qid int64 1 74.7M | question stringlengths 12 33.8k | date stringlengths 10 10 | metadata list | response_j stringlengths 0 115k | response_k stringlengths 2 98.3k |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
1,558,637 | I have a VDSL home network that consists of a tp-link modem-router (Archer VR400), connected to a splitter (filter) by a 1 meter RJ11 cable.
My current speed by Ethernet connection is 90-95/100 Mbps, so it seems my infrastructure is pretty reliable.
My question is: will extending the length of the RJ11 to a 10m cable may greatly or noticeably decrease my internet connection?
Also: are there any types and quality standards for RJ11 cables, such as Ethernet cat 5, cat 6 and etc ?
I stumbled upon this very old question, but could not find a clear answer for my question: [How important for speed is the length of the phone cable between the wall and the modem?](https://superuser.com/questions/312276/how-important-for-speed-is-the-length-of-the-phone-cable-between-the-wall-and-th)
Any suggestions? | 2020/06/07 | [
"https://superuser.com/questions/1558637",
"https://superuser.com",
"https://superuser.com/users/1185051/"
] | Telephone cable for RJ11 connections is simple round cable with some twist to the wires (but not in pairs). You can extend by 10 meters without any significant degradation. The signal from the ISP is meant to travel over that kind of cable. Use good quality (Belden or like) cable. Cheap cable may be inferior construction.
No one can know precisely your situation (which is why you won't get a 100% black or white answer).
So add your cable and relocate your gear. | The best thing you can do is home run a CAT-5E solid conductor cable back to the DMARC. (Outside box where the PSTN copper line comes in.) You can put one DSL filter here in parallel with the CAT-5E for the rest of the RJ-11 voice outlets instead of putting one on each phone outlet.
Why you don't want to use old house wiring or
wiring blocks:
Straight pair, cheap voice cables (usually found installed in pre-1990's buildings) suffered from noise, emi pickup, and crosstalk issues.
The old wiring blocks don't even meet cat-3 specifications. (Screw and terminal) they were replaced with the 66-block style that do meet the requirements, you can find mini versions at Lowe's
or home depot etc.
* **CAT-3**: Should be used for 10Mbps or less.
* **CAT5**: Should be used up to 100Mbps.
* **CAT-5E**: Should be used for 100Mbps ~ 1000Mbps. (If you are lucky enough to be offered these speeds by the provider)
"are there any types and quality standards for RJ11 cables, such as Ethernet cat 5, cat 6 and?"
~Yes, working at a local CLEC here in PA, CAT-5E was mandatory for new installations. This was a recommendation from Verizon, because we were using their network equipment etc. (They told us mismatching awg/category types could cause signal reflection in the inside wiring.)
To be honest, it doesn't even make sense to use the other cables categories, at this point cat-5E is cheap enough that it should be installed if you are anticipating higher speeds in the future offered by the ISP, or if you just want to ensure the best possible SNR ratio from DMARC to modem.
Sometimes this isn't an option, for instance if you are renting an apartment. The best thing to do in that scenario is to see if the landlord would let you hire someone to run the cable for you.
If all else fails, you could try the extension. But if you don't pop open a RJ-11 outlet and take a peek at the wiring to see what type it is, you could actually degrade the signal with an impedance mis-match, I.e, the AWG sizes are different...
[](https://i.stack.imgur.com/Y5EQF.jpg)
<https://www.itu.int/rec/T-REC-G.992.1-199907-I/en> |
1,558,637 | I have a VDSL home network that consists of a tp-link modem-router (Archer VR400), connected to a splitter (filter) by a 1 meter RJ11 cable.
My current speed by Ethernet connection is 90-95/100 Mbps, so it seems my infrastructure is pretty reliable.
My question is: will extending the length of the RJ11 to a 10m cable may greatly or noticeably decrease my internet connection?
Also: are there any types and quality standards for RJ11 cables, such as Ethernet cat 5, cat 6 and etc ?
I stumbled upon this very old question, but could not find a clear answer for my question: [How important for speed is the length of the phone cable between the wall and the modem?](https://superuser.com/questions/312276/how-important-for-speed-is-the-length-of-the-phone-cable-between-the-wall-and-th)
Any suggestions? | 2020/06/07 | [
"https://superuser.com/questions/1558637",
"https://superuser.com",
"https://superuser.com/users/1185051/"
] | Telephone cable for RJ11 connections is simple round cable with some twist to the wires (but not in pairs). You can extend by 10 meters without any significant degradation. The signal from the ISP is meant to travel over that kind of cable. Use good quality (Belden or like) cable. Cheap cable may be inferior construction.
No one can know precisely your situation (which is why you won't get a 100% black or white answer).
