Paul's Head Coverings (1 Cor 11) and Baptism of the Dead

I'll be coming up with a post about the Ancient Christian practice of head veiling soon. Paul, according to Mormons, commanded baptism for the dead 1 Corinthians. While his one-verse acknowledgement of the practice is taken as proof that it was taught by the Apostles, meaning the LDS church can maintain its stance as a Restoration of the church before its apostasy, an entire commandment by Paul is ignored about women wearing a head veiling during prayer. What happened to restoring the ancient practices of pre-apostasized Christianity?

Paul said of the commandment: "But if one is inclined to be contentious, we have no other practice, nor have the churches of God." (1 Cor 11:16, NASB)

For what, today, seems to be a commandment rejected as born from a culture that's no longer around, we're left begging the question: if a commandment that was this serious in Paul's writings can be thrown out for pertaining only to a culture from long ago, or that Paul was mistaken due to cultural norms that no one follows anymore, what else in his writings were born from cultural norms alone? Should we toss out other commandments that were born from the mistaken assumptions of a culture?

If head veiling was a widely and officially accepted practice among the Ancient Christian church, but baptism of the dead--which deals with salvation of the dead and not just culturally-driven modesty--didn't make it, then what does that say of the claim that the Apostles actually taught baptism of the dead to the ancient christian church?

More on this later, when time allows. First, a repository for useful information:

FAIR on Restoration:
Thus, the Latter-day Saints claim their church is an actual restoration of primitive Christianity, as it existed under the Apostles in the first century A.D.

...what if we find that the doctrines Joseph Smith restored were, indeed, legitimate early Christian beliefs and practices from the first two or three centuries after Christ? If Joseph Smith taught doctrines that are in harmony with those of the early church but which were essentially unknown in his time, the skeptic must provide an explanation for the phenomenon. We shall see that the Prophet did restore legitimate early Christian doctrines, many of which can be shown to have preceded the present doctrines of the mainline Christian denominations–and he did so in the absence of much of the primary data available today. How could this have happened? If Joseph Smith’s explanation does not suffice, some other explanation must be put forth.

(Later, in the Conclusions page of the Restoration series from FAIR)

Had Joseph Smith created a church which differed from the other churches of his day and which had no relation to what we now know of the primitive church, his claim to be a restorer would be blatantly fraudulent, but since support for his teachings and ideas is so abundant from early documents, not in a general way, but in numerous specifics, one has to conclude that there was some source other than his own imagination for these striking parallels.

Early church father quotes: http://www.earlychristiandictionary.com/Veil.html

BYU:

"Most Christians in Corinth, regardless of their background, would have had similar feelings about the hair and veiling of women. Long hair was an expected sign of femininity, and covering it could be a sign of modesty and reverence, while cutting it was a sign of disgrace."

Cited from Eric Huntsman:
Eric D. Huntsman, “‘The Wisdom of Men’: Greek Philosophy, Corinthian Behavior, and the Teachings of Paul,” Shedding Light on the New Testament: Acts–Revelation, ed. Ray L. Huntington, Frank F. Judd Jr., and David M. Whitchurch (Provo, UT: Religious Studies Center, Brigham Young University, 2009), 67–97.

Jesus the Homosexual and How Apologists Use Different Translations of a Word to Support their Beliefs

You know how apologists will search for different translations of a word in the Bible? One that, in particular, would support their belief system?

This technique can also be used to show that Jesus was gay. In a surprising article from Debunking Christianity, Jesus the Homosexual:

However, the Greek social culture does not stop with Greek philosophical terms, but as in Greek society, the author of the Fourth Gospels has the older Jesus take a younger lover or what was well know and common in Greek culture as Pederasty (the courting by an older male of a younger male entering puberty until his late teens). While Jesus enjoys a close relationship with twelve men, the Fourth Gospel lets the reader know that Jesus has indeed chosen a young lover τὸν μαθητὴν ὃν ἠγάπα ὁ Ἰησοῦς (the disciple Jesus loved (ἠγάπα = Imperfect, indicative, Active, 3 singular) who is said to lie (ἀνέπεσεν) on top of Jesus’ body (κόλπῳ) at the Passover Supper.

