New Type of Dinosaur Unearthed 160
MileHighScience writes to mention that a new type of sauropod has been discovered by scientists from Utah's Brigham Young University. Dubbed Abydosaurus mcintoshi, the new addition to the long necked dinosaur family was discovered at Dinosaur National Monument. "The circumstances of its discovery were both unusual and dramatic. The researchers stumbled on four skulls in a quarry at the preserve. Two were still intact. Sauropod skulls are rarely found in the fossil record because the soft tissue from which they are constructed is unlikely to be preserved after death. 'Their heads are built lighter than mammal skulls because they sit way out at the end of very long necks,' Brooks Britt, a BYU paleontologist said in a news release. 'Instead of thick bones fused together, sauropod skulls are made of thin bones bound together by soft tissue.' Of more than 120 known species of sauropods, there have been only eight instances in which scientists have been able to recover intact skulls."
Gary Larson inquires: (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Gary Larson inquires: (Score:1)
To me it seems like they found only the head with rest of the body bitten off. ...so probably had no thagomizer.
Re:Gary Larson inquires: (Score:2)
How rude! That isn't a proper question to be asking. Isaygooddaysir!
Re:Gary Larson inquires: (Score:2)
Well, I had to follow that link. And it's fun. I've had dealings with Ken Carpenter before, and like the guy ; picking up on a term like that sounds entirely up his street sense-of-humour-wise, and as vertebrate palaeontology isn't my particular specialism, I'm more than willing to follow his lead.
Boringly : since sauropods typically have strongly ossified tail tendons (and correspondingly low tail flexibility), then it's very unlikely to have a thagomizer.
The teeth were interesting though.
I'll be damned! (Score:1)
Re:I'll be damned! (Score:1, Funny)
Artist's conception of Abydosaurus mcintoshi [secretdancemoves.com]
Re:I'll be damned! (Score:2)
Mormon scientists have found skolls! How interesting! Maybe this will get a Darwin award.
Don't be silly. They dated them at 4000 years old.
Re:I'll be damned! (Score:2, Offtopic)
Re:I'll be damned! (Score:3, Insightful)
They're not Christian in the usual sense of the word, either.
Re:I'll be damned! (Score:2)
They're not Christian in the usual sense of the word, either.
That depends on your definition of Christian. If you define Christian as strictly adhering to the Nicene Creed, then no, they're not. But neither are many other churches by that standard. There are more non-Trinitarian Christian churches then you'd think out there.
Re:I'll be damned! (Score:1, Informative)
That depends on your definition of Depends.
Re:I'll be damned! (Score:2)
Re:I'll be damned! (Score:1)
If you define christian as being within a country mile of protestants, catholics or eastern orthodox they still aren't.
Re:I'll be damned! (Score:2)
That's one of the nicest things I've heard anyone say about the Mormons for a long time.
The last time I had them at the door, I was decorating and had a friend around to help. So as soon as I opened the door and saw who they were, I called out "Charlie, can you bring the rubbish bucket". Then I took the set of leaflets out of their hands, said 'thank you', threw them straight into the bucket, and shut the door on them. No need for any lip-flapping on their behalf ; no wear and tear on my ears either, and a full and frank exchange of views.
One of my friends is far more tolerant : he'll invite them in and spend 2 or 3 hours debating science in general and palaeontology in particular with them. He's not going to be harmed by their idiocies ; they might actually be educated (most of them are woefully ignorant) ; and the time they spend in his living room is time they lose from their mission to confuse and upset average people. All-round win.
Re:I'll be damned! (Score:1, Troll)
Mormons don't specifically believe in either creationism or evolution. The official position of the Church is that this issue is unresolved, because God has not revealed the answer.
An analogy can be made with birtherism. There are people who consider the certificate of live birth and the old contemporaneous newspaper article as sufficient evidence. Aside from them, there are crazy "creationist" birthers who insist the president was born in Kenya and is a citizen of Kenya, etc.
The "Mormons" would be similar to politicians and pundits who appear on TV and answer "I have no idea" when asked if they believe the president is a citizen.
Re:I'll be damned! (Score:2, Informative)
I'm an expert on Mormonism. I've been one all my life.
If I may, it really depends on whom you ask. You will probably get a whole range of opinions. I would probably phrase the opinion, "Render unto Caesar the things which are Caesar's, and unto God the things that are God's." I graduated from BYU, and we were taught taught evolution in Biology. Any modern study of biology without evolution would be incomplete at best and shoddy and fraudulent at worst.
As a Mormon when we study the different accounts of the creation, we come away with three fundamental main points:
1) Jesus Christ was the creator
2) The creation was planned, and was effected by "organizing" pre-existing materials, not "ex-nihlo"
3) Man was created in the image of God
There are some things that could be interpreted as contradictions between religious belief and scientific fact. I do think about them, but I don't let myself get carried away. My current understanding of both the mind of God and science as it truly is is unfortunately flawed.
Regardless I don't "throw out the baby with the bathwater" just because I don't understand some facet of science or religion.
This is my theory, which is mine. (Score:4, Funny)
*ahem*
*ahem* *ahem*
This was the type of dinosaur that wore a saddle, so that people from the Bible could ride it around, and with that long neck it could have easily reached up to get the forbidden fruit from the Tree of Life for that bitch Eve. *Ahem*
Re:This is my theory, which is mine. (Score:2)
No, no... if you are going to paraphrase Cleese, you have to wait for someone to do the original quote first.* Then you can diverge from Python orthodoxy in the subsequent reply.
It is as if you skipped the "Triple Dare" and went straight for the jugular with a "Triple Dog Dare".
