aRCRD Worldwide Church Statistics] LDS.org</ref>

Church members follow a law of health known as the [[Word of Wisdom]] that promotes healthy eating as well as avoiding tobacco, alcohol, coffee, tea, and illegal drugs.<ref>[http://scriptures.lds.org/dc/89 The Word of Wisdom] Scriptures.lds.org</ref>

==Beliefs==
Latter-day Saints (Mormons) believe in [[Christ]], and they strive to follow his example. They testify of Christ and their Church bears his name. From the organization of the LDS Church in 1830, the Church's doctrine focused on Jesus Christ. Joseph Smith, Jr. wrote in 1842 to Chicago Democrat editor John Wentworth a statement of Church beliefs. The first of these 13 doctrinal declarations, later called the Articles of [[Faith]], stated the following:<blockquote>“We believe in [[God]] the Eternal Father, and in His Son, Jesus Christ, and in the [[Holy Ghost]]."<ref>[http://www.lds.org/portal/site/LDSOrg/menuitem.b12f9d18fae655bb69095bd3e44916a0/?vgnextoid=2354fccf2b7db010VgnVCM1000004d82620aRCRD&locale=0&sourceId=4ebe76e6ffe0c010VgnVCM1000004d82620a____&hideNav=1 The Marvelous Foundation of Our Faith] from the October 2002 General Conference</ref></blockquote>

"The Articles of Faith are thirteen statements written by the Prophet Joseph Smith describing some of the basic teachings and ordinances of the Church". [http://scriptures.lds.org/en/a_of_f/1] <ref>[http://library.lds.org/nxt/gateway.dll/Curriculum/home%20and%20family.htm/gospel%20principles.htm?fn=document-frameset.htm$f=templates$3.0 ''Gospel Principles'', The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, Utah. 1997]</ref> 

The LDS website states: <blockquote>"We believe in the Jesus of the New Testament, and we believe what the New Testament teaches about Him. We do believe things about Jesus that other Christians do not believe, but that is because we know, through revelation, things about Jesus that others do not know."<ref>[http://www.mormon.org/question/faq/category/answer/0,9777,1601-1-56-16,00.html Is The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints a Christian church?] As answered on the LDS Church's website</ref></blockquote>

Members of the church believe that God the Father and Jesus Christ are separate and distinct glorified beings, that God, the Father of all spirits (even including Lucifer) and Jesus Christ appeared to Joseph Smith in a vision in the spring of 1820 in response to Joseph's prayer requesting to know which of the many local [[Christian]] denominations he should join himself with, and that They told him that he should join with none of them. The reason behind this direction was as follows, according to LDS beliefs: the organization or "church" put in place by Jesus Christ during His ministry both before and after His resurrection was meant to remain as long as there were faithful followers, although there was clear understanding that a "falling away" (see 2 Thessalonians 2:3) or apostasy would take place, destroying for a time this organization (though not destroying faith in Jesus Christ, which did persist). This church organization provided a structure whereby two key components were maintained: the Priesthood, and continuing and direct revelation from the ascended Jesus Christ to His chosen Apostles.

According to LDS beliefs, the Priesthood is the authority given by Jesus Christ to His [[Apostles]] and others, both to direct the Church, as well as to perform the associated and necessary ordinances, such as baptism by water immersion, and giving the gift of the Holy Ghost by the laying on of hands. Without this authority, it would be impossible to perform them in an authorized manner (see Acts 8:18-23). This authority, in actuality a covenant of service, only placed on men and not at all a legitimate source of self-aggrandizement, could only be passed from one authorized holder to another worthy man through the laying on of hands. Thus, while although initially the full quorum of 12 Apostles was maintained (see Acts 1:15-26), the Apostles were killed one by one and the Lord, in His mercy, ceased to give these murderers further opportunity of condemning themselves as more Apostles were not chosen. Thus, without the Priesthood and without the continuing revelation that the Lord provided to His Apostles to lead and guide the church, it fell way, as had been prophesied.

Therefore, LDS doctrine teaches of the necessity of a complete restoration rather than simply a reformation, and for this reason, Joseph Smith was called by God to be the first prophet, in the same sense as [[Moses]], [[Isaiah]], or [[Peter]], since the times of the New Testament. Mormons believe that since Joseph Smith, the leaders of the Church, from Brigham Young to [[Gordon B. Hinckley]] today, were and are prophets, with the complete Priesthood authority (restored through the laying on of hands by first John the Baptist and then by Apostles Peter, James and John). Mormons revere these men just as the Biblical prophets are revered and in particular, honor Joseph Smith for being the man through whom God and Jesus Christ chose to restore Their church to the earth.
===Scriptures===

The four standard works of the Church are:
*The King James Version of the [[Bible]] - both the Old and New Testaments
*[[The Book of Mormon|The Book of Mormon: Another Testament of Jesus Christ]] - Translation of the spiritual record of two ancient civilizations in the western hemisphere, one from the time of the [[Tower of Babel]] to about 600 B.C., and the other from 600 B.C. to 421 A.D.
*[[Doctrine and Covenants]] - Modern-day revelation as received by the Prophet Joseph Smith and other modern-day prophets
*[[Pearl of Great Price]] - Selection of translations, revelations and narrations from the Prophet Joseph Smith

====Book of Mormon====

President [[Gordon B. Hinckley]] said the following about the [[Book of Mormon]] in an October, 2002 [[General Conference]] address entitled "The Marvelous Foundation of Our Faith": <blockquote>"This remarkable book stands as a testimonial to the living reality of the Son of God. The Bible declares that 'in the mouth of two or three witnesses every word may be established' (Matt. 18:16). The Bible, the testament of the Old World, is one witness. The Book of Mormon, the testament of the New World, is another witness.</blockquote><blockquote>I cannot understand why the Christian world does not accept this book. I would think they would be looking for anything and everything that would establish without question the reality and the divinity of the Savior of the world."<ref>[http://www.lds.org/ldsnewsroom/v/index.jsp?vgnextoid=e74c4d4297602110VgnVCM100000176f620aRCRD Mormons Reflect Christianity in Lifestyle] as stated in the April, 2007 newsroom article at lds.org</ref></blockquote>

===Restoration of the Priesthood===
Members of the [[Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints]] believe that on May 15, 1829 A.D., the resurrected [[John the Baptist]] appeared to [[Joseph Smith|Joseph Smith, Jr.]] and [[Oliver Cowdery]] and conferred upon them the [[Aaronic priesthood]], which includes the authority to baptize.<ref>[http://scriptures.lds.org/en/dc/13 Doctrine and Covenants 13]</ref> Later, the resurrected Peter, James, and John appeared to them and conferred the [[Melchizedek priesthood]].

==Wards==
[[Image:DCTemple.jpg|right|Washington DC Temple]]
Wards are geographically-defined congregations of the church. The Bishop is the spiritual leader of the ward and he serves with two counselors, all three chosen from among the body of the Ward. Bishops are usually called to serve for a period of five years and do so on a volunteer and unpaid basis, without formal ecclesiastical training, and while maintaining their secular professions.