So add your cable and relocate your gear. | Due to voltage drops you want your line to the green box as short as possible.
Put your router as close to your first socket as possible for fastest internet speeds. (Shortest cable length)
Most older /standard gear only supports 100mbs. (you'll only get 95ish... Voltage drops)
Consider your router a repeater... It takes the signal and then retransmits it at full power.
If WiFi is weak, you can get repeaters, (access points) ... But cat 5 should be good for at least 50m on the internal Lan
Cat5/6 uses four data cables (transmit +/-, receive +/-)
Telephone uses two ( +/- ) which transmits and receives (bandwidth issue )
You can use a longer cable. But it isn't recommended.
WiFi is a bottle neck
Why do you wanna move the router? |
1,558,637 | I have a VDSL home network that consists of a tp-link modem-router (Archer VR400), connected to a splitter (filter) by a 1 meter RJ11 cable.
My current speed by Ethernet connection is 90-95/100 Mbps, so it seems my infrastructure is pretty reliable.
My question is: will extending the length of the RJ11 to a 10m cable may greatly or noticeably decrease my internet connection?
Also: are there any types and quality standards for RJ11 cables, such as Ethernet cat 5, cat 6 and etc ?
I stumbled upon this very old question, but could not find a clear answer for my question: [How important for speed is the length of the phone cable between the wall and the modem?](https://superuser.com/questions/312276/how-important-for-speed-is-the-length-of-the-phone-cable-between-the-wall-and-th)
Any suggestions? | 2020/06/07 | [
"https://superuser.com/questions/1558637",
"https://superuser.com",
"https://superuser.com/users/1185051/"
] | Telephone cable for RJ11 connections is simple round cable with some twist to the wires (but not in pairs). You can extend by 10 meters without any significant degradation. The signal from the ISP is meant to travel over that kind of cable. Use good quality (Belden or like) cable. Cheap cable may be inferior construction.
No one can know precisely your situation (which is why you won't get a 100% black or white answer).
So add your cable and relocate your gear. | I learnt alot from all the answers and comments back then when asking this question - yet in general, most of the answers and comments summed up to "it is not something anyone can guarantee for 100%", and overall it is something that I'll know only when I try.
I nearly forgot about this question, **but I can say that after trying** a simple 10m long `RJ11` cable (kept the filter), **I saw almost no negative effect** on my bandwidth, nor on any ping / jitter / dsl errors statistics at all.
**I do however must state again** that my inhouse and overall building and street infrastructure seem to be decent, as I was and still getting 90-95/100 Mbps, and this solution might not work for everyone as answers to this question demonstrate. |
1,558,637 | I have a VDSL home network that consists of a tp-link modem-router (Archer VR400), connected to a splitter (filter) by a 1 meter RJ11 cable.
My current speed by Ethernet connection is 90-95/100 Mbps, so it seems my infrastructure is pretty reliable.
My question is: will extending the length of the RJ11 to a 10m cable may greatly or noticeably decrease my internet connection?
Also: are there any types and quality standards for RJ11 cables, such as Ethernet cat 5, cat 6 and etc ?
I stumbled upon this very old question, but could not find a clear answer for my question: [How important for speed is the length of the phone cable between the wall and the modem?](https://superuser.com/questions/312276/how-important-for-speed-is-the-length-of-the-phone-cable-between-the-wall-and-th)
Any suggestions? | 2020/06/07 | [
"https://superuser.com/questions/1558637",
"https://superuser.com",
"https://superuser.com/users/1185051/"
] | The best thing you can do is home run a CAT-5E solid conductor cable back to the DMARC. (Outside box where the PSTN copper line comes in.) You can put one DSL filter here in parallel with the CAT-5E for the rest of the RJ-11 voice outlets instead of putting one on each phone outlet.
Why you don't want to use old house wiring or
wiring blocks:
Straight pair, cheap voice cables (usually found installed in pre-1990's buildings) suffered from noise, emi pickup, and crosstalk issues.
The old wiring blocks don't even meet cat-3 specifications. (Screw and terminal) they were replaced with the 66-block style that do meet the requirements, you can find mini versions at Lowe's
or home depot etc.
* **CAT-3**: Should be used for 10Mbps or less.
* **CAT5**: Should be used up to 100Mbps.
* **CAT-5E**: Should be used for 100Mbps ~ 1000Mbps. (If you are lucky enough to be offered these speeds by the provider)
"are there any types and quality standards for RJ11 cables, such as Ethernet cat 5, cat 6 and?"
~Yes, working at a local CLEC here in PA, CAT-5E was mandatory for new installations. This was a recommendation from Verizon, because we were using their network equipment etc. (They told us mismatching awg/category types could cause signal reflection in the inside wiring.)