*For the uninitiated, and in the world of Slashdot there should be none, the original quote is from Anne Elk (John Cleese)
"This theory which belongs to me is as follows. Ahem. Ahem. This is how it goes. Ahem. The next thing that I am about to say is my theory. Ahem. Ready?
The Theory by A. Elk brackets Miss brackets.
My theory is along the following lines. All brontosauruses are thin at one end, much MUCH thicker in the middle, and then thin again at the far end. That is the theory that I have and which is mine, and what it is too."
Re:This is my theory, which is mine. (Score:1, Troll)
New Type of Dinosaur Unearthed
Knuckle-dragging tea baggers voting for Palin?
Re:This is my theory, which is mine. (Score:2)
What follows is a modification of my theory. *ahem*
*ahem ahem*
s/Life/Knowledge of Good and Evil/
Nay, I am Moroni! (Score:1, Flamebait)
The last living white skinned follower of Jesus in North America! And you have blasphemed Elohim, and are doomed to come back with darker skin!!
Seriously. Mormons are slightly less dumb than Scientologists. That's not a compliment.
Re:Nay, I am Moroni! (Score:2)
OTOH perhaps you're setting a low standard. I was watching Valkyrie last night (the one with Scientologist Tom Cruise)... you have to see it. He singlehandedly makes the whole movie hilarious. I couldn't suspend belief long enough to stop thinking "Scientologist", and his acting doesn't help at all.
Re:Nay, I am Moroni! (Score:2)
Is it an exaggeration or a misunderstanding that Mormonist beliefs include Christ entering the New World? Because that alone has always struck me as the principal strangeness. I mean, look at all the water in the way. [...Thinks...] OK, I know it's already been set up so that he can walk right across it, which itself is very strange indeed, but it's a given at the end of the first book. [...Thinks...] Still, that's like a month long walk. He'd have nothing to eat. And he did need to eat, because he was at the Last Supper, and it's not like he was a waiter for his apostles. [...Thinks...] Well, I guess he could do the loaves and fishes trick. There would be plenty of fish for him to catch, and he could make the bread from himself, along with a nice wine to go with it. [...Thinks...] Except no wine glass to hold it in. and where does he sleep? [...Thinks...] Actually I have never heard any Biblical references to His sleep patterns anywhere, and this was after the Resurrection, so he was probably jet lagged. [...Thinks...] Did he actually walk here like a normal person, or did he get here via some Star Trek transporter-like miracle? That would solve everything.
[...ducks...]
Re:Nay, I am Moroni! (Score:2)
Still, that's like a month long walk. He'd have nothing to eat. And he did need to eat, because he was at the Last Supper, and it's not like he was a waiter for his apostles. [...Thinks...] Well, I guess he could do the loaves and fishes trick. There would be plenty of fish for him to catch, and he could make the bread from himself, along with a nice wine to go with it.
No, see, he can only do the loaves-and-fishes trick and the water-into-wine trick if he can get everyone to turn around first.
See, 'cause if they were looking directly at the miracle when it happened, they could go blind...
Re:Nay, I am Moroni! (Score:2)
See, 'cause if they were looking directly at the miracle when it happened, they could go blind...
So, the miracle of the loaves and fishes involved masturbation? I was looking for a way to make that whole thing even creepier...
in related news (Score:5, Funny)
Another dinosaur, Windowsaurus Mobelius, has also been identified in the fossil remains of early Silicon Valley users. It seems this dinosaur was replaced in its ecosystem by a smarter, faster breed called Googlesaurus Androidius, which went on to compete for resources with the Applesaurus iPhonius, which survived only as a brightly-coloured niche dinosaur, despite competing claims that its extinction was inevitable, and that its dominance was assured. Neither of these outcomes predicted for the iPhonius turned out to be true, and the Androidius eventually evolved into sentient killing machines.
All hail, etc.
Re:in related news (Score:5, Funny)
Recent reports also note that the Nokiasuarus Maemonicus has been evolving in a new strain: Meegoasaurus Rex which prefers open spaces
Re:in related news (Score:2)
Oh, and it eats puny Googlesaurus Androidius and Applesaurus Iphonicus for breakfast, lunch and dinner. ^^
Re:in related news (Score:2)
If we are going to talk about things that are extinct then I would suggest naming it Abydosaurus Lisasaurus [wikipedia.org] instead.
Re:in related news (Score:2)
If we are going to talk about things that are extinct then I would suggest naming it Abydosaurus Lisasaurus instead.
I'm not sure a stillborn mutant qualifies as an extinct species, but I suppose that's a matter of perspective. :)
iPhonius extinction theory (Score:2)
iPhonius developed a distaste for most boobies, with the exception of a few big name boobies like Playboyius Boobius. This contributed greatly to it's decline, despite the abundance of it's primary food source childus Improvishedus.
Re:iPhonius extinction theory (Score:2)
iPhonius developed a distaste for most boobies, with the exception of a few big name boobies like Playboyius Boobius. This contributed greatly to it's
parser error
Re:iPhonius extinction theory (Score:2)
Actually, it developed a distaste for anything female, except its own growing femininity. And its primary food source was a early biped called Homo Erotica Bubblus Distortensis Realitis. ;)
Re:in related news (Score:2)
Most schools teach that Androidius evolved into Googlesaurus Chromicus, which, throwing the basic concepts of evolution to the wind, took many different shapes and sizes but ultimately couldn't optimize its own form into the perfect killing machine and ended up cannibalizing itself due to an inability to hunt prey and feed itself without falling down and hurting itself repeatedly while getting sidetracked by advertisements for its own competitors and various phishing schemes.