The entire ward meets every week on Sunday to worship the Lord Jesus Christ and to receive counsel. The meetings are divided into three different hours:
*First hour - '''Sacrament meeting'''. Our main purpose in attending sacrament meeting is to renew our covenants through partaking of the sacrament and to worship our Heavenly Father through hymn singing and prayer. Sacrament meeting provides an opportunity for members to strengthen their faith, find inner peace and spiritual healing, receive inspiration, and be instructed in the gospel. A member of the bishopric begins the meeting welcoming all members and visitors. There is an opening hymn followed by an opening prayer (invocation). This is followed by conducting ward business where members are released and sustained from callings. Then the sacrament of bread and water is prepared, blessed by the priesthood, and passed to the congregation. The sacrament is a renewal of the covenants each member made at baptism to remember the Lord Jesus Christ and to keep his commandments. On the first Sunday of the month, the meeting conductor starts off the bearing of testimonies by offering his own personal testimony. A testimony is a personal witness that the gospel of Jesus Christ is true. As inspired by the Spirit, other members give their testimonies. On the other three Sundays, there are talks from members. The sacrament meeting concludes with a closing hymn and prayer.
*Second hour - '''Sunday School''', '''Primary''' and '''Nursery'''. Its purposes are to teach the gospel of Jesus Christ and strengthen individuals and families by encouraging them to study the scriptures, obey the commandments, receive the essential ordinances, and keep the associated covenants. All the adults and youth meet in Sunday School classes. Children younger than twelve and three or older attend Primary. Children who are at least 18 months old but who are not yet 3 years old on 1 January may attend nursery at the discretion of their parents.
:'''Adult Sunday School''' - The adults meet in several different classes. New members to the Church usually attend a Gospel Essentials class where they learn the basic teachings of the Church. Most of the other adults attend a Gospel Doctrine class where they are instructed in the Gospel of Jesus Christ from the scriptures. The main subjects rotate every four years: Old Testament, New Testament, Book of Mormon, and the last year is Doctrine and Covenants, Pearl of Great Price and Church history. The bible used by Church members is the King James Version.
:'''Youth Sunday School''' - The youth meet in several different classes according to their ages. There are usually separate classes for twelve and thirteen year olds, fourteen and fifteen year olds and sixteen and seventeen year olds. When they turn eighteen, the member starts attending the adult classes.
:'''Primary''' - The purpose of Primary is to teach children the gospel of Jesus Christ and help them learn to live it.
:'''Nursery''' - The purpose of the nursery class is to provide a loving, safe, organized place where young children can increase their understanding of and love for Heavenly Father and Jesus Christ, have positive experiences in a Church setting, and grow in feelings of self-worth.
*Third hour - '''Priesthood''', '''Relief Society''', '''Young Men''', '''Young Women''', '''Primary''' and '''Nursery'''. The men meet in Priesthood, the adult women meet in Relief Society,the male youth meet in Young Men, the female youth meet in Young Women and the children continue to meet in Primary or Nursery.
:'''Priesthood''' - The purpose of the priesthood meetings are to increase priesthood holders’ knowledge of the gospel; strengthen their dedication to becoming better husbands, fathers, sons, and neighbors; and help them become active participants in fulfilling the mission of the Church.
:'''Relief Society ''' - The purpose of Relief Society is to provide relief for the poor and needy and to bring people to Christ.
:'''Young Men''' - The purpose of the Young men group is to prepare the young men of the Aaronic Priesthood to receive the Melchizedek Priesthood, to receive the ordinances of the temple, and to serve a full-time mission.
:'''Young Women''' - The purpose of the Young Women organization is to help each young woman, ages 12 to 18, "come unto Christ".

==General Conference==
The church holds a semi-annual General Conference (in April and October, five two-hour sessions over two days) during which members listen to spoken messages from the Prophet and President of the church, his two counselors, members of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles and other Church leaders. These messages are received by members of the church as modern-day revelation, just as the words of Peter were received by the followers of Jesus Christ in his day. Many members travel to Salt Lake City for the two-day conference, but the proceedings are broadcast via satellite throughout the world (as well as streamed on the internet) so that the entire church can participate.

The semi-annual conference was held in the Salt Lake Tabernacle for 132 years, but in 2000, the church completed construction of the Conference Center and has held the conference there since April 2000. The Conference Center's primary feature is an auditorium that seats 21,000.

==Controversy==

===Relationship to Christianity===

====Position of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints====
Members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints consider themselves Christians. They worship Jesus Christ as their Creator (see John 1:3), their Savior and Redeemer, and ultimately their eternal Judge. They believe that the events described in the New Testament in reality occurred, including Jesus Christ's virgin birth, his sinless life and miraculous ministry, and his suffering, death, and literal resurrection, through which forgiveness of sin, salvation (understood in LDS doctrine to indicate resurrection and immortality, a free gift to all; see 1 Corinthians 15:22), and ultimately exaltation (returning to and eternally dwelling in the presence of God and Jesus Christ and becoming "joint-heirs with Christ"; see Romans 8:17), are made possible.

The eleventh of the above-mentioned thirteen articles of faith contains the following statement:
<blockquote>“We claim the privilege of worshiping Almighty God according to the dictates of our own conscience, and allow all men the same privilege, let them worship how, where, or what they may." (see Articles of Faith 1:11)</blockquote>

Mormonism teaches that all other Christian religions are apostate.<ref>http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/dn/opinion/columnists/rdreher/stories/DN-dreher_16edi.ART.State.Edition1.36c8162.html</ref>

====African Americans and the Priesthood====
The Book of Mormon claims that black skin is a divine curse arising from the sins of one's ancestors. As such, African Americans were banned from the Priesthood until 1978. See: [http://byustudies.byu.edu/Reviews/Pages/reviewdetail.aspx?reviewID=117] and [http://www.pbs.org/mormons/themes/prohibition.html]

====Positions of Various Christian Groups ====

There are significant differences between Mormonism and other Christian denominations, and nearly all other Christian denominations consider Mormonism to be non-Christian. These differences have led to the desire on the part of some to actively speak against the LDS Church and its members. Doctrines of the church have been distorted or even fabricated to highlight these differences, and many misconceptions exist. Several Christian churches have released statements in opposition to the church and its doctrines.

The [[United Methodist Church]] has stated that the Mormon faith has "some radically differing doctrine on such matters of belief as the nature and being of [[God]]; the nature, origin, and purpose of [[Jesus Christ]]; and the nature and way of [[salvation]]."<ref>http://www.apologeticsindex.org/news/an200513.html#21</ref> The [[Lutheran Missouri Synod|Lutheran Church—Missouri Synod]] goes further, stating that it, "together with the vast majority of Christian denominations in the United States, does not regard the Mormon church as a Christian church."<ref>http://www.lcms.org/pages/internal.asp?NavID=2239</ref> However, the Roman Catholic Church doesn't have high regard for the theology of the Lutheran Church or most other protestant denominations either.