To be honest, it doesn't even make sense to use the other cables categories, at this point cat-5E is cheap enough that it should be installed if you are anticipating higher speeds in the future offered by the ISP, or if you just want to ensure the best possible SNR ratio from DMARC to modem.
Sometimes this isn't an option, for instance if you are renting an apartment. The best thing to do in that scenario is to see if the landlord would let you hire someone to run the cable for you.
If all else fails, you could try the extension. But if you don't pop open a RJ-11 outlet and take a peek at the wiring to see what type it is, you could actually degrade the signal with an impedance mis-match, I.e, the AWG sizes are different...
[](https://i.stack.imgur.com/Y5EQF.jpg)
<https://www.itu.int/rec/T-REC-G.992.1-199907-I/en> | It could matter if you are already right at the distance limit for DSL. There's only so far that a DSL signal can travel from the phone company "Central Office" (or any signal amplifier they may have) and if you are outside the range it will start dropping a lot of packets due to signaling errors.
That said, it's not such a big deal to just try it. Your DSL modem should have a web page where it shows error statistics, so you can compare it before the change and after the change. If it turns out that it's too far, just go back to the shorter cable and figure out a different place to put the modem.
Other than that, you should not have any problems. |
1,558,637 | I have a VDSL home network that consists of a tp-link modem-router (Archer VR400), connected to a splitter (filter) by a 1 meter RJ11 cable.
My current speed by Ethernet connection is 90-95/100 Mbps, so it seems my infrastructure is pretty reliable.
My question is: will extending the length of the RJ11 to a 10m cable may greatly or noticeably decrease my internet connection?
Also: are there any types and quality standards for RJ11 cables, such as Ethernet cat 5, cat 6 and etc ?
I stumbled upon this very old question, but could not find a clear answer for my question: [How important for speed is the length of the phone cable between the wall and the modem?](https://superuser.com/questions/312276/how-important-for-speed-is-the-length-of-the-phone-cable-between-the-wall-and-th)
Any suggestions? | 2020/06/07 | [
"https://superuser.com/questions/1558637",
"https://superuser.com",
"https://superuser.com/users/1185051/"
] | It could matter if you are already right at the distance limit for DSL. There's only so far that a DSL signal can travel from the phone company "Central Office" (or any signal amplifier they may have) and if you are outside the range it will start dropping a lot of packets due to signaling errors.
That said, it's not such a big deal to just try it. Your DSL modem should have a web page where it shows error statistics, so you can compare it before the change and after the change. If it turns out that it's too far, just go back to the shorter cable and figure out a different place to put the modem.
Other than that, you should not have any problems. | Due to voltage drops you want your line to the green box as short as possible.
Put your router as close to your first socket as possible for fastest internet speeds. (Shortest cable length)
Most older /standard gear only supports 100mbs. (you'll only get 95ish... Voltage drops)
Consider your router a repeater... It takes the signal and then retransmits it at full power.
If WiFi is weak, you can get repeaters, (access points) ... But cat 5 should be good for at least 50m on the internal Lan
Cat5/6 uses four data cables (transmit +/-, receive +/-)
Telephone uses two ( +/- ) which transmits and receives (bandwidth issue )
You can use a longer cable. But it isn't recommended.
WiFi is a bottle neck
Why do you wanna move the router? |
1,558,637 | I have a VDSL home network that consists of a tp-link modem-router (Archer VR400), connected to a splitter (filter) by a 1 meter RJ11 cable.
My current speed by Ethernet connection is 90-95/100 Mbps, so it seems my infrastructure is pretty reliable.
My question is: will extending the length of the RJ11 to a 10m cable may greatly or noticeably decrease my internet connection?
Also: are there any types and quality standards for RJ11 cables, such as Ethernet cat 5, cat 6 and etc ?
I stumbled upon this very old question, but could not find a clear answer for my question: [How important for speed is the length of the phone cable between the wall and the modem?](https://superuser.com/questions/312276/how-important-for-speed-is-the-length-of-the-phone-cable-between-the-wall-and-th)
Any suggestions? | 2020/06/07 | [
"https://superuser.com/questions/1558637",
"https://superuser.com",
"https://superuser.com/users/1185051/"
] | It could matter if you are already right at the distance limit for DSL. There's only so far that a DSL signal can travel from the phone company "Central Office" (or any signal amplifier they may have) and if you are outside the range it will start dropping a lot of packets due to signaling errors.
That said, it's not such a big deal to just try it. Your DSL modem should have a web page where it shows error statistics, so you can compare it before the change and after the change. If it turns out that it's too far, just go back to the shorter cable and figure out a different place to put the modem.