[A note on English translations: To tone down the erotic nature, English translations tend to paraphrase John 13: 23: “the disciple, whom Jesus loved, was reclining next to him.” (New International Version); “The disciple Jesus loved was sitting next to Jesus at the table.” (New Living Translation); “One of his disciples, whom Jesus loved, was reclining at table close to Jesus,” (English Standard Version) and even the King James Version, “Now there was leaning on Jesus' bosom one of his disciples, whom Jesus loved.” But either these versions paraphrase the Greek with a totally new inoffensive non-erotic meaning or – like the King James Version - gives the impression this disciple was simply resting his head on a 45 degree reclining chest of Jesus.

[Note on ἠγάπα (Agape Love): Though Christians claim that agape is used only as spiritual or divine love, this claim cannot be supported in the Bible or more in precisely the LXX (Septuagint). In the story of The Rape of Tamar by her brother Amnon in 2 Samuel 13, we are told in 13: 1 that “… καὶ ἠγάπησεν αὐτὴν αμνων υἱὸς δαυιδ.” and Amnon the son of David loved (agaped) her. Here agape as used for the love of lust which would finally lead to rape. Thus, likewise, Jesus’ love for this one special disciple could just as well be one of sexual lust.]

[Note on κόλπῳ (torso): The English translation of just where the beloved disciple was lying on Jesus’ body is highly paraphrased from this disciple simply reclining next to Jesus to lying on Jesus’ breast. However, the Oxford Classical Dictionary of Liddle, Scott, and Jones gives the first definition of κόλπος either as bosom or lap. The second definition places κόλπος in the genital area between the legs as in the vigina area in women. In the LXX, it can be used for a position of sex intercourse (Genesis 16: 4).

Religious belief and the story of Fred

As a Christian, I'd think of how loving God was on a personal level with me. I'd say or think how great God was for giving me such a beautiful day, great friends, etc. I associated all my "blessings" to Him. And I did so completely without reason.

Imagine I propped up a friend of mine, I'll call him Fred. Fred is an overall great person, I think--highly intelligent, very compassionate, became a multi-millionaire by following in his Dad's high-dollar successful footsteps. But I owed Fred a huge financial debt. He lent me money to start a business of my own, and I just knew it would be successful some day. I'd become educated at a decent business program and etc.

But after two years, the cash wasn't coming in as quickly as I'd hoped it would. The debt was racking up big time. Fred knew it, too. And my deadline for repaying my loan was a month from now. The situation was horribly grim--my financial well-being was entirely on the line, let alone my family's.

The month passes, and I've made only marginal improvement. Not enough to prevent my business from defaulting on this loan by a long shot.

Fred, observing the hopeless situation from above, comes up with a plan. He buys my business and takes on all my debt (yes, I'm great at being subtle. Bear with me).

Fred is an incredibly, generously wonderful person, and it becomes clear to me that I owe my life to him. In return, he says, I need to live a financially respectable life by not borrowing more than I could return. He tells me exactly how to do just that. What a teacher, giving me the "secrets" to financial well-being. I go on living life in an abundance of wealth, happily knowing that even my grand children will have college paid for. All because Fred saved me from crushing debt and then taught me how to avoid getting into debt ever again.

Who could disagree that Fred is just a completely great person? He lifted me up when I was weak, he took on my debt--likely at the sacrifice of some asset of his, and he even taught me how to achieve financial well-being. What a man he is to pass down the lessons he learned from his own father to us!

We all know the story isn't true. I don't have financial debt like this. I completely made up the part where I was in debt. But if I was the speaker at a conference and told this story like it was true, the people would hold Fred in really high esteem. They'd probably want to know more about what this financial genius thought good money management was. Perhaps they'd see some improvement in their own financial lives and think "Oh wow, that advice actually works! Fred is so great, I hope he writes a new book soon" and so on. I'd hold seminars that'd make me rich--just so I could donate the money to charity, right? Gotta spread the good news so people are better off themselves.

This is completely analogous to God and sin. However, whereas money and financial debt convey value for the use of exchange, sin is just a mental construct. We assign sins value, but how?

Take a look at Islam. Their equivalent of the Standard Works says that it's a sin to associate anything with Allah (like drawing pictures of Mohammad).

It's obvious to anyone outside Islam that this sin is entirely false according to our own religious realities.

That sin's value was man-made.

What makes Islam's sins any different from Christianity, Judaism, or, in particular, Mormonism?

