Prejudice In Mormons Against Academia

[The Nehor]

I think we need to counterbalance the endless threads about academia's prejudice against Mormons with a thread about the prejudice Mormons have against academia.

I heard someone LDS say that climate change is a hoax. Obviously Mormons are prejudiced.

[Storm Rider]

One Mormon told me that he did not enjoy Shakespere; he was obviously prejudiced against learning, the English language, history, art, literature, and culture. Mormons are just completely committed to keeping their membership uneducated. It is clear to me they want to keep their membership as uninformed as possible to maintain their cult.

[Darren10]

The Nehor;

The LDS Church takes no position on global warming or on virtually any scientific position. According to the LDS Church, if mormons belive in global warming, fine. If they don't, fine also. It doesn't matter as far as the LDS Church goes. Personally, I believe in global warming. There are times the earth warms up but I also believe there are times the earth cools down (global cooling). I think this is all natural and that man has very little to no effect on the outcome. I can very easily point ot lies used by NASA and professors of universities to promot anthro global warming but what's the point? Virtually none of this has to do with Mormonism.

[Darren10]

One Mormon told me that he did not enjoy Shakespere; he was obviously prejudiced against learning, the English language, history, art, literature, and culture. Mormons are just completely committed to keeping their membership uneducated. It is clear to me they want to keep their membership as uninformed as possible to maintain their cult.

Heh! Keep that collective healthy.

[KevinG]

I hated Jr. High but I was a Protestant at the time. My attitude has not changed since my conversion.

[thesometimesaint]

See http://www.google.com/search?q=you+tube%3A+how+to+talk+to+an+ostrich&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-beta

[The Nehor]

The LDS Church takes no position on global warming or on virtually any scientific position. According to the LDS Church, if mormons belive in global warming, fine. If they don't, fine also.

Same with gravity. New Headline:

"LDS refuse to support gravity; further proof of their idiocy."

[Darren10]

Same with gravity. New Headline:

"LDS refuse to support gravity; further proof of their idiocy."

I do think I'm through with this thread.

[The Nehor]

I do think I'm through with this thread.

I think you are taking the thread seriously. If you do it makes no sense.

[cdowis]

Guess what --

I heard that they are teaching about the flat earth in the Department for Book of Mormon Archeology at BYU. According to knowledgeable insiders, DCP has taught several graduate seminars on the subject.

[The Nehor]

Guess what --

I heard that they are teaching about the flat earth in the Department for Book of Mormon Archeology at BYU. According to knowledgeable insiders, DCP has taught several graduate seminars on the subject.

No, they were on young flat earth. C'mon, focus here.

[cdowis]

The BOM clearly teaches that the earth is flat. Remember Hagoth?!

I hope everybody is taking this seriously.

[blackstrap]

Flat earth afficianados are found almost exclusively in Kansas and Saskatchewan. I am told that it rained an inch in Kansas once and flooded 300,000 acres.

[blackstrap]

re the OP climate change is not a hoax,it is the norm.There is a reason that many ancient peoples worshipped the SUN.

AGW ,on the other hand, is a different kettle of fudge.

[The Nehor]

There is a reason that many ancient peoples worshipped the SUN.

I and many others never gave it up:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6tV11acSRk

[Vance]

I heard someone LDS say that climate change is a hoax.

Good thing that it isn't just LDS that believe this. Fortunately there are many academics that also believe it is a hoax.

Obviously Mormons are prejudiced.

And, obviously those academics that believe it is a hoax are also prejudiced, right?

[Vance]

Here is a list of academic/scientific bigots.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_scientists_opposing_the_mainstream_scientific_assessment_of_global_warming#Scientists_arguing_that_global_warming_is_primarily_caused_by_natural_processes

And some more,

http://ricochet.com/main-feed/50-NASA-Scientists-Against-Global-Warming

And some more,

http://www.petitionproject.org/

[The Nehor]

Good thing that it isn't just LDS that believe this. Fortunately there are many academics that also believe it is a hoax.