Brontasaurus (Score:2, Funny)
Thesaurus? (Score:5, Funny)
Abydosaurus mcintoshi (Score:2)
Head and neck position? (Score:2, Interesting)
Actually (Score:4, Informative)
More specifically it was a U of M graduate student:
http://www.ns.umich.edu/htdocs/releases/story.php?id=7537 [umich.edu]
Re:Actually (Score:2)
Oh so it wasn't a dinosaur at all then! Still I could see how scientists could get confused by these U of M students with long necks and thin skulls....
Terminology question (Score:2)
Is this a new dinosaur or a new as in you didn't have it before BMWsaur?
New or just previously undiscovered? (Score:1, Flamebait)
Soft head...tiny brain...a Paleoconservative, no doubt.
My favorite dinosaur... (Score:2)
Was this one domesticated? (Score:2)
After visiting the creation science museum, I wonder if the BYU crew found any evidence of saddles along with the dinosaurs?
Re:BYU has a Paleontology department? (Score:5, Informative)
Does that not fit into what your science teacher told you about people who aren't your science teacher?
Re:BYU has a Paleontology department? (Score:2)
'BYU has one of the largest collection of Jurassic dino bones in the world.'
Absolutely! In fact, groundbreaking research from Utah published earlier this month has overturned established theories of dinosaur posture and locomotion:
http://www.theonion.com/content/news_briefs/paleontologists_weve_been [theonion.com]
Unfortunately, certain questions remain unanswered:
http://www.theonion.com/content/news/dinosaurs_sadly_extinct_before [theonion.com]
Re:BYU has a Paleontology department? (Score:4, Insightful)
I like to read, and unlike the rest of my classmates, I have some scientific background concerning the world in general. And thus, when I heard that BYU, founded on principles of racism, moral superiority, and hatred of atheists, I was surprised they had abandoned enough of their core principles to have a paleontology department that accurately dated fossils.
Apparently, you shouldn't believe everything that you read, or is just it a personal bias that makes you lash out so?
Right into the trap... (Score:5, Informative)
"I hope to see an Academy established in Provo that shall do honor to our Territory, and at which the children of the Latter-day Saints can receive a good education unmixed with the pernicious atheistic influences that are found in so many of the higher schools of the country." -Brigham Young
But, you got me on one point. There is a process for "beard exemption":
A student who wishes to obtain a beard exception must visit a BYU Student Health Center doctor by appointment (422.5156). The doctor will fax his recommendation. The student then needs to come to the Honor Code Office to fill out some paperwork and receive the letter allowing the growth of the beard, if approved. If a yearly beard exception is granted, a new Student ID will be issued after the beard has been fully grown, and must be renewed every year by repeating the process.
http://honorcode.byu.edu/content/what-process-obtaining-beard-waiver [byu.edu]
That's literally the funniest thing I have read in the last 24 hours.
But wait! There's more!
Are Mixed Gender Camping Trips allowed?
http://honorcode.byu.edu/content/mixed-gender [byu.edu]
Fear of Gays!
Homosexual behavior and/or advocacy of homosexual behavior are inappropriate and violate the Honor Code. Homosexual behavior includes not only sexual relations between members of the same sex, but all forms of physical intimacy that give expression to homosexual feelings. Advocacy includes seeking to influence others to engage in homosexual behavior or promoting homosexual relations as being morally acceptable.
Fear of the Female Body!
A clean and well-cared-for appearance should be maintained. Clothing is inappropriate when it is sleeveless, strapless, backless, or revealing; has slits above the knee; or is form fitting. Dresses, skirts, and shorts must be knee-length or longer. Hairstyles should be clean and neat, avoiding extremes in styles or colors. Excessive ear piercing (more than one per ear) and all other body piercing are not acceptable. Shoes should be worn in all public campus areas.
Forced religion!
Students are required to be in good Honor Code standing to be admitted to, continue enrollment at, and graduate from BYU. In conjunction with this requirement, all enrolled continuing undergraduate, graduate, intern, and Study Abroad students are required to obtain a Continuing Student Ecclesiastical Endorsement for each new academic year. Students must have their endorsements completed, turned in, and processed by the Honor Code Office before they can register for fall semester or any semester thereafter. To avoid registration delays, endorsement should be submitted to the Honor Code Office by March 15. Those applying to BYU should use the new-student Admissions Application Part 3 endorsement and submit to Admissions, D-155 ASB.
I mean, this shit sounds like something you'd find the Taliban advocating. Read it for yourself:
http://saas.byu.edu/catalog/2009-2010ucat/GeneralInfo/HonorCode.php#HCOfficeInvovement [byu.edu]
Re:Right into the trap... (Score:5, Informative)
You must have some grudge against the LDS church to be trolling so much on this thread. Nevertheless, I'm going to respond to a couple of your points.
First point: the beard thing. I agree, this is pretty lame. The dress and grooming standards have changed over the years, and hopefully one day neatly trimmed beards will be allowed. I've heard that the anti-beard regulations came about in the 60's when the hippies wore beards, and were thought of as some sort of representation of the counter culture, which doesn't really jive with LDS doctrines. Times have changed. I must say, though, that if that's the funniest thing you've read in the last 24 hours, you must be starved for entertainment.
Second point: mixed gender field trips. They are allowed, you just need to make sure the men and women aren't sharing tents. As you probably know, premarital sex is against LDS doctrine. This is a small measure to ensure students aren't breaking the rules while on official business. Dress and grooming standards are along this same line.
Third point: "fear" of gays. BYU is a church school. LDS doctrine states that homosexuality is bad, so the church's school isn't going to allow anybody to encourage behavior that goes against church doctrine.