Why is your religion's definition of sin from God, but not Islam's?

Fred is an authority in finance to the people of my hypothetical conference. And I'll find you a real-world example if you think the story doesn't portray human nature at all. But Fred doesn't exist. Being well-off financially takes sacrifice and not spending more than you own. This is a timeless principle, and anyone could say some legendary Fred guy saved them from debt and taught them how to be wealthy; only to provide advice associated with him that really just came from me.

Why should you believe me when I say those financial principles are from Fred? And when you come up for reasons why not, then how do those answers relate to God?

Is the Mormon church heading towards apostasy?

A post by a Mormon thoroughly details how the Mormon church is following in the footsteps of early Christianity's eventual apostasy. He does so to instill a sense of urgency in changing the direction things are going in: one that includes a change in scripture, a self-corruption that attempts to make the church seem normal to the world, a disgusting amount of money not spent on the poor (and goes instead, of course, to the shopping malls and grand temples), a complete lack of revelation (you're challenged to find a revelation from post-late-1800's), and so on. He did a great job on the post, though, so don't think that summary did the work proper justice!

Another blog posts an article from Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought about a kid who unwittingly reveals the same pattern while conversing with his dad about something he heard from his Primary teacher(read it here). Here's a fun sample of it:

“What do you mean ‘proud,’ Daddy?” 

“Well, [the "evil" people in a story from the BoM] would talk about how they were ‘a chosen and holy people.’” 

“My Primary teach said Mormons are the chosen people and we’re a special generation.” 

“Yes, honey, but that’s different.” 

“How?” 

“Because we are.” 

"Oh."

Of course, to me it seems inevitable that the church would decline. It's run by people who, I believe, don't have supernatural anything. And these people, like everyone else, can become corrupted by other people's interests, by groupthink, by mob mentality, and on and on. Of course the church had to reverse its position on blacks not getting the priesthood, and why was that a practice in the first place? Why were the Hoffman forgeries not found out before the apologist themselves started defending them? From what I remember, it was the most infamous "anti-Mormon" duo in recent times that revealed the truth! They didn't even have the Spirit to help guide their actions (or did they?).

The church allowed the Nazis their genealogy records to help determine who was Aryan or part Jewish (terribly useful moment of revelation) (also, a starting place for personal research)

It put a lot of money and organizational effort into going against Proposition 8, which failed (and backfired).

There has been a large decrease in the number of active Mormons, and people still wonder why?

I'm glad to see posts from Mormons who can see what's happening in the church and voice a criticism while seeing that criticism can, in fact, be useful and necessary.

But it's obvious to everyone else what's going on here and in the religious world as a whole: nothing is adding up.

Churches are presenting to their members the Truth they should believe--associating the belief and following of this Truth to the almighty supernatural; to this all-knowing and all-powerful, father-creator figure that blesses us accordingly. And everything is beautiful about it.

 People say they get job offers because they converted to a new religion. They were blessed financially because they tithed to God's Church. They found their wonderful spouse because God guided them to each other after joining His church.

And everyone who leaves or criticizes this beautiful interaction is lost, hopeless, and probably led astray by the Devil.

Meanwhile, big things have happened in my life after I stopped praying about them. I've found social circles that will stand the test of time. I've found that my blessings aren't so much a supernatural occurrence, but a by-product of self-confidence, a strong personal identity, and living in a goddamn first world country.

"Life is good", I said as a straight white male born into an upper-middle class family located in the Bible belt.

Riiiiight. Wonder why.

Einstein on Religion

Einstein has some pretty set views against religion. Here's a strong quote for the next time someone brings up how Einstein makes references to God, or if you just want to relate to a pretty legendary person in history:

The word God is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human weakness, the Bible a collection of honorable, but still purely primitive, legends which are nevertheless pretty childish. No interpretation no matter how subtle can (for me) change this. ... For me the Jewish religion like all other religions is an incarnation of the most childish superstition. And the Jewish people to whom I gladly belong ... have no different quality for me than all other people. As far as my experience goes, they are also no better than other human groups, although they are protected from the worst cancers by a lack of power.

The Book of Abraham takes a massive hit from scholarship

“Except for those willfully blind,” writes Professor Ritner of the University of Chicago’s Oriental Institute, “the case is closed.” (read full article here).

