This is an interesting concept I just came across. When I've likened the Islamic wish to see the world Muslim to the wish of other religions, eg. LDS (Mormons), freediver has consistently rejected it, and claimed it's not the same thing as they don't believe in theocracy or ruling the world.

-----


Quote:

Theodemocracy is a political system theorized by Joseph Smith, Jr., founder of the Latter Day Saint movement (Mormons). As the name implies, theodemocracy was meant to be a fusion of traditional republican democractic rights under the United States Constitution combined with theocratic elements. He described it as a system under which God and the people held the power to rule in righteousness. Smith believed that this would be the form of government that would rule the world upon Christ's Second Coming, which he believed was imminent. This polity would constitute the "Kingdom of God" which was foretold by the prophet Daniel in the Old Testament. Theodemocracy was also an influence for the short lived State of Deseret in the American West.

LDS President Brigham Young (The most influential Mormon after Joseph Smith, some might say even more influential, as Paul was to Christianity) taught in 1859, "What do the world understand theocracy to be? A poor, rotten government of man, that would say, without the shadow of provocation or just cause, 'Cut that man's head off; put that one on the rack, arrest another, and retain him in unlawful and unjust duress while you plunder his property and pollute his wife and daughters; massacre here and there'..." "I believe in a true republican theocracy..."

Joseph Smith himself was actually assassinated for taking over the city council of an Illinois city and turning it into a theocracy. All of the Mormons were also expelled from the state.


Quote:

The town of Nauvoo where Smith organized the Council was governed according to a corporate charter received from the state of Illinois in 1841. The Nauvoo Charter granted a wide measure of home rule, but the municipality it created was strictly republican in organization. Such an arrangement may indicate the Mormon history of persecution, with the form of the Nauvoo government developing as a practical self-defense mechanism rather than as an absolute theological preference. Despite this, later critics labeled the town a “theocracy,” mostly due to the position of many church leaders, including Joseph Smith, as elected city officials. This was a serious charge, as in Jacksonian America, anything which smacked of theocratic rule was immediately suspect and deemed an anti-republican threat to the country. Suspicions about Mormon rule in Nauvoo, combined with misunderstandings about the role of the Council of Fifty, resulted in hyperbolic rumors about Joseph Smith’s “theocratic kingdom.” This in turn added to the growing furor against the Latter-day Saints in Illinois which eventually led to Smith’s assassination in June 1844, and the Mormons' expulsion from the state in early 1846.

There's also evidence that Mormons believe in the inevitability of their "Theodemocratic" system being established. It is not merely something relegated to the past, it is a very real eventuation that they are preparing for.


Quote:

In an 1874 sermon, Brigham Young taught that what the Mormons commonly called the "Kingdom of God" actually implied two structures. The first was The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints which had been restored through the Prophet Joseph Smith. The second was the political kingdom described by Daniel, a theodemocratic polity which would one day be fully organized, and once initiated would "protect every person, every sect, and all people upon the face of the whole earth, in their legal rights."

Smith also made it quite clear, when he was arrested after the 1838 Mormon war, that he placed the Bible and it's parts consider treasonous by the U.S over the U.S itself.


Quote:

When Smith was arrested in connection with the 1838 Mormon War, he was closely questioned by the presiding judge about whether he believed in the kingdom which would subdue all others as described in the Book of Daniel. Smith's attorney Alexander Doniphan announced that if belief in such teachings were treasonous, then the Bible must be considered a treasonable publication.

Smith also formed a council that was to oversee the establishment of his "Theodemocracy".


Quote:

The Council of Fifty (also known as the Living Constitution, the Kingdom of God, or its name by revelation, The Kingdom of God and His Laws with the Keys and Power thereof, and Judgment in the Hands of His Servants, Ahman Christ) was a Latter Day Saint organization established by Joseph Smith, Jr. in 1844 to symbolize and represent a future theocratic or theodemocratic "Kingdom of God" on the earth (Quinn 1980, p. 165). Smith and his successor Brigham Young hoped to create this Kingdom in preparation for the Millennium and the Second Coming of Jesus. Latter-day Saint theology holds that the Second Coming will be a time of great violence and natural disasters in which the governments of the world will collapse into universal anarchy

TBC...

