Contrary to Popular Belief

[DrOswald]

Mormons aren't polygamists.

Yes, yes... I know you saw that episode of Family Guy too, but trust me. We aren't.

Those crazy fundamentalists though, *whew*... feel free to go to town on them.

Those Fundamentalists were the norm until the US government stepped in though, or am I wrong about the Prophet's personal collection of wives? The insistence that it was the will of God that they marry him? I'm not trying to be intolerant, I just don't want history swept under the table. Personally, I don't care about the ethics of polygamy itself. It's the pedophilia and treating women like property that the Fundamentalists engaged in that galls me.

Man this is the 3rd time I've tried to post

OT: So what happened is that the Mormons were, well alienated to say the least around the 1830's/1840's and what Joseph Smith said is that it was "revealed to him by god" that polygamy should be practiced to branch far reaching families to sort of culture a much larger base.

Now this is/was VERY contridictory to our practices today, and even then, in that we are firmly based upon the belief of an eternal family and an eternal companion not companions.

So yes it became a norm but VERY soon after when our second Prophet, Brigham Young (who keep in mind, was a bit of a hardass; he really set things in motion for the Mormons when he became the leader and got us moving), stepped in when things between the Mormons and United States were cut-throat to say the least, and, to be honest, basicly said "That was wrong." he scrapped that law and basicly cut ties with the U.S. to stop any further conflict, and then you have the migration west into Utah and the founding of Deseret and what-have-you.

Now there were those who said no to Brigham Young's new direction of the church and said "We ONLY follow what Joseph Smith has revealed to the letter" and then left. To where exactly... well we didn't know, up until that whole messy incident with their president a few years ago.

So yes. We did practice polygamy, don't get me wrong, and while some have come to find Joseph Smith as being... well, frankly a horndog (and keep in mind as a Mormon, this is saying something almost as equivalent to a devout Catholic saying "the Pope is a pedophile"), the polygamy law was mostly just a way of branching out our people to merge families and unify us as a people in our times of struggle when Mormons were treated like the plage in mid-19th century America. And let me make it PERFECTLY clear, no such act or practices, such as the ones you mentioned, would EVER be tolerated in our church today.

I think there are a few more things worth mentioning about the polygamist practices of the early LDS church.

The first is that in the LDS religion marriage between a man and woman is very important. The entirety of the organizational structure of the LDS church is built around it and according to Mormon belief the highest blessings on this earth or in heaven can only be achieved through marriage.

The second is that in the early church, when all adult members of marrying age or older were converts, there was a fairly substantial gender imbalance within the membership. There were a lot more women than men.

Third, because the Mormons were typically ostracized by nearby communities there were very few opportunities to marry out side of the membership.

These 3 factors combine to create a serious problem: many women, through absolutely no fault of their own, will never have to opportunity to marry and will miss out on the greatest potential blessings in this life and possibly the next.

If we throw out the possibility of same sex marriage (which would go against the fundamental beliefs of the LDS) and the requirement of marriage cannot be circumvented in any way (it is believed that marriage is the source of the blessings, so it cannot be removed from the equation) then there is only one logical solution to this problem: polygamy. Furthermore there is precedent in the bible for this solution. To give an example off the top of my head Abraham was a polygamist.

The Mormons then left the United States and settled in isolation in the land that would one day become Utah. The problem of a unbalanced gender population naturally solved itself over time because the equal rate of birth of male to female. The need for polygamy disappeared. In fact, if polygamy had continued it would have caused the reverse problem of not enough women.

If you actually think about the problem, assuming that Mormon beliefs are correct (which the Mormons certainly believe,) then instituting polygamy was the right thing to do and it was also right to revoking polygamy less than 40 years later.

Also, Polygamy was stopped in 1890 under President Wilford Woodruff, the 4th president of the church. Brigham Young was a polygamist.

Edit: I also think it is important to say that President Woodruff did not in any way claim that the polygamist practices of the early church were in any way incorrect or evil, only that it was wrong to continue with the practice. As I illustrated above, this is a very important point.

 

[CAMDAWG]

I find it hard to believe that it would have been worse. The shooter didn't have a specific target in mind and from what I've read was just shooting people at random. I am unsure how having a civilian with a concealed weapon and attempting to stop him would make the shooter somehow shoot more people, seeing as his goal was already to shoot a bunch of people.

As blackhawk said, guns were not allowed in the theatre, concealed or otherwise, so it's essentially irrelevant, but suppose for a moment they were.