While the [[Southern Baptist Convention]] states that the Mormon religion is "not consistent with biblical Christianity."<ref>http://www.onenewsnow.com/2007/02/southern_baptist_convention_wa.php</ref> Beliefnet.com details a number of differences between the Mormon faith and traditional Christianity.<ref>http://www.beliefnet.com/features/mormonism.html</ref>

Mormons differ from other Christian denominations on a number of key issues:
* They believe that God and Jesus Christ are separate and distinct yet glorified beings.
* They do not believe in the concept of "original sin" but instead that all people will be held accountable only for their ''own'' sins and transgressions.
* They believe that works (e.g. faith in Christ, repentance, baptism by water, receipt of the gift of the Holy Ghost by the laying on of hands, and living a Christlike life) are required to ''qualify'' oneself for salvation but that salvation is only ultimately attained through the grace of God and the suffering, death, and resurrection of Jesus Christ (as opposed to the belief in salvation through works, i.e. somehow acquiring ones own salvation independent of God or Jesus Christ, a belief ''not'' held by the LDS church).
* They believe that God was once a mortal man and that all individuals who have ever lived or who will yet live, including [[Jesus]] and [[Lucifer]], are the spirit children of God the Father.
* They believe that all people have the ultimate potential, through the grace of God, of not only returning to His presence (salvation) but becoming like Him (exaltation; see Romans 8:16-17).
* They believe that Joseph Smith was visited by God and Jesus Christ when he was 15 years old and was chosen to be the prophet through whom Christ's church was restored to the earth.
* They believe that after His resurrection, Jesus Christ visited and ministered to believers who lived in the western hemisphere, and that the spiritual records of these people were collected and abridged by a prophet-historian named Mormon into a single work subsequently completed by his son Moroni and ultimately buried in a hill in upstate New York circa 421 A.D.
* They believe that the angel Moroni, in his resurrected state, appeared to Joseph Smith when he was 17 years old and told him of this record which Joseph eventually retrieved, translated through the power of God, and published as ''The Book of Mormon'', later retitled, ''The Book of Mormon: Another Testament of Jesus Christ''.
* They believe that God has continued to call prophets and apostles in the present day just as he did in Biblical times, starting with Joseph Smith, and that these men lead the restored church by revelation from Jesus Christ rather than through the sole reliance on human understanding.
* They believe that the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is "the only true and living church upon the face of the whole earth" (see Doctrine and Covenants 1:30).

===Views on Same-Gender Attraction===
In October 2007, Elder Jeffrey R. Holland, of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles, wrote an article in the Ensign magazine entitled "Helping Those Who Struggle with Same-Gender Attraction". <ref>[http://www.lds.org/portal/site/LDSOrg/menuitem.b12f9d18fae655bb69095bd3e44916a0/?vgnextoid=2354fccf2b7db010VgnVCM1000004d82620aRCRD&locale=0&sourceId=e5cbba12dc825110VgnVCM100000176f620a____ Helping Those Who Struggle with Same-Gender Attraction]</ref> In 2007, the Church published a pamphlet "God Loveth His Children", for those suffering from same-gender attraction. <ref>http://www.lds.org/topics/pdf/GodLovethHisChildren_04824_000.pdf God Loveth His Children</ref>

On June 7, 2006, ABC’s Nightline ran a story on members and former members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints who struggle with same-gender attraction. The Church published a response to the inaccuracies in the Nightline story. <ref>[http://www.lds.org/ldsnewsroom/v/index.jsp?vgnextoid=d4ec39628b88f010VgnVCM100000176f620aRCRD&vgnextchannel=f5f411154963d010VgnVCM1000004e94610aRCRD Church Responds to Nightline Story on Mormons and Homosexuality]</ref>

The Church has a section on same-gender attraction on the Newsroom website. <ref>[http://www.lds.org/ldsnewsroom/v/index.jsp?vgnextoid=27f71f1dd189f010VgnVCM100000176f620aRCRD&vgnextchannel=726511154963d010VgnVCM1000004e94610aRCRD&vgnextfmt=tab1 Same-Gender Attraction]</ref>

===Polygamy===
Early ill will towards Mormons was sparked in part by its early practice of [[polygamy]], which was sanctioned from 1840 until 1890. Even though it was officially discontinued in 1890, Mormonism and polygamy continue to be associated in the minds of the uninformed.

A 1998 statement by current LDS President Gordon B. Hinckley states:
:This Church has nothing whatever to do with those practicing polygamy. They are not members of this Church. . . . If any of our members are found to be practicing plural marriage, they are excommunicated, the most serious penalty the Church can impose. Not only are those so involved in direct violation of the civil law, they are in violation of the law of this Church.<ref>[http://www.mormon.org/question/faq/category/answer/0,9777,1601-1-114-1,00.html What is the Church’s position on polygamy?] LDS website</ref>

However, in addition to "the" Church (the 12.5-million-member Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints), there continue to be small splinter groups, which also consider themselves to be Mormons and do practice polygamy. The most notable is the "Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints" (often called "Fundamentalist Mormons.") This group numbers about ten thousand. It broke from the Mormon church in 1890 over the issue of polygamy. It made headlines in 2006 and 2007, when leader Warren Jeffs was arrested by the FBI and indicted by a grand jury on charges of arranging illegal "marriages" between male followers and underage girls.

==References==
{{reflist|2}}

==External Links==

*[http://www.lds.org Official Church Website]
*[http://www.mormon.org Official Church Website for Investigators]
*[http://scriptures.lds.org Official Online Version of the LDS Scriptures]
*[http://www.familysearch.org/ Official Church Genealogy Website, "the largest collection of free family history, family tree and genealogy records in the world."]
*[http://www.ldschurchtemples.com "News, schedules, photographs, and interesting facts of the temples of the LDS Church"]
*[http://www.fairlds.org Mormon Apologetics]
*[http://www.maxwellinstitute.com BYU Theologians]
*[http://www.lightplanet.com/mormons/ About Mormons]
*[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Church_of_Jesus_Christ_of_Latter-day_Saints Wikipedia article] on the LDS Church
*[http://www.intellectualconservative.com/article3282.html Are Mormons Conservative?]
*[http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,317272,00.html 21 Questions Answered About Mormon Faith]
*[http://www.moroni10.com/protestants.html Why Protestants Agree With Mormons (They Just Don’t Realize It)], Kelly Bingham, December 7, 2007

====Links to Groups Not in Favor of the Mormon Church====

*[http://jesusnotjoseph.com JesusNotJoseph]
*[http://www.mrm.org Mormonism Research Ministry]
*[http://www.evangelicalbible.com/jw.htm#LDS The Mormon Church & the Nature of God]

[[Category:Christian Denominations]]
[[Category:LDS Church]]

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints

2008-02-26T01:20:53Z

Aboganza:

[[Image:Birmingham temple.jpg|right|Birmingham temple]]
The '''Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints,'''<ref>[http://www.lds.org/ldsnewsroom/v/index.jsp?vgnextoid=ca07ae4af9c7e010VgnVCM1000004e94610aRCRD Style Guide - The Name of the Church] LDS.org</ref> informally known as the '''Mormon Church''', was organized on 6 April 1830 in Fayette, New York, by [[Joseph Smith]]. As the Church grew, new converts gathered in Ohio and Missouri. While the Latter-day Saints in Kirtland, Ohio, experienced persecution, those gathered in Missouri were repeatedly driven from town to town by angry mobs. Having been forced from Missouri in 1839, Church members gathered in Illinois and built a thriving city called Nauvoo in a swampy bend of the Mississippi River. However, within seven years they were again forced from their homes. Led by [[Brigham Young]], these pioneers fled 1,300 miles (2,092 kilometers) westward to the Salt Lake Valley, to escape persecution, and founded [[Salt Lake City]], [[Utah]], where the Latter-Day Saint Church continues to be headquartered today. The church has now expanded to more than 12.5 million members.<ref>[http://www.lds.org/ldsnewsroom/v/index.jsp?vgnextoid=86e6635a56d8f010VgnVCM100000176f620aRCRD&vgnextchannel=3e0511154963d010VgnVCM1000004e94610aRCRD History of the Church]</ref><ref>[http://www.lds.org/ldsnewsroom/v/index.jsp?vgnextoid=d10511154963d010VgnVCM1000004e94610aRCRD Worldwide Church Statistics] LDS.org</ref>

