Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.


Messages - Stray Pooch

Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 ... 58
16
3DHS / Re: Bin Laden Dead!
« on: May 02, 2011, 12:27:18 AM »
My son Straypup just posted on FB to bury him at ground zero, facing away from Mecca, and install a urinal.  All I have to say about that is, that's gonna be one lo-o-o-ong line!

17
3DHS / Osama's death actually occurred years ago . . .
« on: May 01, 2011, 11:52:40 PM »
but Obama has been holding it for a time his ratings were low . . . :D

18
3DHS / Re: Bin Laden Dead!
« on: May 01, 2011, 11:50:45 PM »
I thought I smelled something burning . . .

19
3DHS / Re: In the probbly-so-late-you're-absent-category . . .
« on: January 21, 2011, 08:36:17 PM »
Can anybody tell me why I can only go so far down in a post before the screen starts scrolling back everytime I type a letter?  It makes it very difficult to post wen I cannot see what I am typing.  I'll bet this was a new feature designed to make me post smaller items - lol!

I have never experienced that phenomena. What browser are you using?


IE8.  It's strange but it seems consistent.  I can scroll down but the screen immediately pops right back up to a certain point.  It is annoying as all git-out.  Now, just to make a liar out of me, this post seems to be working fine.  Maybe I just needed a reboot.


Nope.  It starts at this line right here.  I can see the line each time I hit a key, but the page immediately scrolls back up to the line above.










 

20
3DHS / In the probbly-so-late-you're-absent-category . . .
« on: January 20, 2011, 08:36:09 PM »
Can anybody tell me why I can only go so far down in a post before the screen starts scrolling back everytime I type a letter?  It makes it very difficult to post wen I cannot see what I am typing.  I'll bet this was a new feature designed to make me post smaller items - lol!

21
3DHS / Re: A Tragic Prediction
« on: January 20, 2011, 08:33:54 PM »
But see Pooch, you've missed the point that makes the analogies dead on.  No one is arguing that folks can't build a religious center, as it is a normal "maintanance function" of a religious organization nor don't have a 1st amendment right to build it as a part of practicing their religion.  No one is arguing folks don't have a 1st amendment right to protest

The point is the locations.  You kinda referenced them, then pushed them asided to explain why the analogies are flawed.  I agree, if you remove the location component, there is no analogy.  But since my whole point of contention with "the Mosque" has been its location, the analogies are dead on, since it's the location of the protest that's equally egregious.  "Proximity" though is a good qualifier, to this debate, and I apprecate your injecting it

But I stand by the accuracy of the analogy, and perplexed as to why the Imam gets a pass while Phelps is appropriately condemned.  And equally perplexed at how critics of the Imam are casted as religious bigoted intolerants, but no such term is being appled to critics of Phelps?

No I didn't miss the point.  I called the point inaccurate - and it is.  Pehelps is not protesting a location - he is protesting an activity.  Since you make a false analogy, your question about why people are upset is without logical basis.  People are upset with Phelps because he is protesting an ACTIVITY - not a location.  %The arguments against a mosque at the ICC site are based only on religious bigotry and nothing else.  the fact that people cannot see this in their arguments does not negate the cccuracy.

22
3DHS / Re: I'm surprised it took this long
« on: January 13, 2011, 08:36:03 PM »
Gun Control.  Word Control. Thought Control.  Wealth Control.  Vote Control.  Government Control. Complete Control.

Uh oh, looks like I'm out of control.

I must be an enemy of the people.


23
3DHS / Re: A Tragic Prediction
« on: January 13, 2011, 08:23:33 PM »
Sirs:  The analogy that you use here is flawed.  I see your point, but I disagree with it. 

Your basic premise is that if Muslims can build a Mosque (ICC or whatever) near Ground Zero then WBC should be able to hold protests near a child's funeral.  You suggest that the expression of religious freedom by building an edifice is equal to the expression of religious freedom by protesting.  You further assert that proximity to Ground Zero is analagous to proximity to the funeral.

I disagree with both analogies.  Building a Mosque, Church, Temple, Cultural Center or what have you is a normal function of any religious organization.  It is a maintenance activity, if you will.  If someone is building a church in your neighborhood, you would not take any special note of it.  You MIGHT be more interested if it were a Mosque, or a Mormon Temple, or a Church of Scientology or some other controversial sect simply because of the controversy itself.  But there is nothing inherently offensive about raising a religious edifice.  Protesting in a very disgusting way is, however, not a normal "maintenance" activity.  It is an active attempt to disrupt proceedings, draw attention to your cause, and actively confront others.  It is INTENTIONALLY in-your-face, while church building is only incidentally so (if at all).  So I do not agree that building a Mosque is analogous to protest activities.