Theodemocratic? Any idea what that means in practice?

The LDS movement also fought 3 wars against it's "host country" (to use the terminology of those here who like to identify religious communities within a country they believe are trying to take it over)

1838 Mormon War: Fought between the Mormons and their neighbours in the neighbouring county of Jackson, Missouri. The conflict had it's origins in the 1831 proclamation of Smith that the county was the Biblical Garden of Eden and that Mormons should establish the City of Zion there. However, the "old settlers" objected to the growing political power of the Mormons. Latter-day Saints began to settle in Jackson County to "build up" the City of Zion in 1831. Settlement was rapid and non-Mormon residents became alarmed. In October 1833, anti-Mormon vigilantes succeeded in driving the Mormons from Jackson County, Missouri. Forcefully deprived of their homes and property, the Latter-day Saints temporarily settled in the area around Jackson County, especially in Clay County. In 1834, Latter-day Saints attempted to effect a return to Jackson County with a quasi-military expedition known as Zion's Camp, but this effort also failed.

The Mormons began to organize a secret society known as the Danites, whose purposes included obeying the church presidency "right or wrong". On July 4, the church militia and the Danites marched around the Liberty pole in Far West for an Independence Day celebration. Sidney Rigdon gave an oration referred to as the Mormon "Declaration of Independence" from "mobbers." In it, Rigdon declared that the Latter-day Saints would no longer be driven from their homes by persecution from without or dissension from within, and that if enemies came again to drive out the Saints, "And that mob that comes on us to disturb us, it shall be between us and them a war of extermination; for we will follow them until the last drop of their blood is spilled; or else they will have to exterminate us, for we will carry the seat of war to their own houses and their own families, and one party or the other shall be utterly destroyed..."

During the conflict 22 people were killed (3 Mormons and 1 non-Mormon at Crooked River and 18 Mormons at Haun’s Mill). The Mormons were expelled from Missouri and fled to Illinois where Joseph Smith setup his theocracy town of Nauvoo.

Mormon War in Illinois: A fairly uneventful episode. After the death of Joseph Smith, the government feared his theocracy-city of Nauvoo was too powerful, so the Mormons were all expelled by state-run militias.

Utah War: was an armed dispute between Latter-day Saint ("Mormon") settlers in Utah Territory and the United States federal government. The confrontation lasted from May 1857 until July 1858. While not fully bloodless, the war consisted of no pitched battles and was ultimately resolved through negotiation. Nevertheless, according to historian William P. MacKinnon, the Utah War was America's "most extensive and expensive military undertaking during the period between the Mexican and Civil Wars, one that ultimately pitted nearly one-third of the US Army against what was arguably the nation's largest, most experienced militia."

At the height of the conflict, on September 11, 1857, more than 120 California-bound settlers from Arkansas, including unarmed men, women and children, were killed in remote southwestern Utah by a group of local Mormon militiamen (Terrorists??).

In the end, negotiations between the United States and the Latter-day Saint hierarchy resulted in a full pardon for the Mormons, the transfer of Utah's governorship from church President Brigham Young to non-Mormon Alfred Cumming, and the peaceful entrance of the army into Utah.

Part of the friction was purely cultural. Members of the LDS Church believed that polygamy or "plural marriage", such as that practiced in the Old Testament, had been reinstituted by God. It is estimated that 20% to 25% of Latter-day Saints were members of polygamous households, that the practice involved approximately one third of Mormon women reaching marriageable age, and was generally considered the norm among the Church leadership. (Sounds familiar???)

In addition, the public was incensed by the semi-theocratic dominance of the Utah Territory under Brigham Young. Many Americans in the mid-19th century regarded Mormon governance as a violation of American principles, and the press portrayed Young and other Mormon leaders as petty tyrants who were determined to create a separate kingdom in Utah.