Other than that, you should not have any problems. | I learnt alot from all the answers and comments back then when asking this question - yet in general, most of the answers and comments summed up to "it is not something anyone can guarantee for 100%", and overall it is something that I'll know only when I try.
I nearly forgot about this question, **but I can say that after trying** a simple 10m long `RJ11` cable (kept the filter), **I saw almost no negative effect** on my bandwidth, nor on any ping / jitter / dsl errors statistics at all.
**I do however must state again** that my inhouse and overall building and street infrastructure seem to be decent, as I was and still getting 90-95/100 Mbps, and this solution might not work for everyone as answers to this question demonstrate. |
1,558,637 | I have a VDSL home network that consists of a tp-link modem-router (Archer VR400), connected to a splitter (filter) by a 1 meter RJ11 cable.
My current speed by Ethernet connection is 90-95/100 Mbps, so it seems my infrastructure is pretty reliable.
My question is: will extending the length of the RJ11 to a 10m cable may greatly or noticeably decrease my internet connection?
Also: are there any types and quality standards for RJ11 cables, such as Ethernet cat 5, cat 6 and etc ?
I stumbled upon this very old question, but could not find a clear answer for my question: [How important for speed is the length of the phone cable between the wall and the modem?](https://superuser.com/questions/312276/how-important-for-speed-is-the-length-of-the-phone-cable-between-the-wall-and-th)
Any suggestions? | 2020/06/07 | [
"https://superuser.com/questions/1558637",
"https://superuser.com",
"https://superuser.com/users/1185051/"
] | The best thing you can do is home run a CAT-5E solid conductor cable back to the DMARC. (Outside box where the PSTN copper line comes in.) You can put one DSL filter here in parallel with the CAT-5E for the rest of the RJ-11 voice outlets instead of putting one on each phone outlet.
Why you don't want to use old house wiring or
wiring blocks:
Straight pair, cheap voice cables (usually found installed in pre-1990's buildings) suffered from noise, emi pickup, and crosstalk issues.
The old wiring blocks don't even meet cat-3 specifications. (Screw and terminal) they were replaced with the 66-block style that do meet the requirements, you can find mini versions at Lowe's
or home depot etc.
* **CAT-3**: Should be used for 10Mbps or less.
* **CAT5**: Should be used up to 100Mbps.
* **CAT-5E**: Should be used for 100Mbps ~ 1000Mbps. (If you are lucky enough to be offered these speeds by the provider)
"are there any types and quality standards for RJ11 cables, such as Ethernet cat 5, cat 6 and?"
~Yes, working at a local CLEC here in PA, CAT-5E was mandatory for new installations. This was a recommendation from Verizon, because we were using their network equipment etc. (They told us mismatching awg/category types could cause signal reflection in the inside wiring.)
To be honest, it doesn't even make sense to use the other cables categories, at this point cat-5E is cheap enough that it should be installed if you are anticipating higher speeds in the future offered by the ISP, or if you just want to ensure the best possible SNR ratio from DMARC to modem.
Sometimes this isn't an option, for instance if you are renting an apartment. The best thing to do in that scenario is to see if the landlord would let you hire someone to run the cable for you.
If all else fails, you could try the extension. But if you don't pop open a RJ-11 outlet and take a peek at the wiring to see what type it is, you could actually degrade the signal with an impedance mis-match, I.e, the AWG sizes are different...
[](https://i.stack.imgur.com/Y5EQF.jpg)
<https://www.itu.int/rec/T-REC-G.992.1-199907-I/en> | Due to voltage drops you want your line to the green box as short as possible.
Put your router as close to your first socket as possible for fastest internet speeds. (Shortest cable length)
Most older /standard gear only supports 100mbs. (you'll only get 95ish... Voltage drops)
Consider your router a repeater... It takes the signal and then retransmits it at full power.
If WiFi is weak, you can get repeaters, (access points) ... But cat 5 should be good for at least 50m on the internal Lan
Cat5/6 uses four data cables (transmit +/-, receive +/-)
Telephone uses two ( +/- ) which transmits and receives (bandwidth issue )
You can use a longer cable. But it isn't recommended.
WiFi is a bottle neck
Why do you wanna move the router? |
1,558,637 | I have a VDSL home network that consists of a tp-link modem-router (Archer VR400), connected to a splitter (filter) by a 1 meter RJ11 cable.
My current speed by Ethernet connection is 90-95/100 Mbps, so it seems my infrastructure is pretty reliable.
My question is: will extending the length of the RJ11 to a 10m cable may greatly or noticeably decrease my internet connection?
Also: are there any types and quality standards for RJ11 cables, such as Ethernet cat 5, cat 6 and etc ?