For the second point, proximity to an area which has a special meaning is not analogous to proximity to a specific activity.  The former, even if intentional, is simply choosing a location.  The latter is choosing an ACTIVITY.  The protest would have no significance if it were held in the same place a day later.  it is targetting a PERSON (in this case the child) instead of an organization - such as a government or a religion - or perhaps a policy.  As such, it is far more offensive than than simply building an edifice.

FTR I support, however reluctantly, the WBC's right to protest at funerals on first amendement grounds.  I do not, however, equate the actions of the WBC iwith those of the members of a faith simply trying to build a place of worship and cultural information.  The latter activity I find to be appropriate, resposnsible and positive, even though some find the location distasteful.  The former has no merit whatsoever, and may be defended only on the grounds that even idiots have the right to speak.

24
3DHS / Re: Be weary of Sugar Free substitutes
« on: October 24, 2010, 10:50:15 AM »
I have no statistics about what percentage of Mormons living in Clay and Jackson Counties were polygamous, but it was widely believed that it was a common thing.

I had no idea that the Disciples of Christ (IE the Christian Church) was anything other than a mainstream Protestant Church, like the Methodists, Presbyterians, and Episcopals. They do not use the Book of Mormon.

No, no.  I did not mean to imply that the Church of Christ (DoC) was affiliated with the LDS movement.  It is not.  That DoC Key Club advisor answered my questions about Mormonism (raised because I met my wife in Key Club and I respected his opinion) as objectively as possible, but he made it clear that he did not think much of the doctrines.  He was a very good, intelligent man and a good Christian. 

The designation "Church of Christ" is pretty generic.  Part of the reason the name of our church was changed was probably to avoid confusion (and potential legal issues) with other non-related organizations who used that name.  The Disciples of Christ use that name, but it is not due to any historical affiliation with the LDS movement.   The reason for our rather lengthy designation is to clarify who we are.  We believe we are the church of Jesus Christ.  We believe we are the very same church that Christ started during his mortal ministry.  We believe that, over time, that church became corrupted and a restoration (as opposed to a reformation) was required.  That happened through the Prophet Joseph Smith.  The "Latter Day Saints" part came as a clarification.  It differentiates the church in this dispensation (time period) from the church in Christ's mortal dispensation.  "Saints" in this context only means followers of Christ, as the term is often used in New Testament epistles.  "Latter Days" means now - what we believe to be close to the end of times - as opposed to (perhaps) "Ancient Days."   As an example then, if you ask if Peter was a Mormon, the answer is "yes" and "no.'  He WAS a member of the Church of Jesus Christ, so yes, but not the restored church, which has gained the designation "Mormon" from the world (it is not part of our church name) so "no."   That is analogous to the question "Was Moses a Christian?"   The answer to that, for similar reasons, is "yes" and "no" in that, he was a member of the Church of Jesus Christ (who is the God of the Old Testament) but he did not live in the times when the church gained the designation "Christian" after the actual atonement took place.  It's all semantics.

As to the perceptions of polygamy, how many people think Muslims are terrorists today?  Though the polygamy issue was not fully openly embraced by the church until Salt Lake, it is quite likely rumor had gotten about.  There were many early defections even among top leaders of the church in the Ohio/Missouri period.  Many of those who left the church turned against it, and reporting such a practice as polygamy would likely have been part of the efforts to warn potential converts.  So I wouldn't be surprised if people knew about it in Missouri.  The fact that it was practiced by only a small percentage of the church (especially at that time) would have been irrelevent.  The perception would have been much like the perception of Islam today - if the church leaders are teaching it the followers will comply.  Of course, what is not commonly known is that one could not just go out and pick a few girls and tie the knot.  You had to be "called" by church leaders to marry another woman.  (This process is how we select people for any church duty.  I was, for example, "called" to be a Gospel Doctrine teacher.  That is my current "calling.")  So the idea that Mormons were going to steal the daughters was not really accurate.  (In fairness, if a young lady was converted, the chance of her becoming a "sister-wife" in some family was certainly there. So the idea was not totally irrational.)  But rational, accurate analysis is not the hallmark of mob reactions.  It is so in this day of mass communication, and it was much more likely in a time without such media resources. 