Fourth point: Ecclesiastical endorsements. BYU is a church school. They strive for a religious, education along side the more secular one. There is no requirement that you be a practicing member of ANY particular religion, just that you get "cleared" from your own ecclesiastical leader. If you don't belong to any particular church (presumably even if you're an atheist) you can meet with LDS leaders to get an endorsemnt. This is mainly to ensure that the students will abide by the school's honor code, which you find so humorous and offensive.
I'm a graduate of the BYU geology department. I got a fantastic education that prepared me well for grad school and a career in science. I am happy to see the department get this press. I'm less happy at douche bags like yourself using this platform to spread half-truths and misinformation about my alma mater. If you don't like the standards, nobody's going to force you to live them, or even go near the BYU campus.
I predict a miraculous revelation.... (Score:2)
No grudges. I just think the LDS is a fascinating study in human credulity. And BYU, being the official college of LDS, represents a sea of irony.
Would you have allowed to write a paper on the total lack of evidence for Nephytes in North America in the 5th and 6th centuries? I highly doubt it. Would you be allowed to state unequivocally that the LDS was institutionally racist in the 50s, and that the "revelation" received by the leaders in 1978 was obviously political and not spiritual?
So there will be another revelation about women in the church, since they are still second class citizens. And then another about homosexuals, and perhaps another for transgender. It just baffles me that the civilizing of the LDS isn't commented upon, or that any person trying to learn something would choose a school inexorably intertwined with such obviously flawed ideals.
Re:I predict a miraculous revelation.... (Score:2)
As a single LDS Man,
I would suggest that women are not 2nd class citizens in the LDS Church. It is the older single men who are 2nd class citizens. I won't go into the details, but because I am not married, I am not allowed to serve in any position of authority in the Church.
Re:I predict a miraculous revelation.... (Score:2)
As a single LDS Man,
I would suggest that women are not 2nd class citizens in the LDS Church. It is the older single men who are 2nd class citizens. I won't go into the details, but because I am not married, I am not allowed to serve in any position of authority in the Church.
http://scriptures.lds.org/en/titus/1/6 [lds.org]
Apparently there is a reason. People in leadership positions should portray the ideals of the Church, and that includes a wife and faithful kids. Yeah, it's a matter image, probably in hopes that the lay clergy will not be a stumbling block for anyone. As a single person, I'm not bothered by it. I doubt I'd enjoy any calling better than teaching Sunday school anyway.
Re:I predict a miraculous revelation.... (Score:2)
Okay, you have a point that there are some academic freedom issues at BYU, especially in the humanities. You likely would get at least a good talking to if you wrote a paper about the archeological evidence against the Book of Mormon. (There is some archeological evidence supporting the Book or Mormon, but it is rather shaky.)
I think that you could probably get away with writing a paper about the political climate surrounding the 1978 revelation granting blacks the priesthood. While the climate surrounding the revelation (or "revelation" if you prefer) may have been political, those involved in the decision certainly thought that the revelation itself was more than just a savvy political decision. Link [mormonbeliefs.org]
And LDS women as second class citizens? I've never fully understood that attitude.
One more thing: sorry about the douche bag comment. A little caught up in the moment.
In the words of Brigham Young (Score:1, Informative)
Does thjis sound like hate to you?
"You see some classes of the human family that are black, uncouth, uncomely, disagreeable and low in their habits, wild, and seemingly deprived of nearly all the blessings of the intelligence that is generally bestowed upon mankind....Cain slew his brother. Can might have been killed, and that would have put a termination to that line of human beings. This was not to be, and the Lord put a mark upon him, which is the flat nose and black skin." (Journal of Discourses, Vol. 7, page 290).
"In our first settlement in Missouri, it was said by our enemies that we intended to tamper with the slaves, not that we had any idea of the kind, for such a thing never entered our minds. We knew that the children of Ham were to be the "servant of servants," and no power under heaven could hinder it, so long as the Lord would permit them to welter under the curse and those were known to be our religious views concerning them." (Journal of Discourses, Volume 2, page 172.)
"Shall I tell you the law of God in regard to the African race? If the white man who belongs to the chosen seed mixes his blood with the seed of Cain, the penalty, under the law of God, is death on the spot. This will always be so." (Journal of Discourses, Volume 10, page 110.)
Speach by Gov. Young in Joint Session of the Legeslature.
Feby. 5th 1852 giving his veiws on slavery.
" But say some, is there any thing of this kind in the Constitution, the U.S. has given us? If you will allow me the privilege telling right out, it is none of their damned buisness what we do or say here."
" I am as much oposed to the principle of slavery as any man in the present acceptation or usage of the term, it is abused. I am opposed to abuseing that which God has decreed, to take, a blessing, and make a curse of it. It is a great blessing to the seed of Adam to have the seed of Cain for servants, but those they serve should use them with all the heart and feeling, as they would use their own children, and their compassion should reach over them, and round about them, and treat them as kindly, and with that humane feeling necessary to be shown to mortall beings of the human species. Under these sercumstances there blessings in life are greater in proportion than those who have to provide the bread and dinner for them."
Re:Right into the trap... (Score:2)
BYU is a church school
Those words should never be used in the same sentence.
Re:Where is the half-truth? (Score:2, Interesting)
I know that, as an AC, you're unlikely to read this, but oh well. First, your question about what are half-truths: the part of a previous post where copponex stated the school was founded on principles of "racism, moral superiority, and hatred of atheists". Okay, so he produced a quote that might be interpreted as supporting the school being founded as a response to an atheist education. But the other two?
Citing the dress and grooming standards as being there because church members "fear" the female body? That's disingenuous, at best. And his point about "forced religion" is just false. Yes, you must get an endorsement from an ecclesiastical leader, basically stating that you are willing to abide by the school's regulations, but that's hardly forced religion. And I think that the fact that it's a church school is very relevant and excuses seemingly odd behavior like the dress and grooming standards. The church owns the school, and all who go there either agree to abide by the rules the church sets up, or goes elsewhere for their education.