The Mormon use of ecclesiastical courts rather than the federal court system for civil matters, the legitimacy of land titles, water rights, and various other issues were a source of continual dispute between the Latter-day Saints and federal appointees in the Territory. Many of these officers were also appalled by the practice of polygamy and the Mormon belief system in general, and would harangue the Mormons for their "lack of morality" in public addresses.

So during 3 'wars', about 142 people were killed?

I saw a documentary about young Mormon men from a group trying to re-establish the 'old ways'. Seeing as the elders were allowed to have multiple wives, they inevitably ran out of women. So the young men were basically expelled from the community at about 15 or 16. I guess that's a bit better than sending them off to war.

Quote:

So during 3 'wars', about 142 people were killed?

Quite a humorous retort.

You don't seem to express the same kind of dull dismissiveness about Muslims engaging in any kind of activity considered treasonous or war-like.

If the sum total of historical Islamic warmongering came to 142 dead, I would be equally dismissive of Islam.

Do you know what theodemocratic means yet?

Quote:

If the sum total of historical Islamic warmongering came to 142 dead, I would be equally dismissive of Islam.

Considering Islam's history is much longer, and also was mostly during the age of empires, when warfare was just rife, I don't think there's that much disparity between them.


Quote:

Do you know what theodemocratic means yet?

I think it's quite obvious what it means, just by the two words it is a contraction of.

It refers specifically to a system of government that fuses the U.S constitution with the Godly kingdom prophesised in the book of Daniel. Either way, it's been established that their propselytising is not purely aimed at your spiritual conversion, they seek to establish a state, a theocratic one, which is at odds with Australia's secular values. And they're far more active in doing it than Muslims are. Yet I know for a fact you're not concerned in the slightest about them. Instead you're worried about some paranoid delusional claims that Muslims are secretly working to setup a revived medieval empire.

You're a loon, plain and simple. I'm just concerned that your lunacy is tending towards hate, fear and scaremongering nowadays.

Quote:

Considering Islam's history is much longer

It still doesn't even compare Abu. You tried to use Mormonism to somehow make Islam look good, but you failed. Islam makes Mormonism look totally benign.


Quote:

and also was mostly during the age of empires, when warfare was just rife

So when did warfare come to an end Abu? You appear to be clutching at straws here.


Quote:

they seek to establish a state, a theocratic one, which is at odds with Australia's secular values

So why do they imply democracy? I don't think it's clear at all what they mean. Maybe they just mean for Mormonism to take the place of Christianity. For example, you have to be Christian if you want to get elected president in the US. That doesn't make them a theocracy. When people start making up new words, you have to be very careful to establish what they actually mean. You can't honestly expect me to take your word for it, after all the tricks you have pulled.


Quote:

Yet I know for a fact you're not concerned in the slightest about them. Instead you're worried about some paranoid delusional claims that Muslims are secretly working to setup a revived medieval empire.

I wasn't concerned about Islam either until Malik turned up here. If you want me to look into Mormonism, invite a few Mormons over and I'll ask them some questions. My guess is they'll be a lot more forthcoming than you have been. But you never know. Just don't bother repeating this 'you were only after Islam from the beginning' BS. As I have pointed out countless times already, it is what you and Malik said that has me concerned. Remember, it is a sign of delusion when you reject even what others say about themselves because you don't think it could be true.

Quote:

It still doesn't even compare Abu.

I'd say it does.


Quote:

You tried to use Mormonism to somehow make Islam look good,

Did no such thing. Just used it to show that your irrational fear about Muslims trying to turn Australia into a theocracy are just baseless, and that if you're shown the same doctrines in other religions, you'll instantly dismiss them. Leaving us with the deduction you're just an Islamophobe.


Quote:

but you failed. Islam makes Mormonism look totally benign.

I believe Mormonism is fairly benign too, for now anyway. As Islam was for most of it's history. But gaining power often makes benign people do unbenign things. Once they establish their theodemocracy, who knows if they'll add to the 120 unarmed men, women and children they slaughtered in their rebellious war against their own government.