I believe the shooter used some sort of gas or smokescreen (correct me if I'm wrong, I can't remember). It's a dark theatre full of people, with reduced visibility, and gunshots are fired. Say there are multiple people with handguns, they all get up to play the hero, and promptly shoot each other without realising who the madman is, bateman goes on and kills just like in reality.

There's one way it could be worse. Expecting that, in a chaotic situation, with panicked people everywhere and crappy visibility, someone would have no problem getting the right guy is hopelessly optimistic.

 

[axlryder]

Augh, here we go

It does matter if it's anecdotal or not, because when I'm saying that my viewpoint of people taking their looks for granted (or simply lacking them) creates a social dichotomy where people produce cognitive dissonance between wanting somebody whose personality reflects their own, and wanting somebody who is a figure of lust. If you're being "skeptical of my claims" and the only thing I'm claiming is my observation, all you're effectively doing is saying that you don't actually believe that society has left that impression on me. There's no point in being skeptical of something like that. In fact it doesn't even make sense.

If you think I'm "wrong about people" all that says is that you have a different view on life than I do; which is abundantly clear because we're obviously not getting along very well.

Another logical error from you. You're conflating me disagreeing that you have an opinion/where that opinion came from and me disagreeing with the opinion itself. I can easily be skeptical of your opinion even if it's only based in observation. I can also be skeptical of your interpretation of what you've observed in society. I can be skeptical of a person who says Jesus spoke to them, no matter how certain or seemingly unbiased they are that a specific stimuli they received was the word of Jesus. I'd ask them to prove that it was actually Jesus they heard. What's more, the initial statement itself wasn't just an impartial observation.

Here's a refresher on the statement I actually took issue with:

"I'm saying most people are easily judged superficially. I didn't specify that it was women, the video is clearly supposed to be purposefully misogynistic for a failed attempt at comedy or bachelor-esque charm. I'm not promoting the video.

I'm currently in a relationship with a girl who I'd like to think is an exception to that rule. Other people I see, however, that are alone (men and women) and "can't seem to figure out why," it's easy for somebody on the outside to figure out why it is that this person is repelling mates. And most mundane situations do fit under the idea that looks and personality are inversely proportional. It's not some balance of nature, it's more of a power thing. Attractive people become spoiled by their social success and become more and more selfish and corrosive, so much so that they often test how nasty they can be while still being revered by their body image alone.

It's a wonderful world we live in, hmm?"

Aside from the potential that your statement is based entirely on anecdotal evidence and you having a girlfriend who you believe to be an exception to the "rule", nothing you said was claimed to be anecdotal. What's more, anytime you say "I'm saying that X is the case" on a public forum, it becomes a claim that is up to be contested and become an object skepticism. Whether or not that claim is based entirely off of your own personal experience doesn't matter much.

So your main mission was to defend the honor of the film and not find any reason at all to be a patronizing jerk. Why do I doubt that?

Again, building a strawman. I never said why I pointed it out. You're presuming that. I simply said that pointing it out was my main reason for quoting you. Of course, it seems you can't just openly say "oh, I guess I was wrong", because you're clearly too cocky to simply concede to having made an error, so you'd rather attack my reasons for pointing out your error instead. Way to go. Also, before you attempt to say "but you said you quoted me in hopes that pointing out my errors would change my behavior". No, I didn't say that. I simply said I hope your behavior will change if your errors are pointed out enough.

Oh so now you're here to help me. I'm just a poor social anomaly that you've decided to take under your wing.

And I'm the cocky one.

Missing the point again. I find you obnoxious, and thus I'm hoping for your behavior to change if your errors are pointed out enough by either myself or others. I never mentioned social anomalies (you aren't one) or taking you under my wing. You really like building those strawmen. What's more, you're both cocky and incorrect. I take far less issue with cocky people who can back up the things they say.

 

[Jaeke]

Mormons aren't polygamists.

Yes, yes... I know you saw that episode of Family Guy too, but trust me. We aren't.

Those crazy fundamentalists though, *whew*... feel free to go to town on them.

Those Fundamentalists were the norm until the US government stepped in though, or am I wrong about the Prophet's personal collection of wives? The insistence that it was the will of God that they marry him? I'm not trying to be intolerant, I just don't want history swept under the table. Personally, I don't care about the ethics of polygamy itself. It's the pedophilia and treating women like property that the Fundamentalists engaged in that galls me.