And yes, the poster quoted parts of the honor code, but took them a little out of context and spun them in a way that did make BYU look bad. I valued my time there, and feel a need to right a perceived wrong.
Re:Where is the half-truth? (Score:4, Informative)
But the other two?
Shall I tell you the law of God in regard to the African Race? If the White man who belongs to the chosen seed mixes his blood with the seed of Cain, the penalty, under the law of God, is death on the spot. This will always be so. -Brigham Young
I am here to answer. I shall be on hand to answer when I am called upon, for all the counsel and for all the instruction that I have given to this people. If there is an Elder here, or any member of this Church, called the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, who can bring up the first idea, the first sentence that I have delivered to the people as counsel that is wrong, I really wish they would do it; but they cannot do it, for the simple reason that I have never given counsel that is wrong; this is the reason. -Brigham Young
Read on! Enlightenment awaits...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Book_of_Mormon_anachronisms [wikipedia.org]
Re:Where is the half-truth? (Score:2, Insightful)
Brigham Young didn't found BYU in 1875? (Score:3, Funny)
Brigham Young didn't found BYU in 1875? I guess next you'll argue that Christ didn't found Christianity. You'd be right, but you wouldn't know why.
Re:Brigham Young didn't found BYU in 1875? (Score:2)
That still does nothing to prove that BYU was founded on principles of racism and moral superiority. The University of Utah was founded in 1850, by the church-controlled General Assembly (Brigham Young was the governor). Is this institution also founded on principles of racism, moral superiority and hatred of atheism?
And your last statement "you wouldn't know" why is false. I am familiar with those arguments.
Re:Brigham Young didn't found BYU in 1875? (Score:2)
That still does nothing to prove that BYU was founded on principles of racism and moral superiority. The University of Utah was founded in 1850, by the church-controlled General Assembly (Brigham Young was the governor). Is this institution also founded on principles of racism, moral superiority and hatred of atheism?
And your last statement "you wouldn't know" why is false. I am familiar with those arguments.
Let me get this straight: you think the Mormon church in 1850 wasn't racist and they didn't believe they had moral superiority?
I can rebut this with a single quote from the original source: 2 Nephi 5
Wherefore, the word of the Lord was fulfilled which he spake unto me, saying that: Inasmuch as they will not hearken unto thy words they shall be cut off from the presence of the Lord. And behold, they were cut off from his presence.
And he had caused the cursing to come upon them, yea, even a sore cursing, because of their iniquity. For behold, they had hardened their hearts against him, that they had become like unto a flint; wherefore, as they were white, and exceedingly fair and delightsome, that they might not be enticing unto my people the Lord God did cause a skin of blackness to come upon them.
And thus saith the Lord God: I will cause that they shall be loathsome unto thy people, save they shall repent of their iniquities.
And cursed shall be the seed of him that mixeth with their seed; for they shall be cursed even with the same cursing. And the Lord spake it, and it was done.
And because of their cursing which was upon them they did become an idle people, full of mischief and subtlety, and did seek in the wilderness for beasts of prey.
Religions center around moral superiority. What do you think their purpose is?
Re:Brigham Young didn't found BYU in 1875? (Score:2)
One last reply before I get on with my life. I don't recall ever saying that the church isn't morally superior, or even that the church didn't keep the priesthood from the blacks for nearly 150 years (some blacks in the early church did hold the priesthood).
No, I was just saying that the quotes you provide do nothing to show that the school (or schools, when Univ. Utah is included as an institution formed by organizations controlled by the church) was founded on principles of racism, etc. You could sway me by showing quotes about BYU (and/or the U) that mention how racism is a fundamental principle that guided the schools' founding and mission.
Re:Brigham Young didn't found BYU in 1875? (Score:2, Troll)
You could sway me by showing quotes about BYU (and/or the U) that mention how racism is a fundamental principle that guided the schools' founding and mission.
You already gave up the argument. First, you denied that Young founded the school, because he was a racist, hated atheists, and thought his church was morally superior to all others. Then you state that the church founded the school. Why would a church found a school, if not to produce more good members of the church?
A good mormon follows the dogmas of the mormon Church. The dogma of the mormon church in the 1850s included racism, the inherent argument they have the morally superior set of ideals, and as every good bad idea, despises apostasy. Their ideal student product would have all of these attributes. The church today has dropped the racism bit, so they could keep their tax exempt status. I mean, because they received a revelation from God.
I call BS (Score:3, Funny)
http://honorcode.byu.edu/content/what-process-obtaining-beard-waiver [byu.edu]
I mean, this shit sounds like something you'd find the Taliban advocating.
I find it hard to believe that the Taliban are anti-beard. In fact:Taliban religious police jail beard-trimmers for 10 days [slashdot.org]
Re:I call BS (Score:2)
You misunderstand. He's not saying that mormons are similar to the taliban because they don't allow beards. He's saying they're similar because they agree that women are property and should be covered, gays should be shunned, and nobody should be allowed to make decisions for themselves outside of their strict religious teachings.
Re:Right into the trap... (Score:1)
Re:Right into the trap... (Score:2)
Mormons are "bibical literalists". We believe bible to be true "as far as it was translated correctly".
Most LDS people I know, believe that the universe was created using some unknown process that took an undeterminate amount of time. The 6 "days" could be retranslated in to 6 stages of creation.
From the founding of our church, we have been instructed to learn as much about science as we can.
Re:Right into the trap... (Score:1)
Re:Right into the trap... (Score:2)
depends on when you were a kid, and who your seminary teachers were.