Finally, a highly credible scholar of Egyptology wrote a book about the Book of Abraham and the papyri: The Joseph Smith Papyri: A Complete Edition. He even provides the various translations to Egyptian writings on top of his own original ones!

Before you form an unsolicited opinion of him, just check out the first link you find when you Google his name--Robert Ritner. In fact, here's the summary you'll read:

Robert K. Ritner is currently Professor of Egyptology at the Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago and was from 1991-1996 the first Marilyn M. Simpson Assistant Professor of Egyptology at Yale University. Dr. Ritner specializes in Roman, Hellenistic, Late and Third Intermediate Period (Libyan and Nubian) Egypt and is the author of the book The Mechanics of Ancient Egyptian Magical Practice, and over 100 publications on Egyptian religion, magic, medicine, language and literature, as well as social and political history. He has lectured extensively on each of these topics throughout the United States, Europe and Egypt. In association with The Field Museum of Chicago, Dr. Ritner was the academic advisor to two recent British Museum exhibits “Cleopatra of Egypt: From History to Myth,” and “Eternal Egypt,” and he has served as consultant and lecturer for the travelling Cairo Museum exhibit “Quest for Immortality: Treasures of Ancient Egypt.”

This book might just throw it in the bag for one of the most damning bits of evidence against Mormonism.

Someone should buy it for $80.

Gut feelings, the basal ganglia, and Daniel Goleman's latest Emotional Intelligence research

Guess what the Mormons got right?

Well, half right (disclaimer: not sure on the other half). In Daniel Goleman's latest book, "The Brain and Emotional Intelligence: New Insights", he said something so interesting that I decided to come out of my cave (i.e., living a really social life) and write a blog post:

Lower in the brain, below the limbic areas, lies a neural network called the basal ganglia. This is a very primitive part of the brain, but it does something extraordinarily important for navigating the modern world.

as we go through every situation in life, the basal ganglia extracts decision rules: when I did that, that worked well; when I said this, it bombed, and so on. Our accumulated life wisdom is stored in this primitive circuitry. However, when we face a decision, it's our verbal cortex that generates our thoughts about it. But to more fully access our life experiences on the matter at hand, we need to access further inputs from that subcortical circuitry [where our basal ganglia lies]. While the basal ganglia may have some connection to the verbal areas, it turns out to have very rich connections to our gastrointestinal tract--the gut. So in making [a] decision, a gut sense of it being right or wrong is important information, too."

Turns out, all of our decisions have an emotional component to them. Earlier in his book, he mentions a study done in which a highly successful and intelligent lawyer had to undergo brain surgery to get a tumor removed. This surgery marked a turning point in his life: he went on to lose his career, his marriage, and move in with a family member. However, he was just as intelligent as he once was.

Turns out, during the surgery, a certain part of the connective tissue in the brain was cut in order to reach the tumor. He can't attach feelings to decisions, so he was unable to determine simple things such as what time would be best to make the next appointment for his study.

CHRIST!! Why is our decision making and personality so tied into our biology? One more point for free will being an illusion :/

Anyways, I encourage you to download the ebook or print version of this book. Great stuff, as you can tell.

Dr. Michael Coe – An Outsider’s View of Book of Mormon Archaeology

Dr. Michael Coe – An Outsider’s View of Book of Mormon Archaeology (from Mormon Stories podcast).

I swear, Blogger's almost turning into my personal Reddit favorites.

Anyways, for those unfamiliar with Dr. Coe, here's a great description taken from the link i just gave you:

Dr. Michael Coe is the Charles J. MacCurdy professor emeritus of Anthropology at Yale University and curator emeritus of the Division of Anthropology at the school’s Peabody Museum of Natural History. He is an expert on the Maya, who inhabited the same part of Mexico and Central American where Mormon scholars say the events of the Book of Mormon took place.

A post for my records

iamanexmormon video.

Social pressures and false memories and Mormon miracles

From the lovely world of r/cogsci comes a link to ScienceDaily titled How Social Pressure Can Affect What We Remember: Scientists Track Brain Activity as False Memories Are Formed.

Turns out, social pressures can affect what we remember--to the point where a false memory becomes King.