Where the Islamic analogy breaks down, of course, is that our church leaders were, in fact, actually endorsing the practice, though not yet openly.  Only a fringe element of religious teachers in Islam are actually endorsing a direct violent interpretation of Islam.    But there are still people who believe Mormons practice polygamy to this day.  In fact, there are still people who believe Mormons just hang around in cults in Utah and dress like it's the nineteenth century.  A Fedex guy that I see every day was shocked to find out that a very popular local newspaper reporter is a Mormon (and that I was LDS too).  He was really shocked when I told him that there are three congregations of Mormons in our town.  This is a place where old order Mennonites are a very large part of the community, and a Horse and Buggy is a common sight.  So I guess he expected me to be dressed like Brigham Young instead of wearing business casual and fixing broken printers.  Whaddayagonnado?

25
3DHS / Re: Be weary of Sugar Free substitutes
« on: October 23, 2010, 03:25:45 AM »
There used to be two churches in Independence. The Reorganized Church had the huge new Temple, and a much smaller faction owned the actual land that Smith said the Temple was to be built on, and lacking funds, had a house trailer there. So now there are THREE Independence churches, I suppose.

Actually, there were several early offshoots of the LDS movement.  The smaller church you refer to would be "The Church of Christ (Temple Lot)."  The actual name of the church that Joseph Smith founded in Fayetteville, NY on April 6, 1830 was "The Church of Christ."  It was changed a few years later to "The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints."  Why the Church of Christ (TL) decided to revert is anyone's guess.

I went back to Liberty for my 50th Class reunion and did notice that the main RLDS Church had the word Restoration on it. I was wondering about that. So now no one is reorganized? I imagine that lawsuits were involved in the separation.I think they took the name "reorganized" and denied polygamy as a part of their being allowed to stay in Missouri. 

The polygamy issue, which you list as one of the complaints against the church by Missourians, doesn't compute.  While it is true that Joseph practiced polygamy and expected a few of his higher ranking leaders to follow suit, this was not generally understood until the Saints became open about it in Salt Lake City.   I expect a large part of this was the potential for public reaction against it.  The Reorganized Church did not renounce polygamy.  They denied that Joseph ever taught or practiced it at all.   As strongly as the issue stands out, the fact is only a very small percentage of Mormons ever practiced it.  Most Mormon families were monogamous.

Community of Christ does not even SOUND Mormon. There is already a Church of Christ (Disciples of Christ) that everyone in Liberty calls the Christian Church.

Actually, given the original name of the church that title ironically DOES sound Mormon.  But the CofC actually took pains to distance itself from the LDS movement.  Originally, it simply claimed that Joseph had some "religious experiences" that lead him to found a church without discussing the visions, revelations and new scripture he brought forth.  It tries to pass itself off as a mainstream Christian belief church.  It is quite liberal and very unlike the traditional LDS movement.  Many of the general authorities of the church, for example, are women.  More importantly, though, are doctrines like belief in the trinity, which differs from the LDS belief that God, Jesus and the Holy Spirit are three separate personages.   (When Joseph had his first vision, he saw two personages - the Father and the Son.)  Other subtle but important doctrinal differences exist between the CofC and earlier RLDS beliefs.  The Restoration Church is far more "Mormon" in belief.  That was the reason for the split.  Basically the Restoration church believes that the CofC has apostasized.   Lately, the CofC seems to have re-embraced some early LDS ideals, allowing that Joseph had visions and re-emphasizing the Book of Mormon.  As an odd coincidence, my Key Club advisor in High School, who first explained Mormonism to me, was in fact a Disciple of Christ. 


I never thought there was any debate about Smith being a polygamist. That's like not admitting WC Fields was fond of strong drink.


Emma Smith, his wife, and Joseph Smith III, his son, were prominent members of the RLDS church after his death.  (That is one of the reasons a court awarded some of the LDS properties - like the Kirtland Temple - to the RLDS church.)  Apparently, they denied the ideas of Joseph having more than one wife (which might be understandable, given the situation).  At any rate, the RLDS church never accepted polygamy and considered it a perversion of the apostate "Brighamites."  The CofC website now states that historical evidence seems to support the idea that Joseph practiced polygamy but everybody makes mistakes, yada yada, and it was never sanctioned by God.
[/quote]


What does NPI mean?


No pun intended.