Indeed there are. I've also met a Flat Earther with a phd.

I don't have the background needed to evaluate the scientific claims so here is my reasoning:

1. I usually cynically follow the money. There are many vested interests with a huge stake in the status quo and it will cost them millions if not billions to adapt if they have to lower greenhouse gasses. There are some who would like to oppose it but renewable energy doesn't have the lobby power (i.e. money) that coal, oil, and natural gas do.

2. Far too many of the studies opposing global warming are funded by interests who want global warming to be a hoax or at least perceived as a hoax. Far too many of them are also speaking outside of their field of expertise. This doesn't discredit them but why are so many non-meteorologists with phds willing to go on record for the whole thing being a hoax. Could it be the funders calling the shots? Maybe I'm too cynical. Then again I also laughed at the survey that announced that the children of same-sex couples were more well-adapted and more intelligent then the national average when I say that it was homosexual rights groups funding the study.

3. Let's say climate change is driven mostly by natural causes as some say. I find it curious that those who insist on this the most seem to show little interest in preparing for the effects of it. Even if climate change is driven by natural cycles we are going to have to adapt. Adaptation is not something entrenched interests like to do.

4. The standard counterargument is that the 'liberal' agenda wants to enact it to dismantle capitalism and usher in some kind of socialist paradise. I'm too cynical to buy this. Politicians and those that lobby and fund them almost never have a long-term agenda that they are going for. It's always short-term. Our political system demands it. When was the last time a candidate ran with the idea that 20 years in the future his or her contributions would finally bear fruit. Conservative and liberal talking heads know this. Who is getting re-elected now for their fruitful political contributions in 1992? We want results and we want them now. I can see one far-sighted supporter of climate change wanting to end capitalism and create a socialist utopia but I'm supposed to believe hundreds of greedy grasping people are keeping up this shadow conspiracy and buying off most of the scientific establishment somehow.

I could be wrong but I doubt it.

[Vance]

1. I usually cynically follow the money.

Apparently you are only cynical about one side's money trail.

[The Nehor]

Apparently you are only cynical about one side's money trail.

Where is the profit motive for the "liberal" side? Where is the funding coming from? How could they possibly compete?

I addressed this in my post.

[blackstrap]

It is an ideological motive,to redistribute wealth from the have people and nations to....well anyone else will do. It is ,to put it bluntly,somewhat racist to say that all the starving poor in Africa have to look forward to is continuing handouts from the evil moneygrubbers instead of developing the massive coal resources and other energy reserves because there must be no more CO2 produced. Oh,I forgot,there is all that sunshine in the Sahara.

[The Nehor]

It is an ideological motive,to redistribute wealth from the have people and nations to....well anyone else will do.

I've never seen this motive. It seems a figment to me. I know many people who want wealth redistributed to themselves and a few who support social programs involving taxes being used to redistribute wealth but I've never met anyone that wants to take from the rich and give to just any random person. Even Dennis Moore was smarter then that and ended up trying consecration though his implementation needs a little work.

[media=]

It is ,to put it bluntly,somewhat racist to say that all the starving poor in Africa have to look forward to is continuing handouts from the evil moneygrubbers instead of developing the massive coal resources and other energy reserves because there must be no more CO2 produced. Oh,I forgot,there is all that sunshine in the Sahara.

And if anyone except crazy strawmen were saying this I would soundly denounce them and then beat them to death.

[Nemesis]

Stay on topic and knock of the politics.

Nemesis

[blackstrap]

The majority of biologists have rejected God in favor of Science,which they claim has all the answers ,or at least will have eventually.They are,however,constantly being suprised at the evidence and are always struggling to manipulate the candle to shed light on a problem.Such is the nature of research I suppose. Too bad the candle often produces shadows.\

As per my previous post,Nehor, just ask how the world would look if the signatories of the Kyoto accord were to fully impliment the goals.Who would be the winners and who the losers?

[thesometimesaint]

When your hand is in the fire it is a little silly to ask what it would look like holding a nice tall glass of lemonade.