Well Mormons are batsh1t crazy, there is no debate about that, so why on earth would you seek to even compare your religion to them?

Some guy goes out in the woods and says god gave him golden tablets, but he lost them, what a ridiculous crock.

If you are saying they are just as great a threat to world peace, as Islam is, then obviously the statistics would go against you, very strongly.

If you are saying they are weirder, well you may have some good arguments.

Quote:

Well Mormons are batsh1t crazy, there is no debate about that, so why on earth would you seek to even compare your religion to them?

Not unlike fd, you also make the false assumption that any mention of another religion must be a comparison and an example of why Islam "isn't so bad". This simply isn't the case, and viewing this thread in the context it was made would make that plainly clear. However I guess it's easier to dismiss as a poorly made comparison isn't it?

The original claim by fd is that Islam wants to dominate the world, because Muslims wish to see all people become Muslims. My reply was that most if not all proselytising religions also seek the same, which he claimed is not the same as they don't have a concept of theocracy.

I think this thread quite nicely dismisses that claim, therefore erasing the false claim that Islam seeks world domination, simply because it seeks to see all people embrace Islam, and also believes in theocracy.

The comparison is only necessary to show that fd's criteria for judging Islam as wanting to "take over the world" is being applied unfairly, not that "Islam isn't so bad because such and such religion does this also".

This thread, and this whole line of argument could've been so easily avoided if fd wasn't intent on claiming Islam is such an 'orphan' as far as religions go, that's just a world apart from everything else. And that if Muslims want all humanity to share in the guidance of Islam, then they must seek world domination, whereas if other religions want the same, then it's just because they want others to be saved like them.


Quote:

Some guy goes out in the woods and says god gave him golden tablets, but he lost them, what a ridiculous crock.

Actually golden plates, not tablets. And also he managed to translated them before they were lost, so their message was not lost. I don't think it's any more far fetched than either the burning bush or the angel in the cave. Which I'm sure you don't believe either of them, and therefore consider them all far fetched. What I mean is though, Mormonism shouldn't be considered any less a religion just because of that fact.


Quote:

If you are saying they are just as great a threat to world peace, as Islam is, then obviously the statistics would go against you, very strongly.

As I said, the thread was not designed to make a comparison. Just to show fd's inconsistencies when dealing with Islam.

abu_rashid wrote on Feb 16^th, 2009 at 9:07pm:

Quote: Some guy goes out in the woods and says god gave him golden tablets, but he lost them, what a ridiculous crock. Actually golden plates, not tablets. And also he managed to translated them before they were lost, so their message was not lost. I don't think it's any more far fetched than either the burning bush or the angel in the cave.

Or an angel dictating a heavenly book, as and when the need arises for the recipient's political and social ends, in a partricular human language.

I can see why you are sympathetic to the idea of 'but he translated them before they were lost'. Smith appears to have taken a leaf out of Mohammed's book on how to claim authority for one's sources.

Quote:

Or an angel dictating a heavenly book

Or??? Did you miss this part? "or the angel in the cave"??


Quote:

I can see why you are sympathetic to the idea of 'but he translated them before they were lost'. Smith appears to have taken a leaf out of Mohammed's book on how to claim authority for one's sources.

And Moses'.

Or perhaps it's lost on you? As you haven't even read your own Bible?

Quote:

But gaining power often makes benign people do unbenign things. Once they establish their theodemocracy...

Again Abu, before you read too much into a word you don't understand, why don't you ask a Mormon what it actually means?


Quote:

The original claim by fd is that Islam wants to dominate the world, because Muslims wish to see all people become Muslims. My reply was that most if not all proselytising religions also seek the same, which he claimed is not the same as they don't have a concept of theocracy. I think this thread quite nicely dismisses that claim, therefore erasing the false claim that Islam seeks world domination

Abu you are not making sense. The fact that other relgions seek world domination does not somehow reverse the fact that Islam seeks world domination, or that is calls for the use of barbaric methods to achieve this goal.