I stumbled upon this very old question, but could not find a clear answer for my question: [How important for speed is the length of the phone cable between the wall and the modem?](https://superuser.com/questions/312276/how-important-for-speed-is-the-length-of-the-phone-cable-between-the-wall-and-th)
Any suggestions? | 2020/06/07 | [
"https://superuser.com/questions/1558637",
"https://superuser.com",
"https://superuser.com/users/1185051/"
] | The best thing you can do is home run a CAT-5E solid conductor cable back to the DMARC. (Outside box where the PSTN copper line comes in.) You can put one DSL filter here in parallel with the CAT-5E for the rest of the RJ-11 voice outlets instead of putting one on each phone outlet.
Why you don't want to use old house wiring or
wiring blocks:
Straight pair, cheap voice cables (usually found installed in pre-1990's buildings) suffered from noise, emi pickup, and crosstalk issues.
The old wiring blocks don't even meet cat-3 specifications. (Screw and terminal) they were replaced with the 66-block style that do meet the requirements, you can find mini versions at Lowe's
or home depot etc.
* **CAT-3**: Should be used for 10Mbps or less.
* **CAT5**: Should be used up to 100Mbps.
* **CAT-5E**: Should be used for 100Mbps ~ 1000Mbps. (If you are lucky enough to be offered these speeds by the provider)
"are there any types and quality standards for RJ11 cables, such as Ethernet cat 5, cat 6 and?"
~Yes, working at a local CLEC here in PA, CAT-5E was mandatory for new installations. This was a recommendation from Verizon, because we were using their network equipment etc. (They told us mismatching awg/category types could cause signal reflection in the inside wiring.)
To be honest, it doesn't even make sense to use the other cables categories, at this point cat-5E is cheap enough that it should be installed if you are anticipating higher speeds in the future offered by the ISP, or if you just want to ensure the best possible SNR ratio from DMARC to modem.
Sometimes this isn't an option, for instance if you are renting an apartment. The best thing to do in that scenario is to see if the landlord would let you hire someone to run the cable for you.
If all else fails, you could try the extension. But if you don't pop open a RJ-11 outlet and take a peek at the wiring to see what type it is, you could actually degrade the signal with an impedance mis-match, I.e, the AWG sizes are different...
[](https://i.stack.imgur.com/Y5EQF.jpg)
<https://www.itu.int/rec/T-REC-G.992.1-199907-I/en> | I learnt alot from all the answers and comments back then when asking this question - yet in general, most of the answers and comments summed up to "it is not something anyone can guarantee for 100%", and overall it is something that I'll know only when I try.
I nearly forgot about this question, **but I can say that after trying** a simple 10m long `RJ11` cable (kept the filter), **I saw almost no negative effect** on my bandwidth, nor on any ping / jitter / dsl errors statistics at all.
**I do however must state again** that my inhouse and overall building and street infrastructure seem to be decent, as I was and still getting 90-95/100 Mbps, and this solution might not work for everyone as answers to this question demonstrate. |
1,558,637 | I have a VDSL home network that consists of a tp-link modem-router (Archer VR400), connected to a splitter (filter) by a 1 meter RJ11 cable.
My current speed by Ethernet connection is 90-95/100 Mbps, so it seems my infrastructure is pretty reliable.
My question is: will extending the length of the RJ11 to a 10m cable may greatly or noticeably decrease my internet connection?
Also: are there any types and quality standards for RJ11 cables, such as Ethernet cat 5, cat 6 and etc ?
I stumbled upon this very old question, but could not find a clear answer for my question: [How important for speed is the length of the phone cable between the wall and the modem?](https://superuser.com/questions/312276/how-important-for-speed-is-the-length-of-the-phone-cable-between-the-wall-and-th)
Any suggestions? | 2020/06/07 | [
"https://superuser.com/questions/1558637",
"https://superuser.com",
"https://superuser.com/users/1185051/"
] | I learnt alot from all the answers and comments back then when asking this question - yet in general, most of the answers and comments summed up to "it is not something anyone can guarantee for 100%", and overall it is something that I'll know only when I try.
I nearly forgot about this question, **but I can say that after trying** a simple 10m long `RJ11` cable (kept the filter), **I saw almost no negative effect** on my bandwidth, nor on any ping / jitter / dsl errors statistics at all.
**I do however must state again** that my inhouse and overall building and street infrastructure seem to be decent, as I was and still getting 90-95/100 Mbps, and this solution might not work for everyone as answers to this question demonstrate. | Due to voltage drops you want your line to the green box as short as possible.
Put your router as close to your first socket as possible for fastest internet speeds. (Shortest cable length)
Most older /standard gear only supports 100mbs. (you'll only get 95ish... Voltage drops)
Consider your router a repeater... It takes the signal and then retransmits it at full power.