I am 43. Most people in the Church accept evolution as a tool that God might use, but don't accept the evolution of Man.
Re:Right into the trap... (Score:1)
Re:Right into the trap... (Score:2)
Sorry about that. I'm in Idaho, in a town that wasn't settled by Mormons
I know the type of people you are talking about though. Most of them would be nuts about their reliegion if they were Baptist, Moslem, or Budhist though.
Brigham Young's science quotes (Score:1, Informative)
For example, Brigham Young's lunatic ramblings about how he believes that minerals 'grow' like plants or hair on a person's head.
Also crazy stuff about his belief that adobe is vastly superior to stone as a building material because adobe will mature into something strong, but stone has already matured, so now that it's mature, the next step is for it to decay.
He tells us that the Egyptian monuments built of stone are all gone, but the ones built of mud and straw are still here.
Guess he's never been to Egypt.
"Let the practical chemist make his observations upon a portionof the matter of which this earth is composed; and he will find, that justas quick as it is at its perfection, that very instant it begins to decompose.We have proof of this. Go into Egypt, for instance, and you will find themonuments, towers, and pyramids, that were erected in the days of Joseph,and before he was sold into Egypt; they were built of what we call adobies,clay mixed up with straw; these fabrics, which have excited interest forso many ages, and are the wonder of modern nations, were built of this rawmaterial. They have bid defiance to the wear of ages, and they still remain.But you cannot find a stone column that was reared in those times, for theyare all decayed. Here we have actual proof that the matter which is thefurthest advanced to a state of perfection, is the first to decompose, andgo back into its native element, at which point it begins to be organizedagain, it begins to congeal, petrify, and harden into rock, which growslike a tree, but not so perceptibly."
"Gold and silver grow, and so does every other kind of metal, the sameas the hair upon my head, or the wheat in the field; they do not grow asfast, but they are all the time composing or decomposing."
-- Brigham Young, Journal of Discourses, vol-1
http://journalofdiscourses.org/Vol_01/refJDvol1-36.html
Not content with proclaiming these brilliant pieces of geological wisdom, Brigham Young goes on to tell us that God plays hide-and-seek with gold and silver mines.
"Ask the brethren why they do this, and the ready reply will be, 'Is it not my privilege to find af gold mine or a silver mine as well as others?' As far as I am concerned I would say, 'Yes, certainly it is your privilege, if you can find one.' But do you know how to find such ha mine? No, you do not, These treasures that are in the earth are carefully watched, they can be removed from place to place according to the good pleasure of Him who made them and owns them.
He has his messengers at his service, and it is just as easy for an angel to remove the minerals from any part of one of these mountains to another, as it is for you and me to walk up and down this hall.
This however is not understood by the Christian world, nor by us as a people. There are certain circumstances that a number of my brethren and sisters have heard me relate, that will demonstrate this so positively, that none need doubt the truth of what I say." -- Brigham Young, Journal of Discourses, vol-19 p36-37, 17 June 1877
http://contentdm.lib.byu.edu/cdm4/document.php?CISOROOT=/JournalOfDiscourses3&CISOPTR=9597&REC=19
After telling us how God moves gold and silver mines so that the wrong people don't find them, Brigham Young blathers on a bit about how his friends find buried treasure left behind by the 'Lamanites' and then he spins a yarn about Oliver Cowdery, Joseph Smith, and more treasure.
Brigham claims that Oliver Cowdery and Joseph Smith returned the gold plates of the Book of Mormon to the 'Hill Cumorah' in New York. He claims that the hill 'opend' for them and inside the hill is a huge cave that is stacked with piles of gold plates.
". . . I lived right in the country where the plates were found from which the Book of Mormon was translated, and I know a great many things pertaining to that country, and I know a great many things pertaining to that country.
I believe I will take the liberty to tell you of another circumstance that wi
Re:Right into the trap... (Score:4, Interesting)
a term you clearly picked to deprave those you obviously don't understand
No disagreement there. Being terrified of women and certain styles of grooming and atheists and homosexuals is certainly something I don't understand. And I say terrified, since they aren't allowed to be any of those things near the "clean" students at BYU. All, of course, except for the beards. I guess beards aren't so scary.
Never do they force others to be their religion, or to be a member of any other.
You didn't read. It's important:
LDS students may be endorsed only by the bishop of the ward (1) in which they live and (2) that holds their current Church membership record.
Non-LDS students are to be endorsed by (1) the local ecclesiastical leader if the student is an active member of the congregation, (2) the bishop of the LDS ward in which they currently reside, or (3) the nondenominational BYU chaplain.
So, how does an atheist stay within the honor code?
Re:Right into the trap... (Score:1, Flamebait)
You may be right. "Hatred" of gays, women, and athiests might be more precise.
Re:Right into the trap... (Score:5, Interesting)
>And they certainly don't advocate killing others to enforce
>what they believe.
Really? They did comparatively recently:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mountain_Meadows_massacre [wikipedia.org]
I for one would never support any religion capable of such an atrocity, much less one which would conspire at all levels to cover it up instead of seeking forgiveness and making reparations. The world would be a much better place if primitive religions were treated as the bunkum they are. Why tax fuels, carbon, tobacco, or alcohol, when the real danger is the superstition and intolerance emanating from the pulpit? We should be taxing churches instead of making them tax-exempt.
>Feel free to compare them to Islam if you like (and there's
>some interesting comparisons there)... but drawing on the
>Taliban? Come on!
Hmm, Mormons and the Taliban... They both hate gays, check. They each treat women as subordinate to men, check. They each have a history of violent intolerance of outsiders, check. They both have a bizarre fixation on facial hair, check. They both use religious schools to indoctrinate the young, check. They both dictate special clothing (burqas, sacred underwear), check.