Also, this is a strawman:


Quote:

The original claim by fd is that Islam wants to dominate the world, because Muslims wish to see all people become Muslims.

Quote:

The comparison is only necessary to show that fd's criteria for judging Islam as wanting to "take over the world" is being applied unfairly, not that "Islam isn't so bad because such and such religion does this also".

Abu you seem to be implying that theocracy was my only criticism of Islam. There are plenty of them. Theocracy is only part of it. The fact that some other group also has objectionable goals does not undermine my criticism of Islam. Islam would still be an abomination, even if a dozen other religions did similar things.


Quote:

This thread, and this whole line of argument could've been so easily avoided if fd wasn't intent on claiming Islam is such an 'orphan' as far as religions go

But it is Abu. This feeble comparison between Mormonism and Islam confirms it. In fact, you had to stretch 142 deaths into 3 wars to try to make it stick. Perhaps you thought if you used the word war often enough people would think Jihad?

Quote:

Again Abu, before you read too much into a word you don't understand, why don't you ask a Mormon what it actually means?

I'm not interested in what Mormons say. As I'm not trying to critique Mormonism.

Besides Mormons are well known practitioners of Taqiyyah, that's why they pretended to give up polygamy, when in fact they still practise it in secret. Haven't you watched "Big love"???


Quote:

The fact that other relgions seek world domination does not somehow reverse the fact that Islam seeks world domination

The basis for your claim that Islam seeks world domination was that Muslims want to see all people become Muslims. You asked me this question, then claimed it proved we believe in world domination. When I disputed this, and offered the example that many religions want the world to adopt their religion but you don't accuse them of world domination, you used the theocracy argument. Now that I've shown yet again that other religions also believe in theocracy, and you still don't accuse them of wanting world domination, you're left without an argument.

Please stop making me explain to you over and over again the pathetic and defeated nature of your arguments. It's really rather boring.

You've made no case whatsoever that Islam is trying to dominate the world anymore than Mormonism is. That doesn't say Islam isn't trying to dominate the world, but it seriously calls into question your focus on Islam and your denial that it implicates most other religions, since your criteria for the claim also applies to them.

So in the end what we've come out of this with, is that Muslims would like to see the whole world Muslim... lot of mucking around just to have the same answer we began with, isn't it? Do you have a lot of spare time on your hands? Cos I don't.


Quote:

Abu you seem to be implying that theocracy was my only criticism of Islam

This is not a response to your criticisms of Islam. It's an exposure of your claims that Islam is out for world domination, merely because Muslims want to see the world Muslim.


Quote:

In fact, you had to stretch 142 deaths into 3 wars to try to make it stick. Perhaps you thought if you used the word war often enough people would think Jihad?

The only relevant point was that they believe in theocracy. The history just cements the fact it's a real situation, which has manifested itself in a physical struggle. 1 death or 1  million is irrelevant.

Your attempt to paint this as a comparison with Islam, that supposedly would shade Islam in a slightly nicer way is pretty pathetic fd. It's quite obvious that was not the intent of the thread whatsoever.

So now back to the original point (which is all I'm interested in discussing, I couldn't care less how many wars or states the Mormons took over) Mormonism, another religion which is very active in Australia, believes in theocracy and is actively proselytising in Australia, as they seek to see the whole world Mormon. Why do you have no problem with Mormons in Australia, yet a big problem with Muslims in Australia? And don't sidetrack to any crap about stoning women, as it's completely irrelevant to Muslims in Australia.

If you simply can't answer it, which it's blatantly obvious you can't, then please drop the argument against Islam that it seeks to see the world Muslim, or that it believes in theocracy, as those two things (not the stoning of women, we know) are obviously of no serious concern to you whatsoever.

Quote:

I'm not interested in what Mormons say. As I'm not trying to critique Mormonism.

But you are critiqueing it Abu. This is like if sprint and Yadda were to say they are not interested in what Muslims say about Islam, they will just go by what answering Islam says or interpret various quotes themselves. It becomes a meaningless exercise if you reject what Mormons actually believe.