If WiFi is weak, you can get repeaters, (access points) ... But cat 5 should be good for at least 50m on the internal Lan
Cat5/6 uses four data cables (transmit +/-, receive +/-)
Telephone uses two ( +/- ) which transmits and receives (bandwidth issue )
You can use a longer cable. But it isn't recommended.
WiFi is a bottle neck
Why do you wanna move the router? |
798,868 | I use Office 365 for email with about 30 people using 6 domains.
I occasionally receive messages from the "Postmaster" saying that an email was rejected which was never sent. For instance:
[](https://i.stack.imgur.com/z7p9B.png)
I assumed that one of the following was happening.
1. Someone was sending messages to me pretending to be the Postmaster.
2. Someone was sending messages to others with forged headers so that it looked like it was coming from me.
I basically ignored these messages because I did not believe that there was anything I could do about these two scenarios. However, I just added a new domain and these messages have now skyrocketed.
Here are my questions:
1. Is there any way to tell whether these messages are legitimately from postmaster? If so, would I be able to completely block any messages not from the legit postmaster?
2. Is there any way of guarding against someone forging headers to send email on one of my domains?
More Information
----------------
I am receiving these suspicious emails on my main admin account (let's say that is one domain1.com). However, the emails are coming in as if they were sent on the new domain2.com. Normally, postmaster rejects are received by the email sending it out in the first place.
Normally, a bounced email message from office 365 looks like this:
[](https://i.stack.imgur.com/h8Jyf.png)
Which leads me to think that this is a fake message. However, when I look at the message header, of the suspicious message, it looks pretty legit (although I am no expert). Here is what comes up:
[](https://i.stack.imgur.com/5VsQg.png)
[](https://i.stack.imgur.com/Utmam.png)
[](https://i.stack.imgur.com/PVLvO.png)
[](https://i.stack.imgur.com/jvrfA.png)
[](https://i.stack.imgur.com/c4IZO.png)
[](https://i.stack.imgur.com/7kOEu.png)
[](https://i.stack.imgur.com/1bsRn.png)
[](https://i.stack.imgur.com/RrWDY.png) | 2016/08/24 | [
"https://serverfault.com/questions/798868",
"https://serverfault.com",
"https://serverfault.com/users/119675/"
] | auth is the default SysLogFacility for sshd (openssh).
The authors choose to log attemts althouh prohibited. This is along normal logging behviour: If something does NOT work, log it.
As there is no specific log switch for failed root logins within sshd you have tp tune that on syslog level.
Configure syslog in the auth facility to ignore failed root login messages coming from sshd. | Attempts to log in as root on your server are an indication of an intrusion attempt. The defaults are set up in line with information security best practice, so that admins are aware when someone is trying to access their servers as root.
Ignoring failed root logons runs counter to best practice. If you do not want to see the failed root logon entries in the security log, configure syslog to send them somewhere else. |
339,327 | I bought my HP Color Laserjet CM1015 MFP about 5 years ago. It worked flawlessly on Windows Vista (unsure of 32/64-bit). This worked well on Windows 7 64-bit on two different machines (I upgraded to a new machine about six months ago). Just about two months ago it started to have problems with not being discoverable always. This was after HP Software Update program downloading an upgrade.
I have uninstalled the driver and try to reinstall from the original CD. Installation process itself fails. Using the *Program Compatibility Troubleshooter* moved it further along but did not finish.
Installing with the full software solution on this [page](http://h20000.www2.hp.com/bizsupport/TechSupport/SoftwareIndex.jsp?lang=en&cc=us&prodNameId=1846081&prodTypeId=18972&prodSeriesId=1846080&swLang=8&taskId=135&swEnvOID=2100) completed successfully a few times. Unfortunately, there was no support for scanning. Worse yet, I lost the ability to print in color.
The amount of time I spent on this is ridiculous:-( I have an expensive, top notch hardware printer/scanner/copier. I hate to throw it away for lack of drivers. I welcome any workarounds (such as print servers or anything else that can revive color printing). | 2011/09/24 | [
"https://superuser.com/questions/339327",
"https://superuser.com",
"https://superuser.com/users/99009/"
] | HP has Windows 7 64 bit drivers posted. [HP US CM1015](http://h20000.www2.hp.com/bizsupport/TechSupport/SoftwareIndex.jsp?lang=en&cc=us&prodNameId=1846081&prodTypeId=18972&prodSeriesId=1846080&swLang=8&taskId=135&swEnvOID=4063) That may help with printing. The app that manages scanning may need to come from the original install and may or may not work with Win 7 64bit.