Church members follow a law of health known as the [[Word of Wisdom]] that promotes healthy eating as well as avoiding tobacco, alcohol, coffee, tea, and illegal drugs.<ref>[http://scriptures.lds.org/dc/89 The Word of Wisdom] Scriptures.lds.org</ref>

==Beliefs==
Latter-day Saints (Mormons) believe in [[Christ]], and they strive to follow his example. They testify of Christ and their Church bears his name. From the organization of the LDS Church in 1830, the Church's doctrine focused on Jesus Christ. Joseph Smith, Jr. wrote in 1842 to Chicago Democrat editor John Wentworth a statement of Church beliefs. The first of these 13 doctrinal declarations, later called the Articles of [[Faith]], stated the following:<blockquote>“We believe in [[God]] the Eternal Father, and in His Son, Jesus Christ, and in the [[Holy Ghost]]."<ref>[http://www.lds.org/portal/site/LDSOrg/menuitem.b12f9d18fae655bb69095bd3e44916a0/?vgnextoid=2354fccf2b7db010VgnVCM1000004d82620aRCRD&locale=0&sourceId=4ebe76e6ffe0c010VgnVCM1000004d82620a____&hideNav=1 The Marvelous Foundation of Our Faith] from the October 2002 General Conference</ref></blockquote>

"The Articles of Faith are thirteen statements written by the Prophet Joseph Smith describing some of the basic teachings and ordinances of the Church". [http://scriptures.lds.org/en/a_of_f/1] <ref>[http://library.lds.org/nxt/gateway.dll/Curriculum/home%20and%20family.htm/gospel%20principles.htm?fn=document-frameset.htm$f=templates$3.0 ''Gospel Principles'', The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, Utah. 1997]</ref> 

The LDS website states: <blockquote>"We believe in the Jesus of the New Testament, and we believe what the New Testament teaches about Him. We do believe things about Jesus that other Christians do not believe, but that is because we know, through revelation, things about Jesus that others do not know."<ref>[http://www.mormon.org/question/faq/category/answer/0,9777,1601-1-56-16,00.html Is The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints a Christian church?] As answered on the LDS Church's website</ref></blockquote>

Members of the church believe that God the Father and Jesus Christ are separate and distinct glorified beings, that God, the Father of all spirits (even including Lucifer) and Jesus Christ appeared to Joseph Smith in a vision in the spring of 1820 in response to Joseph's prayer requesting to know which of the many local [[Christian]] denominations he should join himself with, and that They told him that he should join with none of them. The reason behind this direction was as follows, according to LDS beliefs: the organization or "church" put in place by Jesus Christ during His ministry both before and after His resurrection was meant to remain as long as there were faithful followers, although there was clear understanding that a "falling away" (see 2 Thessalonians 2:3) or apostasy would take place, destroying for a time this organization (though not destroying faith in Jesus Christ, which did persist). This church organization provided a structure whereby two key components were maintained: the Priesthood, and continuing and direct revelation from the ascended Jesus Christ to His chosen Apostles.

According to LDS beliefs, the Priesthood is the authority given by Jesus Christ to His [[Apostles]] and others, both to direct the Church, as well as to perform the associated and necessary ordinances, such as baptism by water immersion, and giving the gift of the Holy Ghost by the laying on of hands. Without this authority, it would be impossible to perform them in an authorized manner (see Acts 8:18-23). This authority, in actuality a covenant of service, only placed on men and not at all a legitimate source of self-aggrandizement, could only be passed from one authorized holder to another worthy man through the laying on of hands. Thus, while although initially the full quorum of 12 Apostles was maintained (see Acts 1:15-26), the Apostles were killed one by one and the Lord, in His mercy, ceased to give these murderers further opportunity of condemning themselves as more Apostles were not chosen. Thus, without the Priesthood and without the continuing revelation that the Lord provided to His Apostles to lead and guide the church, it fell way, as had been prophesied.

Therefore, LDS doctrine teaches of the necessity of a complete restoration rather than simply a reformation, and for this reason, Joseph Smith was called by God to be the first prophet, in the same sense as [[Moses]], [[Isaiah]], or [[Peter]], since the times of the New Testament. Mormons believe that since Joseph Smith, the leaders of the Church, from Brigham Young to [[Gordon B. Hinckley]] today, were and are prophets, with the complete Priesthood authority (restored through the laying on of hands by first John the Baptist and then by Apostles Peter, James and John). Mormons revere these men just as the Biblical prophets are revered and in particular, honor Joseph Smith for being the man through whom God and Jesus Christ chose to restore Their church to the earth.
===Scriptures===

The four standard works of the Church are:
*The King James Version of the [[Bible]] - both the Old and New Testaments
*[[The Book of Mormon|The Book of Mormon: Another Testament of Jesus Christ]] - Translation of the spiritual record of two ancient civilizations in the western hemisphere, one from the time of the [[Tower of Babel]] to about 600 B.C., and the other from 600 B.C. to 421 A.D.
*[[Doctrine and Covenants]] - Modern-day revelation as received by the Prophet Joseph Smith and other modern-day prophets
*[[Pearl of Great Price]] - Selection of translations, revelations and narrations from the Prophet Joseph Smith

====Book of Mormon====

President [[Gordon B. Hinckley]] said the following about the [[Book of Mormon]] in an October, 2002 [[General Conference]] address entitled "The Marvelous Foundation of Our Faith": <blockquote>"This remarkable book stands as a testimonial to the living reality of the Son of God. The Bible declares that 'in the mouth of two or three witnesses every word may be established' (Matt. 18:16). The Bible, the testament of the Old World, is one witness. The Book of Mormon, the testament of the New World, is another witness.</blockquote><blockquote>I cannot understand why the Christian world does not accept this book. I would think they would be looking for anything and everything that would establish without question the reality and the divinity of the Savior of the world."<ref>[http://www.lds.org/ldsnewsroom/v/index.jsp?vgnextoid=e74c4d4297602110VgnVCM100000176f620aRCRD Mormons Reflect Christianity in Lifestyle] as stated in the April, 2007 newsroom article at lds.org</ref></blockquote>

===Restoration of the Priesthood===
Members of the [[Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints]] believe that on May 15, 1829 A.D., the resurrected [[John the Baptist]] appeared to [[Joseph Smith|Joseph Smith, Jr.]] and [[Oliver Cowdery]] and conferred upon them the [[Aaronic priesthood]], which includes the authority to baptize.<ref>[http://scriptures.lds.org/en/dc/13 Doctrine and Covenants 13]</ref> Later, the resurrected Peter, James, and John appeared to them and conferred the [[Melchizedek priesthood]].

==Wards==
[[Image:DCTemple.jpg|right|Washington DC Temple]]
Wards are geographically-defined congregations of the church. The Bishop is the spiritual leader of the ward and he serves with two counselors, all three chosen from among the body of the Ward. Bishops are usually called to serve for a period of five years and do so on a volunteer and unpaid basis, without formal ecclesiastical training, and while maintaining their secular professions.