Yep, Mormons (and other intolerant fundamentalist sects) are the American Taliban.
Re:Right into the trap... (Score:2, Informative)
This is about as off-topic as off-topic can be. But nonetheless, that wikipedia article you cited to support your position that Mormons have a "violent history" doesn't support your position very well. When I got down to the section that discusses Brigham Young's involvement (and thus official involvement of "the Church") in the massacre, it appears that the massacre may likely have been merely the unsanctioned actions of several people who were Mormons. Just some angry Mormons. There is no solid evidence that "the Church" participated in the massacre at all.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mountain_Meadows_massacre#Alleged_involvement_of_Brigham_Young
That's like saying the Mormon church sanctions bank robbery because a rogue Mormon--Butch Cassidy--robbed banks.
http://www.utah.com/oldwest/butch_cassidy.htm
Re:Right into the trap... (Score:2)
1. It's interesting how people get so fixated on the Mountain Meadows massacre when that pales in comparison to the number of Mormons killed during the extermination order given by Boggs, the Haun's Mill massacre, the evacuation of Far West, and the subsequent push westward. That doesn't at all make Mountain Meadows massacre right, but it does help keep things in perspective.
2. Young did not order the attack but launched an investigation after the massacre. At least Haight and Lee were excommunicated. To use the Mountain Meadows massacre as an example in hopes to prove that Mormons somehow "secretly" endorse murder is desperate or at least naive.
3. The Mormon church does not "hate gays." Individual mormons could hate gays just like some individual evangelicals, Catholics or atheists may, but the Church continues to endorse the idea of loving one's neighbors and enemies. It is true that homosexuality is one of the more grievous sins (punishable by death under the old law), and for that reason gay people must necessarily repent before they be can hold any position of leadership, for example. Given the Mormon view that homosexuality is a sin, what you view as intolerance of the Church would really be the intolerance God has for sin. Of course, the grace of Christ provides everyone the opportunity to repent, so it's not like anyone is excluded. In other words, anyone who doesn't enter the Church does so by choice, not because they were excluded. God Himself will judge all; the Church itself makes no determination of the state of any person's "afterlife." Of course, repentance is literally turning away from sin, and everyone is capable of doing that if they will. Your view of a "tolerant" church without standards where anything and everything goes may make you feel good because it's easy, but I personally am not interested in religion which doesn't push me to be better. Judeo-christianity has always been about taking up one's cross and striving to be better. Christ's preaching of "repentance" would have been pointless had the Church He and the apostles established been "tolerant" according to your definition.
Just some thoughts.
Re:Right into the trap... (Score:2)
offtopic...
To me, gay and other sexual behaviors are easily explainable by life itself. There's (almost never) pure 0 and 1 in nature, especially as soon as one start aggregating low level molecules. There's always a wide range of options in between. This yields for both a microscopic physical level as well as macroscopic ones and everything in between. Thus the wide range of sexual _behaviors_.
Note: that's my reasoning and I don't ask anyone to agree with it.
Re:Right into the trap... (Score:2)
So .... Taliban Light?
New school motto:
When you want all of the religious extremism, with none of the pesky beheadings, try Taliban Light (tm)!
Re:Right into the trap... (Score:2)
Re:BYU has a Paleontology department? (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:BYU has a Paleontology department? (Score:2)
Maybe one day their students will be allowed to grow beards and have private sex lives.
Not to mention a cup of coffee.
Re:BYU has a Paleontology department? (Score:3, Informative)
Sounds like you haven't read very much on the subject that was accurate.
Theologically, Mormons are not creationists in the same sense as evangelical Christians. Mormons do not believe in creation ex nihilo. Nor do Mormons hold to a literal 6 24-hour days creation, or that the earth is only 6000 years old. Creation came about over millions of years through natural processes, which science is doing an admiral job discovering. Since Mormons believe that human agency is the most important part of existence, then it makes sense that all of creation can come about and be explained without seeing or knowing God. There are no signatures on glaciers. No one is forced to believe in God. To say otherwise (like the intelligent designer folks) is to say that God is weak, meaning that if his works can be explained or understood through processes and principles, then he cannot be God.
Religion deals more with why, not how. Thus to Mormons, there should be no conflict between belief and science. And officially, the LDS church has no position on evolution either. Most LDS scientists recognize it as a principle of nature, and various leaders throughout the last 100 years or so have stated their personal opinions that evolution is not wrong.
Anyway, the bones are there and they have been dated. Mormons accept this and the science behind palaeontology, and study it, enjoy dinosaur museums, and even wonder what the Bonneville Lake was like back in the day.
Re:BYU has a Paleontology department? (Score:2)
You are correct that Mormons and Christians have little in common in regard to theology.
You have to understand (Score:2)
Anyone who has seen this list: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Book_of_Mormon_anachronisms [wikipedia.org]
and anyone who has read about their belief system would be forgiven for believing that Mormons have a very poor grasp of what science is. After decades of searching and finding no "Mormon cities" in Central America, I can't say I have scientific respect for any geologist or paleontologist or linguist or anthropologist who remains in the church. The entire hypothesis of the religion is scientifically falsifiable and falsified. So why continue with the charade?
(Notice these claims are made by all religions. Mormonism made the fatal mistake of making specific claims, and in a time where printing presses made their first mistakes all too easy to read.)