26
3DHS / Re: Be weary of Sugar Free substitutes
« on: October 20, 2010, 12:09:05 AM »
Out of curiosity, what foods do the Seventh Day Adventists prohibit?

Adventists are vegetarians. I believe they also refrain from tobacco and alcohol. You can Google for more.

Here is why Mormons were unwelcome in NW Missouri according to Missourians:

In 1812, there was a huge earthquake in SE Missouri, the area we Missourians call the Bootheel. The town of New Madrid was destroyed, the Mississippi was out of banks for months,and many farms were ruined. The Territorial government told those who had lost their farms that they could move to NW Missouri, where the Indians had recently evacuated. So a lot of settlers went to what are now Jackson and Clay Counties and settled. Because they were a contentious bunch, the followers of Andrew Jackson settled in Jackson County and named the county seat Independence. The settlers who were Whigs settled in Clay County and named it after Henry Clay, and their county seat Liberty. They were mostly illiterate, and staked off the land and settled in, any not feeling any need to register anything. Everyone knew everyone, and everyone was armed and dangerous, as hunting game was a major way of getting food for the table.

 A decade and change later, the Mormons came along. In 1831, Joseph Smith declared that NW Missouri was the new Promised Land, and of course, he did not mention that it was promised to the settled squatters who were already there: he meant that it had been promised to the Mormons, who were largely literate and went to the courthouse and registered their claims.

Many of their claims were to land inhabited by the squatter refugees from the New Madrid Flood. They did not accept that God wanted them to be driven off by a bunch of smartypants antislavery Mormons. When a Mormon popped in to ask some farmer for the hand of his daughter to be his second, third, fourth or fifth wife, that was was ill received. Mormons hunted and depleted the game. The lifestyle that the settlers were accustomed to was threatened.

What a settler did when a Mormon tried to drive him off his land was the very same thing that happened when some Indian staged a raid: he took out his gun and started plugging away. Eventually they decided to give the Mormons their own county, Caldwell County. But the Mormons kept getting new converts and spilled over the borders of their "reservation". Mormons were singularly unpopular and became so unwelcome that a man named Lilburn Boggs was elected in 1836 on the platform that the Mormons should be expelled from the state,and those who refused to leave could be shot on sight. It became legal to shoot Mormons, and the Mormons, not wishing to be shot, lit out for Illinois.

Joseph Smith preached that Jesus was going to return to a specific spot North of Clay County. He has yet to make an appearance. In 1983, I think oit was, my father, who was Recorder of Deeds of Clay County as well as President of the county historical society, got the state to allow the Mormons to put up a roadside marker at Adam-ondi-Ahman, in Daviss County, supposedly the site of the Garden of Eden and the spot Jesus is supposed to appear at whenever he gets around for it. We no longer shoot Mormons -- not just the Reorganized LDS buy Salt Lake Mormons -- in Missouri. In return, Mormons no longer try to register lands on which squatters have settled, being as there are no squatters left, and Mormons no longer try to marry local girls to be their second, third or umpteenth wives.

It is hard to argue that chewing tobacco is a rather nauseating habit, especially when you include the habit of spitting tobacco juice on the floor.



Thanks for the info.  As you may guess, we would dispute the accuracy of the "Missourian" version on several points, but that's life.  btw, you might be interested to know that the Reorganized church no longer exists by that name.  It has split into two factions:  The Community of Christ and the Restoration Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints.  The former is the larger and more liberal of the two and retains the rights to the RLDS name and properties.  The latter (NPI) is the more conservative and smaller group.  Interestingly, the CofC has finally admitted that Joseph Smith was a polygamist.  Only took 'em a century and a half!   

27
3DHS / Re: Be weary of Sugar Free substitutes
« on: October 20, 2010, 12:01:28 AM »
Now I am surprised that you actually did cut and paste it. At least you provided documentary evidence for your claims. That is the first time I'm aware of that you did that. Congratulations.

====================
I didn't cut and paste most of this, I paraphrased some of it.

too bad you don't have a para balls

Kramer, as an old Company Commander of mine once said to me after a similarly excruciating pun:  I appreciate how smart you have to be to come up with something so stupid! :D

28
3DHS / Re: "R. Whitey," not "Rich Whitey" is green for Governor of Ill.
« on: October 16, 2010, 11:33:22 AM »
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/10/15/AR2010101507013.html


Hehehehe...

What did ye old publisist say?

"Just spell it right"?