The entire ward meets every week on Sunday to worship the Lord Jesus Christ and to receive counsel. The meetings are divided into three different hours:
*First hour - '''Sacrament meeting'''. Our main purpose in attending sacrament meeting is to renew our covenants through partaking of the sacrament and to worship our Heavenly Father through hymn singing and prayer. Sacrament meeting provides an opportunity for members to strengthen their faith, find inner peace and spiritual healing, receive inspiration, and be instructed in the gospel. A member of the bishopric begins the meeting welcoming all members and visitors. There is an opening hymn followed by an opening prayer (invocation). This is followed by conducting ward business where members are released and sustained from callings. Then the sacrament of bread and water is prepared, blessed by the priesthood, and passed to the congregation. The sacrament is a renewal of the covenants each member made at baptism to remember the Lord Jesus Christ and to keep his commandments. On the first Sunday of the month, the meeting conductor starts off the bearing of testimonies by offering his own personal testimony. A testimony is a personal witness that the gospel of Jesus Christ is true. As inspired by the Spirit, other members give their testimonies. On the other three Sundays, there are talks from members. The sacrament meeting concludes with a closing hymn and prayer.
*Second hour - '''Sunday School''', '''Primary''' and '''Nursery'''. Its purposes are to teach the gospel of Jesus Christ and strengthen individuals and families by encouraging them to study the scriptures, obey the commandments, receive the essential ordinances, and keep the associated covenants. All the adults and youth meet in Sunday School classes. Children younger than twelve and three or older attend Primary. Children who are at least 18 months old but who are not yet 3 years old on 1 January may attend nursery at the discretion of their parents.
:'''Adult Sunday School''' - The adults meet in several different classes. New members to the Church usually attend a Gospel Essentials class where they learn the basic teachings of the Church. Most of the other adults attend a Gospel Doctrine class where they are instructed in the Gospel of Jesus Christ from the scriptures. The main subjects rotate every four years: Old Testament, New Testament, Book of Mormon, and the last year is Doctrine and Covenants, Pearl of Great Price and Church history. The bible used by Church members is the King James Version.
:'''Youth Sunday School''' - The youth meet in several different classes according to their ages. There are usually separate classes for twelve and thirteen year olds, fourteen and fifteen year olds and sixteen and seventeen year olds. When they turn eighteen, the member starts attending the adult classes.
:'''Primary''' - The purpose of Primary is to teach children the gospel of Jesus Christ and help them learn to live it.
:'''Nursery''' - The purpose of the nursery class is to provide a loving, safe, organized place where young children can increase their understanding of and love for Heavenly Father and Jesus Christ, have positive experiences in a Church setting, and grow in feelings of self-worth.
*Third hour - '''Priesthood''', '''Relief Society''', '''Young Men''', '''Young Women''', '''Primary''' and '''Nursery'''. The men meet in Priesthood, the adult women meet in Relief Society,the male youth meet in Young Men, the female youth meet in Young Women and the children continue to meet in Primary or Nursery.
:'''Priesthood''' - The purpose of the priesthood meetings are to increase priesthood holders’ knowledge of the gospel; strengthen their dedication to becoming better husbands, fathers, sons, and neighbors; and help them become active participants in fulfilling the mission of the Church.
:'''Relief Society ''' - The purpose of Relief Society is to provide relief for the poor and needy and to bring people to Christ.
:'''Young Men''' - The purpose of the Young men group is to prepare the young men of the Aaronic Priesthood to receive the Melchizedek Priesthood, to receive the ordinances of the temple, and to serve a full-time mission.
:'''Young Women''' - The purpose of the Young Women organization is to help each young woman, ages 12 to 18, "come unto Christ".

==General Conference==
The church holds a semi-annual General Conference (in April and October, five two-hour sessions over two days) during which members listen to spoken messages from the Prophet and President of the church, his two counselors, members of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles and other Church leaders. These messages are received by members of the church as modern-day revelation, just as the words of Peter were received by the followers of Jesus Christ in his day. Many members travel to Salt Lake City for the two-day conference, but the proceedings are broadcast via satellite throughout the world (as well as streamed on the internet) so that the entire church can participate.

The semi-annual conference was held in the Salt Lake Tabernacle for 132 years, but in 2000, the church completed construction of the Conference Center and has held the conference there since April 2000. The Conference Center's primary feature is an auditorium that seats 21,000.

==Controversy==

===Relationship to Christianity===

====Position of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints====
Members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints consider themselves Christians. They worship Jesus Christ as their Creator (see John 1:3), their Savior and Redeemer, and ultimately their eternal Judge. They believe that the events described in the New Testament in reality occurred, including Jesus Christ's virgin birth, his sinless life and miraculous ministry, and his suffering, death, and literal resurrection, through which forgiveness of sin, salvation (understood in LDS doctrine to indicate resurrection and immortality, a free gift to all; see 1 Corinthians 15:22), and ultimately exaltation (returning to and eternally dwelling in the presence of God and Jesus Christ and becoming "joint-heirs with Christ"; see Romans 8:17), are made possible.

The eleventh of the above-mentioned thirteen articles of faith contains the following statement:
<blockquote>“We claim the privilege of worshiping Almighty God according to the dictates of our own conscience, and allow all men the same privilege, let them worship how, where, or what they may." (see Articles of Faith 1:11)</blockquote>

Mormonism teaches that all other Christian religions are apostate.<ref>http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/dn/opinion/columnists/rdreher/stories/DN-dreher_16edi.ART.State.Edition1.36c8162.html</ref>

====African Americans and the Priesthood====
The Book of Mormon claims that black skin is a divine curse arising from the sins of one's ancestors. As such, African Americans were banned from the Priesthood until 1978.

====Positions of Various Christian Groups ====

There are significant differences between Mormonism and other Christian denominations, and nearly all other Christian denominations consider Mormonism to be non-Christian. These differences have led to the desire on the part of some to actively speak against the LDS Church and its members. Doctrines of the church have been distorted or even fabricated to highlight these differences, and many misconceptions exist. Several Christian churches have released statements in opposition to the church and its doctrines.

The [[United Methodist Church]] has stated that the Mormon faith has "some radically differing doctrine on such matters of belief as the nature and being of [[God]]; the nature, origin, and purpose of [[Jesus Christ]]; and the nature and way of [[salvation]]."<ref>http://www.apologeticsindex.org/news/an200513.html#21</ref> The [[Lutheran Missouri Synod|Lutheran Church—Missouri Synod]] goes further, stating that it, "together with the vast majority of Christian denominations in the United States, does not regard the Mormon church as a Christian church."<ref>http://www.lcms.org/pages/internal.asp?NavID=2239</ref> However, the Roman Catholic Church doesn't have high regard for the theology of the Lutheran Church or most other protestant denominations either.