You may also want to see if the print processor you are using now is somehow not correct and only allowing mono printing. It is in Printer properties -Advanced-Print Processor. There may be several and you might try plain WinPrint select RAW as the data type. Have seen some HP Print Processors mess things up. | >
> Worse yet, I lost the ability to print in color
>
>
>
Loading the postscript driver version yields color on the CM1015. |
339,327 | I bought my HP Color Laserjet CM1015 MFP about 5 years ago. It worked flawlessly on Windows Vista (unsure of 32/64-bit). This worked well on Windows 7 64-bit on two different machines (I upgraded to a new machine about six months ago). Just about two months ago it started to have problems with not being discoverable always. This was after HP Software Update program downloading an upgrade.
I have uninstalled the driver and try to reinstall from the original CD. Installation process itself fails. Using the *Program Compatibility Troubleshooter* moved it further along but did not finish.
Installing with the full software solution on this [page](http://h20000.www2.hp.com/bizsupport/TechSupport/SoftwareIndex.jsp?lang=en&cc=us&prodNameId=1846081&prodTypeId=18972&prodSeriesId=1846080&swLang=8&taskId=135&swEnvOID=2100) completed successfully a few times. Unfortunately, there was no support for scanning. Worse yet, I lost the ability to print in color.
The amount of time I spent on this is ridiculous:-( I have an expensive, top notch hardware printer/scanner/copier. I hate to throw it away for lack of drivers. I welcome any workarounds (such as print servers or anything else that can revive color printing). | 2011/09/24 | [
"https://superuser.com/questions/339327",
"https://superuser.com",
"https://superuser.com/users/99009/"
] | HP have not done a good job at making their vista driver installer work well in Windows 7/8.
But the actual drivers work fine. Install them as follows.
* Download and unzip the [400MB full software](http://h20566.www2.hp.com/portal/site/hpsc/template.PAGE/public/psi/swdHome/?sp4ts.oid=1846081&spf_p.tpst=psiSwdMain&spf_p.prp_psiSwdMain=wsrp-navigationalState%3DtaskId%253D135%257CprodNameId%253D1846081%257Cac.admitted%253D1405903681483.876444892.199480143%257CswEnvOID%253D2100%257CprodTypeId%253D18972%257CswLang%253D8%257CprodSeriesId%253D1846080%257Clang%253Den%257Ccc%253Dus%257Caction%253DlistDriver&javax.portlet.begCacheTok=com.vignette.cachetoken&javax.portlet.endCacheTok=com.vignette.cachetoken) for Windows Vista (yes, choose the Vista option even though you have windows 7/8)
If you just want to install the scan/print drivers alone without all HP's tools, I recommend icopy scan software: <http://icopy.sourceforge.net/>
* Plug the printer into your USB port
* Wait for windows to detect and try to install the drivers. Printer drivers may work but scan drivers will fail
* Press windows key and type "device manager" into the search. Press enter.
* right-click the HP scan devices that show problems and select "Update Driver Software"
* select "Browse my computer for driver software"
* enter the path to the folder you unzipped above
* done. You have scan capability!
If your **really** want the HP Toolbox installed and any other software as well as the drivers:
* you will have to go through the the hp instructions already linked by someone else.
* which is basically to set all the .exe files in the archive root to run in vista compatibility mode and run setup.exe
* But for me it always hangs when asking you to plug in the USB device.
It may be that you can get past that by telling "network" when it asks you if your device is accessed via the network or USB. But I haven't tried it. | HP has Windows 7 64 bit drivers posted. [HP US CM1015](http://h20000.www2.hp.com/bizsupport/TechSupport/SoftwareIndex.jsp?lang=en&cc=us&prodNameId=1846081&prodTypeId=18972&prodSeriesId=1846080&swLang=8&taskId=135&swEnvOID=4063) That may help with printing. The app that manages scanning may need to come from the original install and may or may not work with Win 7 64bit.
You may also want to see if the print processor you are using now is somehow not correct and only allowing mono printing. It is in Printer properties -Advanced-Print Processor. There may be several and you might try plain WinPrint select RAW as the data type. Have seen some HP Print Processors mess things up. |
339,327 | I bought my HP Color Laserjet CM1015 MFP about 5 years ago. It worked flawlessly on Windows Vista (unsure of 32/64-bit). This worked well on Windows 7 64-bit on two different machines (I upgraded to a new machine about six months ago). Just about two months ago it started to have problems with not being discoverable always. This was after HP Software Update program downloading an upgrade.
I have uninstalled the driver and try to reinstall from the original CD. Installation process itself fails. Using the *Program Compatibility Troubleshooter* moved it further along but did not finish.