This guy can't win.  His name is actually "Whitney."  So the original story, which contained the mistake "Rich Whitey," was about the first mistake - leaving the "n" out of his name on the ballot. (To clarify, the ballot should read "R. Whitney" and instead reads "R. Whitey."  The AP reported that the ballot reads "Rich Whitey" which is a beautiful irony.)  All of this makes any correction to the ballot moot.  This guy is forever "Rich Whitey."

This might be a tragedy for some other candidate but lets face it, he's a Green Party candidate.  Nobody's gonna take him seriously anyway.

Who says color doesn't matter - lol!

29
3DHS / Re: Be weary of Sugar Free substitutes
« on: October 16, 2010, 11:24:45 AM »
Coffee and tea were two universally accepted social beverages during those times. Both men and women offered and drank tea or coffee as a social treat to welcome guests. So refusing to allow the flock to drink these was probably also a way of preventing too much socializing between Mormons and Gentiles, I imagine.

To borrow an expression from another faith, oy. 

The prohibition of hot drinks is part of a larger health code that prohibits tobacco and alcohol, and encourages moderation in all things.  Like most revelation that was given to Jospeh Smith this came from a question.  The specific question was from his wife, Emma, who had to clean up after the men who came for religious training in her home.  They smoked and chewed tobacco and Emma found it disgusting.  She asked Joseph if something could be done about it and Joseph inquired of the Lord.  The result was the Word of Wisdom, later included in the D&C.  It wasn't about trying to cut down on socializing with "gentiles."  Where do you think the converts came from?  The only problem the church had with non-church members was that tendency some of them had of trying to kill us.  The church did not start out isolationist.  People have a tendency to move when other people are shooting at them.  Distrust is natural when you are driven from state to state, constantly losing your money, your property and often your lives. We ended up in Salt Lake because everywhere else we went (New York, Ohio, Missouri, Illinois) the people of the church found themselves in danger.  The tendency to view the early church as being isolationist is based in part on reality, but it was hard experience, not elitist doctrines, that caused that standoffishness.

The Word of Wisdom is about improving the physical health of the Saints.  It describes a primitive sort of food pyramid, instructing us how we should eat fruits, veggies and grains as the staple of our diet and eat meats sparingly.  It tells us to keep unhealthy things out of our body which we view as the temple of the Holy Spirit.  In truth, the intake of caffeine at the level that I (and apparently Glenn Beck) do is probably something that goes against the spirit of the law.  But when we do an interview for a priesthood advancement or our semiannual interviews for a Temple Recommend,  it is the specifics of the law that are the standard.  Basically, if we are keeping the minimum standards of the law, whatever we do above and beyond that is a metter between us and the Lord.

Out of curiosity, what foods do the Seventh Day Adventists prohibit?

30
3DHS / Re: Be weary of Sugar Free substitutes
« on: October 14, 2010, 12:58:29 AM »
Mormons I know avoid Coca-Cola, because it has caffeine, and they are forbidden to take cafffeine or other potentially addictive stimulants.

Of course, they could never be the experts of Non-Mormon RR or Kramer the Moron.

Continue being weary of sugar substitutes, Kramer. That is good advice.

Many Mormons, such as your friends, CHOOSE to avoid Coca-cola, but that is by way of choice, not commandment.  RR's post was correct, and he supported his statements with a link that led to the official LDS church site scripture section.  We are not FORBIDDEN to take caffeine.  We are forbidden coffee and tea.  RR may not be an expert on Mormonism, but I'm pretty well-informed on the subject and RR got it right. I have taught that lesson in Gospel Essentials and Gospel Doctrine class (not to mention teen classes and Priesthood) on many occasions.  I wrote my post before I read his, and you will note they state virtually the same thing.  Coke and other such things fall under Joseph Smith's oft-quoted philosophy that it is not meet that we should be instructed in all things.  He also said, when asked how he governed such a large body of people "I teach them correct principles and let them govern themselves."   This is a common item of discussion, especially with newer church members.  I wrote a parody called "Thank Gosh, I'm a Mormon Boy" in which I use the line "feel a little guilty if I drink a bit of coke" and it gets a big laugh each time. 

There's nothing at all wrong with your friends making healthier choices.  That is both in keeping with the spirit of the Word of Wisdom and just a generally good life choice.  But they are not "forbidden" to drink coke.  And I know a lot of Mormon women.  Try to forbid them chocolate and they will one day find you lying in a gutter smothered in green jello.

Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 ... 58