Quote:

The basis for your claim that Islam seeks world domination was that Muslims want to see all people become Muslims. You asked me this question, then claimed it proved we believe in world domination.

Maybe you are confusing me with someone else Abu. I recently said that all releigions want to ahve all people join their religion. I have no idea why you think that pointing out that Mormons also want this somehow contradicts me. Perhaps you should start by quoting what I actually said, before concluding that this proves me wrong. Honestly, this is getting a bit silly. You will read whatever you want into a word made up by a Mormon, but refuse to ask a Mormon what it actually means. Then you make up absurd strawman arguments and attribute them to me, all to make some petty point.


Quote:

Please stop making me explain to you over and over again the pathetic and defeated nature of your arguments. It's really rather boring.

How about you quote me, so I can explain to you what I actually said. Trust me, that works a lot better than you trying to explain to me what I think.


Quote:

So in the end what we've come out of this with, is that Muslims would like to see the whole world Muslim... lot of mucking around just to have the same answer we began with, isn't it?

But Abu, I am the one who began with that position. Yes it is a lot of mucking around. Yes it is achieving nothing. Well done, you got that right.


Quote:

This is not a response to your criticisms of Islam. It's an exposure of your claims that Islam is out for world domination, merely because Muslims want to see the world Muslim.

Again, quote me.


Quote:

The only relevant point was that the believe in theocracy. The history just cements the fact it's a real situation, which has manifested itself in a physical struggle. 1 death or 1  million is irrelevant.

One death or one million is very relevant. That makes the difference between a movement that strives for peace and only fails to a small extent, and one that actively promotes warmongering. Are you familiar with the concept of judging a tree by it's fruit?


Quote:

It's quite obvious that was not the intent of the thread whatsoever.

Well, what is the point then? The creation of an elaborate strawman? Every attempt you've made to explain the point involves attributing claims to me which I did not make.


Quote:

Why do you have no problem with Mormons in Australia, yet a big problem with Muslims in Australia?

Because I have spoken to Muslims and they have confirmed that Islam is a dnagerous ideology opposed to demcoracy, human rights, personal freedom etc. Prior to speaking to Muslims, I gave Islam the same benefit of the doubt that I am now extending to Mormonism. Wouldn't I be a hypocrit if I didn't do that? How can you criticise Yadda and Sprint for what they say about Islam when you do the exact same thing to Mormonism?


Quote:

And don't sidetrack to any crap about stoning women, as it's completely irrelevant to Muslims in Australia.

It is relevant to Islam Abu. I could just as easily say that Mormons are content to live under our demcoracy for the time being. Do you see your hypocrisy now? Stoning women to death is very relevant to me. It is what Muslims want to create, not what they will tolerate in the meantime that is of genuine interest. In fact, you are the one who sidetracks by trying to pretend Islam is all about acceptance of Australian laws and nothing more.


Quote:

If you simply can't answer it, which it's blatantly obvious you can't, then please drop the argument against Islam that it seeks to see the world Muslim, or that it believes in theocracy.

But it does believe in both of those things Abu.

Here you go Abu, seeing as you insist on putting words in my mouth.

I posted this five days ago on this board:


freediver wrote on Feb 12^th, 2009 at 2:39pm:

Quote: Or perhaps the possibility that Islam isn't out to dominate the world? All proselytising religions are out to dominate the world. It's the methods of Islam that make it unconscionable.

And before you say you 'missed' it, here you are responding to that particular point:


abu_rashid wrote on Feb 12^th, 2009 at 8:05pm:

Quote: All proselytising religions are out to dominate the world. It's the methods of Islam that make it unconscionable. Both Islam and Christianity did it in the past by forming empires.. yet you only believe Islam is like that... Ok.

Quote:

But you are critiqueing it Abu.

No I'm not. I couldn't care less about Mormons. I believe in proselytising and I believe in theocracy. Why would I critique them on things I myself agree with?