While the [[Southern Baptist Convention]] states that the Mormon religion is "not consistent with biblical Christianity."<ref>http://www.onenewsnow.com/2007/02/southern_baptist_convention_wa.php</ref> Beliefnet.com details a number of differences between the Mormon faith and traditional Christianity.<ref>http://www.beliefnet.com/features/mormonism.html</ref>

Mormons differ from other Christian denominations on a number of key issues:
* They believe that God and Jesus Christ are separate and distinct yet glorified beings.
* They do not believe in the concept of "original sin" but instead that all people will be held accountable only for their ''own'' sins and transgressions.
* They believe that works (e.g. faith in Christ, repentance, baptism by water, receipt of the gift of the Holy Ghost by the laying on of hands, and living a Christlike life) are required to ''qualify'' oneself for salvation but that salvation is only ultimately attained through the grace of God and the suffering, death, and resurrection of Jesus Christ (as opposed to the belief in salvation through works, i.e. somehow acquiring ones own salvation independent of God or Jesus Christ, a belief ''not'' held by the LDS church).
* They believe that God was once a mortal man and that all individuals who have ever lived or who will yet live, including [[Jesus]] and [[Lucifer]], are the spirit children of God the Father.
* They believe that all people have the ultimate potential, through the grace of God, of not only returning to His presence (salvation) but becoming like Him (exaltation; see Romans 8:16-17).
* They believe that Joseph Smith was visited by God and Jesus Christ when he was 15 years old and was chosen to be the prophet through whom Christ's church was restored to the earth.
* They believe that after His resurrection, Jesus Christ visited and ministered to believers who lived in the western hemisphere, and that the spiritual records of these people were collected and abridged by a prophet-historian named Mormon into a single work subsequently completed by his son Moroni and ultimately buried in a hill in upstate New York circa 421 A.D.
* They believe that the angel Moroni, in his resurrected state, appeared to Joseph Smith when he was 17 years old and told him of this record which Joseph eventually retrieved, translated through the power of God, and published as ''The Book of Mormon'', later retitled, ''The Book of Mormon: Another Testament of Jesus Christ''.
* They believe that God has continued to call prophets and apostles in the present day just as he did in Biblical times, starting with Joseph Smith, and that these men lead the restored church by revelation from Jesus Christ rather than through the sole reliance on human understanding.
* They believe that the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is "the only true and living church upon the face of the whole earth" (see Doctrine and Covenants 1:30).

===Views on Same-Gender Attraction===
In October 2007, Elder Jeffrey R. Holland, of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles, wrote an article in the Ensign magazine entitled "Helping Those Who Struggle with Same-Gender Attraction". <ref>[http://www.lds.org/portal/site/LDSOrg/menuitem.b12f9d18fae655bb69095bd3e44916a0/?vgnextoid=2354fccf2b7db010VgnVCM1000004d82620aRCRD&locale=0&sourceId=e5cbba12dc825110VgnVCM100000176f620a____ Helping Those Who Struggle with Same-Gender Attraction]</ref> In 2007, the Church published a pamphlet "God Loveth His Children", for those suffering from same-gender attraction. <ref>http://www.lds.org/topics/pdf/GodLovethHisChildren_04824_000.pdf God Loveth His Children</ref>

On June 7, 2006, ABC’s Nightline ran a story on members and former members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints who struggle with same-gender attraction. The Church published a response to the inaccuracies in the Nightline story. <ref>[http://www.lds.org/ldsnewsroom/v/index.jsp?vgnextoid=d4ec39628b88f010VgnVCM100000176f620aRCRD&vgnextchannel=f5f411154963d010VgnVCM1000004e94610aRCRD Church Responds to Nightline Story on Mormons and Homosexuality]</ref>

The Church has a section on same-gender attraction on the Newsroom website. <ref>[http://www.lds.org/ldsnewsroom/v/index.jsp?vgnextoid=27f71f1dd189f010VgnVCM100000176f620aRCRD&vgnextchannel=726511154963d010VgnVCM1000004e94610aRCRD&vgnextfmt=tab1 Same-Gender Attraction]</ref>

===Polygamy===
Early ill will towards Mormons was sparked in part by its early practice of [[polygamy]], which was sanctioned from 1840 until 1890. Even though it was officially discontinued in 1890, Mormonism and polygamy continue to be associated in the minds of the uninformed.

A 1998 statement by current LDS President Gordon B. Hinckley states:
:This Church has nothing whatever to do with those practicing polygamy. They are not members of this Church. . . . If any of our members are found to be practicing plural marriage, they are excommunicated, the most serious penalty the Church can impose. Not only are those so involved in direct violation of the civil law, they are in violation of the law of this Church.<ref>[http://www.mormon.org/question/faq/category/answer/0,9777,1601-1-114-1,00.html What is the Church’s position on polygamy?] LDS website</ref>

However, in addition to "the" Church (the 12.5-million-member Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints), there continue to be small splinter groups, which also consider themselves to be Mormons and do practice polygamy. The most notable is the "Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints" (often called "Fundamentalist Mormons.") This group numbers about ten thousand. It broke from the Mormon church in 1890 over the issue of polygamy. It made headlines in 2006 and 2007, when leader Warren Jeffs was arrested by the FBI and indicted by a grand jury on charges of arranging illegal "marriages" between male followers and underage girls.

==References==
{{reflist|2}}

==External Links==

*[http://www.lds.org Official Church Website]
*[http://www.mormon.org Official Church Website for Investigators]
*[http://scriptures.lds.org Official Online Version of the LDS Scriptures]
*[http://www.familysearch.org/ Official Church Genealogy Website, "the largest collection of free family history, family tree and genealogy records in the world."]
*[http://www.ldschurchtemples.com "News, schedules, photographs, and interesting facts of the temples of the LDS Church"]
*[http://www.fairlds.org Mormon Apologetics]
*[http://www.maxwellinstitute.com BYU Theologians]
*[http://www.lightplanet.com/mormons/ About Mormons]
*[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Church_of_Jesus_Christ_of_Latter-day_Saints Wikipedia article] on the LDS Church
*[http://www.intellectualconservative.com/article3282.html Are Mormons Conservative?]
*[http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,317272,00.html 21 Questions Answered About Mormon Faith]
*[http://www.moroni10.com/protestants.html Why Protestants Agree With Mormons (They Just Don’t Realize It)], Kelly Bingham, December 7, 2007

====Links to Groups Not in Favor of the Mormon Church====

*[http://jesusnotjoseph.com JesusNotJoseph]
*[http://www.mrm.org Mormonism Research Ministry]
*[http://www.evangelicalbible.com/jw.htm#LDS The Mormon Church & the Nature of God]

[[Category:Christian Denominations]]
[[Category:LDS Church]]

Template talk:Examples of Liberal Bias

2008-02-25T04:18:38Z

Aboganza: "...a description of The Flood or even teaching children about a massive flood, despite its acceptance by a majority of Americans"

Isn't this a bit adolescent? It basically says "I hate liberals." [[User:Dkips|Dkips]] 12:09, 27 July 2007 (EDT)

:And when I say "I hate white people", does that make me adolescent. [[User:Chmorguphaste|Chmorguphaste]] 12:12, 27 July 2007 (EDT)
In addition to being a bigot, yes. Why do you ask? [[User:Dkips|Dkips]] 12:13, 27 July 2007 (EDT)

:DKips, nowhere does Mr. Schlafly say that he hates liberals. Their stances and their tactics perhaps, but there's always hope that the people themselves might be saved. [[User:SSchultz|SSchultz]] 23:25, 27 July 2007 (EDT)

Hey, we all love liberals here...but you wouldn't want your sister to marry one. [[User:Maestro|Maestro]] 23:27, 27 July 2007 (EDT)

: Maestro, thanks for reminding me of another favorite liberal tactic: draw an analogy to racism, particularly when no logical argument will help. I'll add that now. Lighten up a bit, too: there's nothing wrong with observing style. Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:33, 27 July 2007 (EDT)

This reminds me of [[Godwin's law]]. [[User:DanH|DanH]] 23:36, 27 July 2007 (EDT)

''pretending to know more than he does''
:Do you know this for a fact?

''resistance to quantifying things''
:Have you data to prove this, in a quantifiable manner?