The study went something like this:
1) volunteers watch a documentary
2) they return 3 days later to fill out a memory test and were told to rate their confidence in their memories
3) later, they were taken back to the lab to fill out the test while being scanned by an fMRI machine
3.1) While taking the test, they were given a "lifeline" in which they were given the supposed answers of their fellow viewers, alongside social-media-esque pics
3.2) the participants ended up answering incorrectly 70% of the time, even though they had previously answered correctly and with high confidence
4) to test whether this was due to social demands or no, they took the participants back to the lab
4.1) they were told to take the memory test yet again
4.2) they were also told that the answers they'd received from the "lifeline" were randomly generated by a computer

The grand finale: nearly half of the participants retained their false beliefs.

But just look at the fMRI results, summarized by the researchers:

An analysis of the fMRI data showed differences in brain activity between the persistent false memories and the temporary errors of social compliance. The most outstanding feature of the false memories was a strong co-activation and connectivity between two brain areas: the hippocampus and the amygdala. The hippocampus is known to play a role in long-term memory formation, while the amygdala, sometimes known as the emotion center of the brain, plays a role in social interaction. The scientists think that the amygdala may act as a gateway connecting the social and memory processing parts of our brain; its "stamp" may be needed for some types of memories, giving them approval to be uploaded to the memory banks. Thus social reinforcement could act on the amygdala to persuade our brains to replace a strong memory with a false one.

Does anyone else see the implications?

Want to revisit the evolution of a Mormon miracle?

Oh my god, the antichrist (and Michelle Bachman's church)

It's not like an anti-Mormon, an anti-American, or "hostile towards" anything in that sense.

Anti, in the Greek, I just learned, can also mean "opposite, counterpart".

And that definition of the prefix, according to this article, is what Luther had in mind when he declared the Pope to be the "anti-Christ".

The church Michelle Bachman was a part of, the Wisconsin Evangelical Lutheran Synod, holds this stance too.


Now, I'm probably more surprised at this definition because it's been over a year since I've cared to read what the Bible said about the anti-Christ (somewhere in... Thessalonians?).

Still, having lived in the Bible Belt where Obama usually upholds this title, I always thought it was something more menacing. Maybe it still is under that definition. I don't know.

It'd be interesting to hear the full history of that term though.

Hello, Wikipedia

Live and Let Live: hypocrisy?

"Live and let live" was the general idea behind a recent post on r/atheism from a believer.

I mostly agree with this idea. But a comment from an atheist really appealed to why this idea is disagreeable:
"Live and let oppress I think you mean. Or live and let rape. Or live and let mutilate. Or live and let lie about aids. If you were just living, I'd be fucking fine with that."

Sure, he cites some of the more extreme examples of where "live and let live" go wrong. But here's the general issue: the believer from this post cited "live and let live" when his religion doesn't follow that same line of thought.

And obviously, Mormonism falls under this issue.

I'm not going to turn into some raging critic and share with every Mormon the history of their church, but if they ever brought the idea of "just letting people live" in some casual conversation about whatever, I'd have something to remind them of.

A post for my own records--"Evolution of a Mormon Miracle"

http://wigroom.blogspot.com/2011/07/it-doesnt-matter-if-its-true-evolution.html.

Also, it reminds me of how horrendous i leave the writing on my own blog.

Sorrys

Religion is like a Relationship, figuratively as well as physiologically

Dear god, I've been saying this ever since I realized how similar my relationship with people I loved was similar to how I "loved" God. Sure, there's no real "give and take" like a true human relationship, but I easily believed there was. I mean, God gave his one and only son to die for me!

Anyways.

Turns out there's scientific backing to this little musing:
"Scientists have so far identified about 20 hard-wired, evolved "adaptations" as the building blocks of religion. Like attachment, they are mechanisms that underlie human interactions: Brain-imaging studies at the National Institutes of Health showed that when test subjects were read statements about religion and asked to agree or disagree, the same brain networks that process human social behavior — our ability to negotiate relationships with others — were engaged."

This and other ways that science has shown how belief is embedded in the brain can be read at this link: http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-oe-thompson-atheism-20110718,0,5682260.story.

The article has a fun title, too: "Science and religion: God didn't make man; man made gods"

Enjoy.