Quote:

This is like if sprint and Yadda were to say they are not interested in what Muslims say about Islam

No... it would be like if they made a thread about Islam believing in God and charity. Things I'm sure they themselves believe in too. That would not be critiquing, I'm sure you can see why not.

Your reasoning seems to be "If Abu Rashid (a Muslim) is talking about another religion, he must be critiquing them". It's simply just a false claim.


Quote:

How about you quote me, so I can explain to you what I actually said

I'll do a search for it.

Quote:

Why would I critique them on things I myself agree with?

Because you think I disagree with them. Perhaps you are confusing critique with criticism. The fact that you point something out because you think I will dislike it, rather than disliking it personally, does not somehow negate the need to get your facts straight. It is not OK to lie about Mormonism just because you agree with the false version.


Quote:

I'll do a search for it.

See my post above.

You know you're really impossible to have a decent logical discussion with?


Quote:

Because you think I disagree with them

Either you just don't get it, or you think going around in circles is going to leave me chasing my tail.

read again: I couldn't care less what you think about Mormons, nor could I care less about them. I am not interested in painting them in a negative light, nor do I care if you consider them in a negative light. I don't want them banned from Australia, nor do I want Australians to want to ban them, nor do i want you to think they should be banned.

You're just completely off in a world of your own it seems when it comes to the point of this thread. And I'll leave you there.. chasing your own tail.


Quote:

Perhaps you are confusing critique with criticism.

Perhaps you're not confusing it enough with criticism.


Quote:

cri⋅tique /krɪˈtik/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [kri-teek] Show IPA Pronunciation noun, verb, -tiqued, -ti⋅quing. –noun 1.      an article or essay criticizing a literary or other work; detailed evaluation; review. 2.      a criticism or critical comment on some problem, subject, etc. 3.      the art or practice of criticism. –verb (used with object) 4.      to review or analyze critically. Origin: 1695–1705; < F < Gk kritik the art of criticism, n. use of fem. of kritikós critical, skilled in judging; r. critic

[quote author]
I saw a documentary about young Mormon men from a group trying to re-establish the 'old ways'. Seeing as the elders were allowed to have multiple wives, they inevitably ran out of women. So the young men were basically expelled from the community at about 15 or 16. I guess that's a bit better than sending them off to war.[/quote]
Why don't they just stop marrying so many women and let other people have a go?

Selfish pigs. Everyone deserves to be inlove and have free reign over their sexuality. That doesn't even give you a chance.

I don't much care for theocracies. I mean sure, I'd probably like their bans on abortions, maybe... that could turn around and bite me in the ass too when the church declares an abortion is more acceptable then a child born out of wedlock or a child born by atheist parents or some poo...

Going back to the old west would probably be the safest bet. A gun in every hand and a cap in every ass. No abortions there. Assuming you could even find one, there's no garantee you'd get out of it alive when your husband foundout. And the law doesn't care. The law is basically some drunk guys who exist solely to make people bitch less and think there's some sortof law and order!

Wild Wild West, Jim West, desperado, rough rider
No you don't want nada
None of this, six gun in this, brotha runnin this,
Buffalo soldier, look it's like I told ya
Any damsel that's in distress
Be out of that dress when she meet Jim West
Rough neck so go check the law and abide
Watch your step with flex and get a hold in your side
Swallow your pride, don't let your lip react,
You don't wanna see my hand where my hip be at,
With all of this, from the start of this,
Runnin the game, Profit tamin the west so remember the name!

Uh uh

Now, now, now once upon a time in the west
Mad man lost his damn mind in the west
mantra, givin up a dime, nothin' less

Quote:

read again: I couldn't care less what you think about Mormons, nor could I care less about them. I am not interested in painting them in a negative light, nor do I care if you consider them in a negative light. I don't want them banned from Australia, nor do I want Australians to want to ban them, nor do i want you to think they should be banned.

So what do you want? You seem to be using the theocracy accusation to make a point that is somehow not dependent on the claim actually being true.