''Claim that science supports their position''
:This is an excellent opportunity for you to use science to quantitatively demonstrate that you are not, in fact, pretending to know more than you do. I have a little training in the social sciences; I will be happy to review your essay for you, once you develop it beyond this outline.--[[User:All Fish Welcome|All Fish Welcome]] 23:57, 27 July 2007 (EDT)
:: One only need look at how liberals promote Evolution, Global Warming, and other bogus theories to realize that they try to deceive people with fake science. [[User:SSchultz|SSchultz]] 01:16, 28 July 2007 (EDT)
::: SSchultz, a good many liberals have faith, so your idea that "they" might be "saved" is a bit presumptive to say the least. Further, I don't pretend to know the "truth" about things like global warming or evolution only that the issues are complex and the evidence conflicted- dismissing them as bogus out of hand seems silly and intellectually lazy. As for the rest of the essay, because of the monthilic view it takes of liberalism and the broad strokes of purple crayon used to connect the dots, as it were, it reads like the rants of a disgruntled teenager. As it stands it is decidely anti-intellectual. 10:33, 28 July 2007 (EDT)

:: Well, you're wrong about the "rants of a disgruntled teenager," and wrong about the remainder of your comments also. You also misspelled several basic words, raising further doubts about your own intellectual commitment as you complain about someone else being "anti-intellectual". You may not pretend to know the truth about global warming or evolution, but many other [[liberals]] do pretend to know AND they insist on teaching their peculiar views in [[public school]] against the wishes of parents and most taxpayers.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 11:06, 28 July 2007 (EDT)
::: Snarky and deflective observations about spelling errors aside, simply pronouncing my views as wrong is unconvincing at best; I could [and do] as easily say the same about your views. Your essay is really nothing more than a rant. I judge your claims as wholly unsupported and your replies unfocused and unresponsive. I'd advise you to rework the whole thing if you wish to persuade anyone other than yourself. As it stands, you've earned an "F." This will never do. [[User:Dkips|Dkips]] 13:10, 28 July 2007 (EDT)
::::We're not here to please you as a liberal. This is a conservative site and this essay is great. Your liberal POV will just give us additional material to use on this site and in this article. --[[User:Crocoite|Crocoite]] 16:42, 28 July 2007 (EDT)

==Sources==
I'd love to see some sources for these, um, properties, but I doubt that will ever happen without a lot of revert wars and page blocks. However, I think the newest source ([http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Conservapedia_talk:Deletion_Policy&rcid=279869 here]) seems to be in error. CP's (blank) deletion policy? Not sure what that has to do with hate speech. [[User:Jazzman831|Jazzman831]] 13:32, 5 August 2007 (EDT)

: Don't follow you, Jazzman. Are you speaking in code? Pick out one of the style items that you dispute and identify it here, and I'll track down a cite for you or delete it. In Christ,--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 13:44, 5 August 2007 (EDT)

::What's the burden of proof on an essay page? Is it subject to the Commandments? If it is not, then I don't think any of the statements should be removed (though I doubt many of them are accurate, on the whole). I guess I forgot that this was an essay page when I complained about the lack of sources. Statement retracted :) [[User:Jazzman831|Jazzman831]] 14:12, 5 August 2007 (EDT)

:Jazzman, Look at http://www.conservapedia.com/Special:Undelete/Conservapedia_talk:Deletion_Policy. The page history has "New page: American Taliban You site is nothing but a Democratic hate site". Accusing Conservapedia or other conservative authors of being a hateful is another liberal style. --[[User:Crocoite|Crocoite]] 13:50, 5 August 2007 (EDT)

::Crocoite, when I click on that link all I see is a page that says "The action you have requested is limited to users in the group "Sysops"." When I click on the link within the article, I get a page that says "There is currently no text in this page, you can search for this page title in other pages or edit this page" and there is no page history. Am I doing something wrong?

:::No, I don't think you're doing anything wrong. I'm a sysop and I forgot you wouldn't be able to look at that link. I did extract part of that page for you to see where the user put "You site is nothing but a Democratic hate site". See how this user accuses Conservapedia of hate speech? --[[User:Crocoite|Crocoite]] 14:33, 5 August 2007 (EDT)

::Even if the link did work, though, how would that show liberal style? Does the author of that statement claim to be a liberal? How do you know his claim is credible? [[User:Jazzman831|Jazzman831]] 14:12, 5 August 2007 (EDT)

::: The above user and several other liberals on this site and all over the internet accuse Conservatives of "hate speech" just for expressing our conservative freedom of speech. --[[User:Crocoite|Crocoite]] 14:33, 5 August 2007 (EDT)

::::Meh, I'm not sure I'd agree that it's a great example of liberals accusing conservatives of hate speech, but I'm not really bothered by it, since it's an essay. I understand the reference now, though, thanks. [[User:Jazzman831|Jazzman831]] 19:38, 5 August 2007 (EDT)

== Out of curiosity... ==

Are self-proclaimed Liberals allowed to look at this article and question the idea that this applies to every Liberal? Or should such people, like myself, just kinda sit back here and laugh at it? [[User:Kazumaru|Kazumaru]] 23:28, 13 August 2007 (EDT)

: You have free will and can laugh at anything that you can persuade yourself to be funny. No one is claiming that *all* liberals exhibit the same style, or even that *any* liberals exhibit all the style points listed. But people who share common beliefs, as [[liberals]] do, tend to exhibit some similar traits in terms of style. Not a big deal, and not something to take offense at. Denying any commonality in style would be more laughable, I think.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 00:05, 14 August 2007 (EDT)

::So it's more of a joke than a serious essay? [[User:Kazumaru|Kazumaru]] 00:10, 14 August 2007 (EDT)

::: How does your conclusion follow from what I said? Maybe you're being facetious at this point. I was clear that [[liberals]], like any group that shares common beliefs, share some similar characteristics of style also. It shouldn't offend anyone to list some of those characteristics.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 00:32, 14 August 2007 (EDT)

::::It's a joke but he doesn't know it. [[User:Wismike|Wismike]] 14:54, 15 August 2007 (EDT)Wismike

== Liberal style? ==

Mr. Schlafly, I have a few issues with some of your "liberal characteristics", specifically that it seems like you yourself exhibit many of them in your discussions/debates. Here are a few of the examples that I have found:

2. Pretending to know more than he does.

example: In your discussion of the Kevorkian speaker article on the main talk page you say "Those many liberals probably received fees ten (10) times greater what the few conservatives received in fees." You have absolutely know justification for this statement.

5. Insistence on having the last word in a discussion or debate.

example: I, as well as many others, have noticed that you frequently end discussion of debate topics by accusing whoever you are debating with of being a liberal and refusing to continue the discussion at all.

7. Over-reliance on accusations of hypocrisy.

example: See the article on "Liberal hypocrisy".

9. Insistence on censoring certain speech.

example: Just look at the large number of people who have been blocked (which might end up including me unfortunately) for holding opposing viewpoints.

15. Claim that science supports their position, and ignore any evidence that shows their science to be flawed.

example: See conservapedia articles and debates on evolution, young earth creationism, etc. Nearly all arguments for young earth creationist ideas contain the phrase "young earth creationists assert" without providing any sort of evidence or support.