Edit: another fun snippet--"Among the psychological adaptations related to religion are our need for reciprocity, our tendency to attribute unknown events to human agency, our capacity for romantic love, our fierce "out-group" hatreds and just as fierce loyalties to the in groups of kin and allies. Religion hijacks these traits. The rivalry between Sunni and Shiite Muslims, for example, or the doctrinal battles between Protestant and Catholic reflect our "groupish" tendencies."

Free Agency under fire (in case you missed it from USU Shaft's link bomb)

This article was linked from USU Shaft's link bomb #21, but the Neuroscientist who wrote the article made such a strong case for the following point that I had to re-post:

When your biology changes, so can your decision-making and your desires. The drives you take for granted (“I’m a heterosexual/homosexual,” “I’m attracted to children/adults,” “I’m aggressive/not aggressive,” and so on) depend on the intricate details of your neural machinery. Although acting on such drives is popularly thought to be a free choice, the most cursory examination of the evidence demonstrates the limits of that assumption.

Not true--just turn it off!

Like a liight switch, just go click!

it's a cool little Mormon trick

#couldntresist #parodyliveson #quotedfromBoMMusical

I hated the Mormon church. In turn, it changed my life for the better

Back when I was an Evvie, it took me a year and a half to have a firm grasp of Mormonism. Its history, its belief system; how it's supported, why that it doesn't work. I was at my prime in a year and a half, and it was time. I sent a Facebook msg to a Mormon friend who was on a mission.

You know the Evvie drill: time to save a soul. Which was bullshit, I wanted revenge against the institution.

Who hasn't? There's no pretending that the main reason embittered people (read: mostly those with a big conflict with the church) like Mormonism is because we're virtuous and just "find it fascinating." I find psychology fascinating because it sometimes evidences that beliefs err on the delusional side. Not afraid to admit it.

What I am afraid to admit is that because of the church, I've become a better person.

Why? Because I shared my bitterness in the form of hatred for over two years?

Yes. That is entirely why I'm a better person.

Because from my bitterness, from my hatred for every logical delusion buried in the mind of a Mormon and because of what it meant for my life, I found my own logic to be delusional.

What makes the Bible any better than the BoM? And I don't mean qualitatively better. I mean what puts the Bible above the BoM in any logical sense?

I became a Universalist. I questioned my beliefs on Hell. I questioned my beliefs on gay marriage. I questioned the value of religion itself.

And not in a sense that religion is without value. I questioned it in a sense that Christianity is the only religion with "True" value, and everything else is "an abomination unto the Lord" (a founding Mormon concept that, honestly, Evvies like I once was believe just as wholeheartedly).

One year ago today, I sent that missionary my "I'd like to discuss some questions I have" message. And just yesterday,I had my discussion with that Mormon friend of mine. Met him at the local Mormon Institute, the only place I can currently see the girl who loves me (and I, her; for the past three years of god-dammmit-why-the-hell-is-there-a-temple-sealing pain).

I shared with him my experiences with Mormonism. An Evvie upbringing, a dance with Mormon criticism, a sudden insight from personal reflection, my Universalist upheaval...

and how I visited him today to share that I no longer think his religion is something I wish to deprive him of.

I was honest with him. I still disagree with some of the Mormon moral beliefs.

But I was also honest with myself:

Though I find Mormonism entirely false, with unjustifiable moral issues strengthened by (come on, guys) "spiritual" methods of fact-finding, I find that I can't still devote my time to defaming his beliefs.

I've found other things to do in my godless life that are meaningful and filled with a grand purpose. And they involve finding a way to get a long with the group of people I hold more contention for than any. other. group.

Throwing away my Christian beliefs--throwing away my selfish, Christian beliefs--I find that I can finally do as Christ commanded.

The most simple, remorseless command of all: to love thy neighbor.

And even, after all the pain and tears from a needlessly ended, Shakespearean of a three-year relationship...

to love my greatest enemy.

And that's how--after years of bitterness, hatred, and anger--I can say what, for years, I have found unthinkable:

Mormonism has changed my life.

And it has changed it for the better.

Israeli Research and Deutero-Isaiah

The header for an article published earlier today reads: "An Israeli algorithm sheds light on the Bible"; and yes, it's about the great author-attribution debate of the Bible. The researchers have had quite some success matching today's traditional scholars' views on who wrote what parts of the Bible using a computer-run algorithm of sorts, "'effectively recreating years of work by multiple scholars in minute,' said Moshe Koppel of Bar Ilan University near Tel Aviv, the computer science professor who headed the research team."