Man this is the 3rd time I've tried to post

OT: So what happened is that the Mormons were, well alienated to say the least around the 1830's/1840's and what Joseph Smith said is that it was "revealed to him by god" that polygamy should be practiced to branch far reaching families to sort of culture a much larger base.

Now this is/was VERY contridictory to our practices today, and even then, in that we are firmly based upon the belief of an eternal family and an eternal companion not companions.

So yes it became a norm but VERY soon after when our second Prophet, Brigham Young (who keep in mind, was a bit of a hardass; he really set things in motion for the Mormons when he became the leader and got us moving), stepped in when things between the Mormons and United States were cut-throat to say the least, and, to be honest, basicly said "That was wrong." he scrapped that law and basicly cut ties with the U.S. to stop any further conflict, and then you have the migration west into Utah and the founding of Deseret and what-have-you.

Now there were those who said no to Brigham Young's new direction of the church and said "We ONLY follow what Joseph Smith has revealed to the letter" and then left. To where exactly... well we didn't know, up until that whole messy incident with their president a few years ago.

So yes. We did practice polygamy, don't get me wrong, and while some have come to find Joseph Smith as being... well, frankly a horndog (and keep in mind as a Mormon, this is saying something almost as equivalent to a devout Catholic saying "the Pope is a pedophile"), the polygamy law was mostly just a way of branching out our people to merge families and unify us as a people in our times of struggle when Mormons were treated like the plage in mid-19th century America. And let me make it PERFECTLY clear, no such act or practices, such as the ones you mentioned, would EVER be tolerated in our church today.

I think there are a few more things worth mentioning about the polygamist practices of the early LDS church.

The first is that in the LDS religion marriage between a man and woman is very important. The entirety of the organizational structure of the LDS church is built around it and according to Mormon belief the highest blessings on this earth or in heaven can only be achieved through marriage.

The second is that in the early church, when all adult members of marrying age or older were converts, there was a fairly substantial gender imbalance within the membership. There were a lot more women than men.

Third, because the Mormons were typically ostracized by nearby communities there were very few opportunities to marry out side of the membership.

These 3 factors combine to create a serious problem: many women, through absolutely no fault of their own, will never have to opportunity to marry and will miss out on the greatest potential blessings in this life and possibly the next.

If we throw out the possibility of same sex marriage (which would go against the fundamental beliefs of the LDS) and the requirement of marriage cannot be circumvented in any way (it is believed that marriage is the source of the blessings, so it cannot be removed from the equation) then there is only one logical solution to this problem: polygamy. Furthermore there is precedent in the bible for this solution. To give an example off the top of my head Abraham was a polygamist.

The Mormons then left the United States and settled in isolation in the land that would one day become Utah. The problem of a unbalanced gender population naturally solved itself over time because the equal rate of birth of male to female. The need for polygamy disappeared. In fact, if polygamy had continued it would have caused the reverse problem of not enough women.

If you actually think about the problem, assuming that Mormon beliefs are correct (which the Mormons certainly believe,) then instituting polygamy was the right thing to do and it was also right to revoking polygamy less than 40 years later.

Also, Polygamy was stopped in 1890 under President Wilford Woodruff, the 4th president of the church. Brigham Young was a polygamist.

Edit: I also think it is important to say that President Woodruff did not in any way claim that the polygamist practices of the early church were in any way incorrect or evil, only that it was wrong to continue with the practice. As I illustrated above, this is a very important point.

Why thank you sir.

Good to know there are informed people out there that don't base their entire opinion of a religion off of what they see on t.v.

...

Anyway, thanks for clarification, as even though I earnestly try to be an informed individual, being only 16 years old proves to be humbling in a lot of subjects, even ones such as this which are close-to-the-chest.

 

[Faladorian]

removed

 

[JeffBergGold]

This is opinion. That I disagree with but that's because I'm not a real man. A woman's list of talents and quirks are what makes her attractive to me. Shiny things are nice but ultimately there's not much you can really do with them.

Also, just checking here, you do know that the scene you posted from American Psycho is satire, right?

OT: Contrary to popular there a cure for the hangover does exist. The bacon sandwich.

I am aware that it is satire, it doesn't change that it is true. You would not date a woman you find unattractive because she had a "glowing" personality. Let's not bullshit each other here. NO one will ever date a person they find physically unattractive unless they are getting large monetary compensation in return.