So I was wondering what your response to all of this is. Do I have a point or am I missing something? And for the record (and in anticipation of your response) no I am not a liberal, so please do not stoop to calling me one like it is an insult or as if it somehow makes your point for you. I simply feel that if you are going to criticize liberals for these characteristics you should first make sure that you yourself do not engage in any of the same practices. --[[User:BillOhannity|BillOhannity]] 14:19, 15 August 2007 (EDT)

:Thanks for the comments. I just added a new point in the article to describe liberals such as yourself who deny they are liberal hoping that it will bolster their weak arguments somehow.--[[User:Conservateur|Conservateur]] 14:48, 15 August 2007 (EDT)

Where in the response given by OHannity can it be concluded that he is a liberal? --[[User:TheGoodSociety|Joe]] 15:19, 15 August 2007 (EDT)

: BillOhannity has provided reason to make this addition to the list:

:: liberals often argue in non sequiturs

: Not one of his arguments disproves or even tends to disprove the points he references.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 15:54, 15 August 2007 (EDT)

::I believe his point was that conservatives also show these traits, not that liberals ''don't'' show these traits. If a liberal and a conservative have the same style, then it's not "liberal style," it's just "arguing style". (Just in case it gets pulled in later, as it often seems to, I am hereby officially denying I am a liberal). [[User:Jazzman831|Jazzman831]] 21:05, 16 August 2007 (EDT)

::Yes that was exactly my point, I'm glad someone actually read what I wrote. I wasn't trying to disprove anything, so I guess it only makes sense that "not one of his arguments disproves or tends to disprove the points he references." --[[User:BillOhannity|BillOhannity]] 14:16, 17 August 2007 (EDT)

:::Bill, I found something else you can add to your list: #1 (calling free speech hate speech) is also practised by conservatives, as evidenced [[Liberal Hate Speech|here]]. This list is looking more and more like it should be renamed. [[User:Jazzman831|Jazzman831]] 19:21, 18 August 2007 (EDT)

I don't understand your comment, Jazzman. Is someone on equating the ''institution'' of [[free speech]] with the ''practice'' of [[hate speech]], i.e., saying that all free speech is hate speech?

Or are you objecting to ''any'' denunciation of a remark as "hate speech", when that remark is protected by the principle of [[free speech]]? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 19:51, 18 August 2007 (EDT)

:Huh? This article claims that the liberal style (or liberal bias... I don't know everything keeps moving around!) includes "calling conservative free speech "hate" speech". We have an article calling liberal free speech "hate" speech, do we not? If this is not the case then this article (template, whatever) or the [[liberal hate speech]] article needs to be clarified, because I don't see a difference between the two claims. [[User:Jazzman831|Jazzman831]] 18:47, 19 August 2007 (EDT)

==Its just funny==

I mean, people have so far pointed out the damning hypocrisy in this 'article', but so far its all being deemed as Liberal nonsense. Well, I am a Liberal and I find this article ridiculously hypocritical, and have noticed similar debating tactics among conservatives on this site. IN fact, this should be regarded as 'idiot's style', as idiots on both sides of the spectrum employ tactics like these mentioned. [[User:Graham|Graham]] 08:26, 23 September 2007 (EDT)

== Crocoite - Civility? ==

I note that we're [[Conservapedia:Guidelines|not allowed]] to "bully, ridicule (make fun of) or attack (denigrate) Conservapedia or other users, and their opinions" on our user/talk pages, but it is okay to do so in encyclopedic articles? --[[User:Jenkins|Jenkins]] 09:44, 23 September 2007 (EDT)

Heh, don't worry about it. I'm just one big example of [[Liberal]] [[Deceit]].

Some of these guys genuinely don't know how much they seem to pardoy themselves. [[User:Graham|Graham]] 09:55, 23 September 2007 (EDT)

In fact, any of the last few discussions I've had with him he has ended prematurely. What he had said basically amounted to 'Your a Liberal and Liberals don't have an ability to logically deduct' or something along them lines. Anyway, its all innane. Crocite basically took all I said out of context, though I am flattered to be included in this. What he doesn't realise is that he himself uses many of the debate tactics listed in this. [[User:Graham|Graham]] 10:01, 23 September 2007 (EDT)

:Wow, I totally have to go over some of your recent discussions with him later on. Looking over the list, I can see your point - many items on this list are being used by some of the "top contributors" here, it seems. --[[User:Jenkins|Jenkins]] 10:07, 23 September 2007 (EDT)

You know that there is a very strong possibility we could be banned for having this discussion? Blocking here is arbitrary, at the whim of a certain admin you may or may not have irritated. Perhaps we should stop mentioning it and look to less controversial articles. Although discussion is the best antidote to the insanity of articles like this, Liberal Hypocrisy, Mc Carthyism, Liberal Intellectualism etc. perhaps it would be best to concentrate on less controversial articles and on the articles which don't make conservapedia seem like a parody of itself. [[User:Graham|Graham]] 10:10, 23 September 2007 (EDT)

:I agree, although I have trouble finding articles that I can contribute significantly to and which are uncontroversial enough. But I have asked a fair share of uncomfortable questions in the past few days, so I figure I better get a few edits under my belt to save my reputation... see you around then, I guess/hope? --[[User:Jenkins|Jenkins]] 10:21, 23 September 2007 (EDT)

Sure thing buddy [[User:Graham|Graham]] 10:42, 23 September 2007 (EDT)

== Athiests? ==

Are all atheists Liberals? [[User:Tubesock|Tubesock]] 13:55, 11 November 2007 (EST)

: No, of course not. Not all smokers get lung cancer, and not everyone in jail committed a crime. But the vast majority of atheists are [[liberals]], particularly on social issues.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 14:13, 11 November 2007 (EST)

Citation needed

== Protected ==

I just wanted to add that Liberals deny that God created the Earth and everything in it in six days.
[[User:WKirkwood|WKirkwood]] 17:30, 6 January 2008 (EST)

== Confused ==
Ignoring, for a second, the content of the article itself... Why is this a plate? [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 13:04, 23 January 2008 (EST)

== Content ==
"# calling conservative humor "unprofessional and meaningless, and degrades the quality of your encyclopedia." [3]" Hooray for grammar!

"# overreliance on hearsay, such as the false claim that most support evolution" vs "insistence on censoring certain speech, such as a description of The Flood or even teaching children about a massive flood, despite its acceptance by a majority of Americans"

"selectively citing the Bible when convenient, even though they hold much of it in disdain." Because we can never quote the Bible. Ever. 'cause that's wrong. We're infidels.

And finally, #42: Identity is the colour of one's skin. I love you guys. [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 13:10, 23 January 2008 (EST)

== Sooo.... ==

Is it safe to assume that these are supposed to be things that '''only''' Liberals do, or can Conservatives occasionalyl do them, as well? --[[User:RJest|RJest]] 17:51, 16 February 2008 (EST)

== Neville Chamberlain Was A Conservative ==

Can someone please fix? Thx. [[User:Aboganza|Aboganza]] 23:05, 24 February 2008 (EST)
:Prove he was a conservative first. Thx. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 23:06, 24 February 2008 (EST)

== "...a description of The Flood or even teaching children about a massive flood, despite its acceptance by a majority of Americans" ==

as my mother - a very wise woman -once said, "just because a lot of people think something, doesn't make it right. Would you jump off a bridge if everyone else thought it was a good idea?" What is the relationship, in this case between the alleged "massive flood" and what a majority of Americans (the same majority that believe in UFOs and a living Elvis, perhaps?) think? [[User:Aboganza|Aboganza]] 23:18, 24 February 2008 (EST)

Template talk:Examples of Liberal Bias

2008-02-25T04:05:00Z

Aboganza: Neville Chamberlain Was A Conservative