But what's weird and annoying and frustrating and WRONG is that it makes NO MENTION of Deutero-Isaiah. None!!

Ha, just kidding. The research supported Deutero-Isaiah:
"Similarly, the book of Isaiah is largely thought to have been written by two distinct authors, with the second author taking over after Chapter 39. The software's results agreed that the book might have two authors, but suggested the second author's section actually began six chapters earlier, in Chapter 33."

Google search "Deutero-Isaiah USU Shaft" if you're unfamiliar with the Mormon-critical implications.

But how credible is this method?

"Before applying the software to the Pentateuch and other books of the Bible, the researchers first needed a more objective test to prove the algorithm could correctly distinguish one author from another.

So they randomly jumbled the Hebrew Bible's books of Ezekiel and Jeremiah into one text and ran the software. It sorted the mixed-up text into its component parts "almost perfectly," the researchers announced."

Also, it's an extremely solid match with current scholars:
"When the new software was run on the Pentateuch, it found the same division, separating the "priestly" and "non-priestly" [authors]. It matched up with the traditional academic division at a rate of 90 percent...said Moshe Koppel of Bar Ilan University near Tel Aviv, the computer science professor who headed the research team."

I wait in somewhat-indifferent patience for Maxwell's response. Indifference, because seriously. If you are this far in the Mormon debate, you've either lost faith already or shelved half the information out there.

And patience, because who gives a damn? I'd rather hear a Maxwell statement that says something along the lines of "Mormon church changes morals concerning gay marriage, and here's why that's just goddamn fine," or any of the other outdated values they have (definitely not all of them are).

But if you're still pissed off at the church for violating you into a living Hell, and knowing how false they are isn't much help: just say hasa diga Eebowai! (from The Book of Mormon musical). But only in an ironic/satirical way. If that's not possible, then in your head.

Or on the rooftops.

I'd understand (unlike your neighbors).

Also, the Church could be true. But only if God's on their side.
Standard Mormon/non-Mormon caveats apply.

Have fun. I promise not to get this off-topic from the original post again.

And Paul Revere rang the bell to...warn the British!

Sarah Palin.

Did I say enough by stating her name? No more context than the title, her name, nothing more, and you know exactly what just happened in the world of Momma Grizzly?

Someone, tell me you can piece those two things together and have this wonderful 20/20 vision into what this article about Sarah Palin and Paul Revere is about: http://content.usatoday.com/communities/onpolitics/post/2011/06/sarah-palin-paul-revere-midnight-ride-/1.

This one is deserving of kuri's "The stupid, it burns!" posts. beat ya to it, mate!

Coffee helps prevent prostate cancer

If you haven't heard, then check out the article covering the study: http://www.cnn.com/2011/HEALTH/05/17/coffee.prostate.cancer/index.html.

So why is this a post and not a cool Stumbledupon link at the side of my blog?

Because, accd. to the article, "drinking six or more cups of coffee per day can lower a man's risk of fatal prostate cancer by up to 60 percent."

Sure, it's just an association. I'm no sucker for correlations.

But I like coffee anyways, so I'm at least going to psych myself into thinking this works (for a combined coffee + quasi-placebo effect).

Thank you, coffee.

And finally, Word of Wisdom correlated to prostate cancer? just saying.

That is all.

(Also, now that I have time, I'll get started on the NT challenge soon. But not too soon, because vacation is coming up. And I'm suffering from what I call Agnostic Apathy, though I'm still really interested in breaking down the BoM into separate parts through a program and etc.)

The "Deep South" Response to Obama's speech

"I don't know why he's taking any credit, Obama was wanting to take troops out of Afghanistan! We never would've found him."

Ahhh...

"How much did he meet with the Joint Chief of Staff? And the commander in Afghanistan? Only once, and a long time ago. He deserves no credit."

Dear Jesus...

"Obama sure can pronounce those Muslim words pretty well. Hmmm."

Mmmm......

And then, a birther showed up.

She said: "I'm going to do what I always do when presented with facts: deny them."

Oops, misquoted a bit there.


Anyways. GO AMERICA!!! (and did anyone else catch how Adolph Hitler's death was announced in 1945 on the same day too? Wow.)