This is true for both men and women. People don't like to admit it but it's the truth!


Oh, and size matters.

Perfect.

That's a brilliant example of a misconception, you even got the whole 'alpha' thing going too.

I love it.

8D, I aim to please~

This is true for both men and women. People don't like to admit it but it's the truth!


Oh, and size matters.

I think you missed the point of that movie.

By a long shot. It's a satire of 80's Yuppy [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yuppy] culture. Those guys are meant to be overblown stereotypes of misogynistic excessively consumerist wankers.

I know it is a satirical film however there are little kernels of truth sprinkled here and there about the superficiality of humans. Especially the statement about Reagan.

"How can he lie like that? How can he pull that shit? How can he be so fucking in denial, so cool about it? Look, he presents himself as a harmless old codger, but inside?"

"No one cares about whats inside"

People will easily dismiss or accept people based on the presentation of an image without any regard to the persons true substance. This post of how I missed by a long shot is a perfect example.

Keep in mind that people who do think like that tend to be extrapolating their own pathetic outlooks onto anyone else.

I don't really care what my girlfriend/wife looks like (within reason), as long as she's someone I can LIVE with. I also find it annoying when people take clips from American Psycho (problem is in the title) and tell me I think like that... because.

Dang bro where did you pick up that snazzy psychology degree? I didn't know psychological assessments could be made through anonymous internet forums now! You're on the frontier of something incredible! Please tell me more about myself!

Also, no offense brother but you probably have low standards because you're not that hot yourself. Most ugly people don't care how their partner looks. Not saying that you're ugly I'm just putting it out there.

 

[lacktheknack]

Keep in mind that people who do think like that tend to be extrapolating their own pathetic outlooks onto anyone else.

I don't really care what my girlfriend/wife looks like (within reason), as long as she's someone I can LIVE with. I also find it annoying when people take clips from American Psycho (problem is in the title) and tell me I think like that... because.

Dang bro where did you pick up that snazzy psychology degree? I didn't know psychological assessments could be made through anonymous internet forums now! You're on the frontier of something incredible! Please tell me more about myself!

Also, no offense brother but you probably have low standards because you're not that hot yourself. Most ugly people don't care how their partner looks. Not saying that you're ugly I'm just putting it out there.

I said "tend".

Much like how you said "probably".

(And for the record, I've been told by every girl who cares to tell me that I look "above average". Do with that what you will.)

 

[Wayneguard]

The original Star Wars trilogy wasn't really all that great, and people who complain about the prequels are just looking at the originals through Nostalgia Goggles.

OT:

Contrary to popular belief, Captain America is better than Iron Man (citation needed).

 

[lacktheknack]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Groin_attack

Couldn't find much else, but the idea is that it can still be painful. Also in certain cases for women, it can cause further problems, but such is rare.

EDIT: Also, come to think of it, getting stomped on the foot is pretty painful. That's what a kick in the balls feels like, I think, based on experience.

Really? I've been foot-stomped, it feels much like walking into a wall, except on your foot.

Maybe I'm a freak of nature.

 

[JeffBergGold]

Keep in mind that people who do think like that tend to be extrapolating their own pathetic outlooks onto anyone else.

I don't really care what my girlfriend/wife looks like (within reason), as long as she's someone I can LIVE with. I also find it annoying when people take clips from American Psycho (problem is in the title) and tell me I think like that... because.

Dang bro where did you pick up that snazzy psychology degree? I didn't know psychological assessments could be made through anonymous internet forums now! You're on the frontier of something incredible! Please tell me more about myself!

Also, no offense brother but you probably have low standards because you're not that hot yourself. Most ugly people don't care how their partner looks. Not saying that you're ugly I'm just putting it out there.

I said "tend".

Much like how you said "probably".


(And for the record, I've been told by every girl who cares to tell me that I look "above average". Do with that what you will.)

You can lie to me all you want, but never lie to yourself brother. It's just wrong.

Spoiler

 

[RipRoaringWaterfowl]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Groin_attack

Couldn't find much else, but the idea is that it can still be painful. Also in certain cases for women, it can cause further problems, but such is rare.

EDIT: Also, come to think of it, getting stomped on the foot is pretty painful. That's what a kick in the balls feels like, I think, based on experience.

Really? I've been foot-stomped, it feels much like walking into a wall, except on your foot.

Maybe I'm a freak of nature.

Guess it depends. We're both guessing on what equals a foot stomp or a groin hit, so hey, mileage may vary.