Re:BYU has a Paleontology department? (Score:2)
Here you go (Score:2)
I hope to see an Academy established in Provo that shall do honor to our Territory, and at which the children of the Latter-day Saints can receive a good education unmixed with the pernicious atheistic influences that are found in so many of the higher schools of the country. -Brigham Young
Shall I tell you the law of God in regard to the African Race? If the White man who belongs to the chosen seed mixes his blood with the seed of Cain, the penalty, under the law of God, is death on the spot. This will always be so. -Brigham Young
I am here to answer. I shall be on hand to answer when I am called upon, for all the counsel and for all the instruction that I have given to this people. If there is an Elder here, or any member of this Church, called the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, who can bring up the first idea, the first sentence that I have delivered to the people as counsel that is wrong, I really wish they would do it; but they cannot do it, for the simple reason that I have never given counsel that is wrong; this is the reason. -Brigham Young
Re:BYU has a Paleontology department? (Score:2)
This *should* be offtopic, but... (Score:2, Offtopic)
Headline: Blanket assumption based more on stereotype than actual familiarity turns out to be untrue. Film at 11.
A lot of people seem to think that theology/cosmology is inherently constraining when it comes to serious scientific work, and I suppose the output those like the Intelligent Design crowd does a lot to reinforce that, but my experience suggests that there's no shortage of religious people who excel in scientific and technical fields, who accept the standards of those fields whether or not they seem to conflict with religious beliefs on some point, and do solid work -- even groundbreaking work.
Some of that experience is directly with BYU, where I've found that most of the science faculty is inline with broader scientific views... for example, by and large they conclude that evolution is the best framework for studying biology and believe that's how most of life on earth came to be in its given state. And that even if you like to think of yourself as a smart person and come complete with various metrics outside of two standard deviations to prove it, there are probably Mormons who are in fact as smart or smarter than you by those metrics. It's certainly true for me. And they take the idea of scholarship and professionalism pretty seriously.
There are certainly counterexamples; I've met people with a certain kind of view-rigidity characterized by a general literalism and intolerance for ambiguity who I believe are blinded by their cosmology/theology. But then again, my observation is that this isn't a problem limited to the religious or religion, and based on the shallowly dismissive attitude in the parent poster's post, it seems likely he's amongst the afflicted.
Re:This *should* be offtopic, but... (Score:2)
There are certainly counterexamples; I've met people with a certain kind of view-rigidity characterized by a general literalism and intolerance for ambiguity who I believe are blinded by their cosmology/theology. But then again, my observation is that this isn't a problem limited to the religious or religion, and based on the shallowly dismissive attitude in the parent poster's post, it seems likely he's amongst the afflicted.
I can state that horses, swine, cattle, chariots, iron swords, silk, and Jews did not exist in America before it's colonization by Europeans in the 16th Century. Can your colleagues at BYU agree with those statements?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Book_of_Mormon_anachronisms [wikipedia.org]
The point is not whether a religious person can perform good science - the scientific method eliminates the importance of the background of the scientist. The question is whether you can have a seriously open academic discussion at BYU. The answer is, yes of course! As long as it doesn't clash with the beliefs of a certain church.
In my opinion, that does far more harm than good.
Re:This *should* be offtopic, but... (Score:2)
I can state that horses, swine, cattle, chariots, iron swords, silk, and Jews did not exist in America before it's colonization by Europeans in the 16th Century. Can your colleagues at BYU agree with those statements?
I can't speak specifically to those statements, as most of the acquaintances I have aren't in that field. I haven't really cared enough to dig into related questions or Mormon apologia. Most of the Mormon academics I'm acquainted with seem to either feel there exist justifications/answers for challenges like this, or believe their experiences with the faith are as epistemologically trustworthy as modern statements about pre-colonial Americas. Others disagree. That's fine with me; I'm not here to prove that Mormons are correct. I'm here to tell you that if you generally classify research done by Mormons as unintelligent and lacking then you're wrong.
The answer is, yes of course! As long as it doesn't clash with the beliefs of a certain church.
Apparently this happens less often than you might expect. If the reports of my acquaintances are correct, academic freedom isn't a particular problem except in certain political/sociological areas. There's a general understanding that BYU is definitely not the place to be if your field is, say, postmodern literature with an emphasis on feminist theory, or if you want to explore darkly violent theater, or focus on sociology of homosexuality, so, I wouldn't go to BYU to work on these things. I don't think anyone is really surprised. Similarly, I wouldn't go to the University of Chicago to study certain kinds of economics. The university politics are apparently generally not worse, just different.
Re:BYU has a Paleontology department? (Score:2)
Re:Science in Utah? (Score:1)
Re:Science in Utah? (Score:1, Redundant)
Re:Science in Utah? (Score:2)
Actually it did live alongside man, but man was a small rodentlike creature at the time.
Re:Science in Utah? (Score:2)
65 million years ago, my great-great grandpa scurried under a rock to avoid a dinosaur. Yesterday, I scraped droppings off my car from that dino's great-great grandson.
Re:Science in Utah? (Score:1)
The problem is when the legistlature of the state has recently released an opinion that completely goes against commonly accepted scientific principle, it is reasonable to question the likelihood of anything scientific coming from the state.
Re:Science in Utah? (Score:2)
Except your comment didn't make any sense. BYU != Utah legislature. Mormons aren't even creationists, so if you were trying to make a joke, it wasn't funny.
Yes! We demand strict factual accuracy in all humor! It is impossible for something to be funny unless it is entirely true! The inclusion of any untrue information in a joke automatically negates any humor which may have been contained within.
Re:Skolls? (Score:2)
"Sauropod skolls are rarely found in the fossil record because the soft tissue from which they are constructed is unlikely to be preserved after death."
Correction. They are rarely found because nobody quite knows what a "skoll" is.
It's a kind of chewing tobacco, right?
Re:Abydosaurus mcintoshi (Score:2)
Nope. They wore proganochelynecks.