 

[lacktheknack]

Keep in mind that people who do think like that tend to be extrapolating their own pathetic outlooks onto anyone else.

I don't really care what my girlfriend/wife looks like (within reason), as long as she's someone I can LIVE with. I also find it annoying when people take clips from American Psycho (problem is in the title) and tell me I think like that... because.

Dang bro where did you pick up that snazzy psychology degree? I didn't know psychological assessments could be made through anonymous internet forums now! You're on the frontier of something incredible! Please tell me more about myself!

Also, no offense brother but you probably have low standards because you're not that hot yourself. Most ugly people don't care how their partner looks. Not saying that you're ugly I'm just putting it out there.

I said "tend".

Much like how you said "probably".


(And for the record, I've been told by every girl who cares to tell me that I look "above average". Do with that what you will.)

You can lie to me all you want, but never lie to yourself brother. It's just wrong.

Spoiler

Fun fact: There are literally no good pictures of me on this planet.

You should see my passport. I look like a straight-up terrorist with a grudge against normal eyes.

(Also, that picture is a couple years old, taken in the dark, with me trying to be creepy. And women still tell me I'm "above average", regardless of that pic's existence, so if that's what girls like...)

 

[JeffBergGold]

Whatever you say boss. I guess we all have our ego defense mechanisms.

 

[lacktheknack]

Whatever you say boss. I guess we all have our ego defense mechanisms.

All I know is that I said your views are pathetic, and you called me ugly.

Something about ego defense mechanisms, right?

 

[Kargathia]

Contrary to popular opinion, asking for people to state controversial facts will, in fact, descend into a flame-fest.

Or, well, never mind that: anyone could see this coming a mile away.

 

[lacktheknack]

THE STORY SO FAR:

-I tell some dude who misuses a scene from American Psycho that his views are cynical and bad

-He tells me I think that because I'm ugly

-I half-heartedly defend myself, because seriously... what the hell...

-He then affirms his opinions with an old poor-quality photo

-I tell him as much

-He flat out ignores me, assumes I have a massive ego

-INEXPLICABLE FIFTY CENT

TO SUM UP: My opinions are worth less than dirt because there's a majorly unflattering photo of me.

I'm lacktheknack, and this is my favorite thread on the Escapist.

Seriously, this was a great laugh. Thanks, Jeff!

 

[lacktheknack]

Contrary to popular opinion, asking for people to state controversial facts will, in fact, descend into a flame-fest.

I have my doubts that any of us weren't aware.

We just came in anyways. Like moths to flame.

 

[Canadamus Prime]

Contrary to popular belief the CEO of a company or corporation actually has the least amount of power in the organization. The real power belongs to the Board of Executives. The CEO is much more like the Queen of England, a nice figurehead, but has no real power.

EDIT: But unlike the Queen of England, the CEO has to take all the flak every time the company screws up.

 

[JeffBergGold]

THE STORY SO FAR:

-I tell some dude who misuses a scene from American Psycho that his views are cynical and bad

-He tells me I think that because I'm ugly

-I half-heartedly defend myself, because seriously... what the hell...

-He then affirms his opinions with an old poor-quality photo

-I tell him as much

-He flat out ignores me, assumes I have a massive ego

-INEXPLICABLE FIFTY CENT

TO SUM UP: My opinions are worth less than dirt because there's a majorly unflattering photo of me.

I'm lacktheknack, and this is my favorite thread on the Escapist.

Seriously, this was a great laugh. Thanks, Jeff!

No, no, my friend, thank you! This thread will provide laughter for many! You should post on bodybuilding.com sometimes you might find this very thread over there! 8D

 

[spartan231490]

List some common misconceptions here. I would also appreciate it if you sourced your statements.

Sugar does not make children hyperactive.

http://www.uamshealth.com/?id=877&sid=1

http://www.bmj.com/content/337/bmj.a2769

Yes it does. Those studies all specify that high sugar diets don't induce an increase in overall hyperactive behavior, which makes sense when you consider that over the short run, sugar causes peaks and troughs, which could easily balance out to an overall lack of change. However, I guarentee that sugar causes a temporary spike in hyperactivity, I actually remember being a kid.

On Topic:
Guns are evil and cause crime. that's a common misconception.
Since you asked for sources, I'll provide one.
http://www.law.harvard.edu/students/orgs/jlpp/Vol30_No2_KatesMauseronline.pdf