Installing with the full software solution on this [page](http://h20000.www2.hp.com/bizsupport/TechSupport/SoftwareIndex.jsp?lang=en&cc=us&prodNameId=1846081&prodTypeId=18972&prodSeriesId=1846080&swLang=8&taskId=135&swEnvOID=2100) completed successfully a few times. Unfortunately, there was no support for scanning. Worse yet, I lost the ability to print in color.
The amount of time I spent on this is ridiculous:-( I have an expensive, top notch hardware printer/scanner/copier. I hate to throw it away for lack of drivers. I welcome any workarounds (such as print servers or anything else that can revive color printing). | 2011/09/24 | [
"https://superuser.com/questions/339327",
"https://superuser.com",
"https://superuser.com/users/99009/"
] | HP have not done a good job at making their vista driver installer work well in Windows 7/8.
But the actual drivers work fine. Install them as follows.
* Download and unzip the [400MB full software](http://h20566.www2.hp.com/portal/site/hpsc/template.PAGE/public/psi/swdHome/?sp4ts.oid=1846081&spf_p.tpst=psiSwdMain&spf_p.prp_psiSwdMain=wsrp-navigationalState%3DtaskId%253D135%257CprodNameId%253D1846081%257Cac.admitted%253D1405903681483.876444892.199480143%257CswEnvOID%253D2100%257CprodTypeId%253D18972%257CswLang%253D8%257CprodSeriesId%253D1846080%257Clang%253Den%257Ccc%253Dus%257Caction%253DlistDriver&javax.portlet.begCacheTok=com.vignette.cachetoken&javax.portlet.endCacheTok=com.vignette.cachetoken) for Windows Vista (yes, choose the Vista option even though you have windows 7/8)
If you just want to install the scan/print drivers alone without all HP's tools, I recommend icopy scan software: <http://icopy.sourceforge.net/>
* Plug the printer into your USB port
* Wait for windows to detect and try to install the drivers. Printer drivers may work but scan drivers will fail
* Press windows key and type "device manager" into the search. Press enter.
* right-click the HP scan devices that show problems and select "Update Driver Software"
* select "Browse my computer for driver software"
* enter the path to the folder you unzipped above
* done. You have scan capability!
If your **really** want the HP Toolbox installed and any other software as well as the drivers:
* you will have to go through the the hp instructions already linked by someone else.
* which is basically to set all the .exe files in the archive root to run in vista compatibility mode and run setup.exe
* But for me it always hangs when asking you to plug in the USB device.
It may be that you can get past that by telling "network" when it asks you if your device is accessed via the network or USB. But I haven't tried it. | >
> Worse yet, I lost the ability to print in color
>
>
>
Loading the postscript driver version yields color on the CM1015. |
22,990 | Are all of those words used? How does the meaning of the sentence change when either one is used instead of the others?
1.I was disappointed with/by my result.
2.I am disappointed with/by/in you/him/her. | 2014/05/08 | [
"https://ell.stackexchange.com/questions/22990",
"https://ell.stackexchange.com",
"https://ell.stackexchange.com/users/5852/"
] | Where the cause of disappointment is a *person*, we [normally use **in**](https://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=disappointed%20in%20you,disappointed%20with%20you,disappointed%20by%20you&year_start=1800&year_end=2000&corpus=15&smoothing=3&share=&direct_url=t1;,disappointed%20in%20you;,c0;.t1;,disappointed%20with%20you;,c0;.t1;,disappointed%20by%20you;,c0). Where the cause is a physical *thing* or an *action/event*, we're [more likely to use **by** or **with**.](https://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=disappointed%20in%20the,disappointed%20with%20the,disappointed%20by%20the&year_start=1800&year_end=2000&corpus=15&smoothing=3&share=&direct_url=t1;,disappointed%20in%20the;,c0;.t1;,disappointed%20with%20the;,c0;.t1;,disappointed%20by%20the;,c0)
Thus, for OP's first example context, *"I was disappointed **by** my result"* is the most common form. There's nothing wrong with ***with*** there, but ***in*** is unlikely.
In OP's second example, the most common form is *"I am disappointed **in** you"*. There's nothing inherently "wrong" with either ***with*** or ***by*** - they're just not so common.
---
Not all native speakers will necessarily agree with me here, but I feel the above usage tendencies can lead to a potential distinction...
>
> 1: *"I am disappointed **in** you"* [(about 26,400 results in Google Books)](https://www.google.com/search?q=%22organisms%20have%20differences%20in%20common%22&btnG=Search%20Books&tbm=bks&tbo=1#q=%22I%20am%20disappointed%20in%20you%22&tbm=bks)
>
> 2: *"I am disappointed **with** you"* ([525 results](https://www.google.com/search?q=%22organisms%20have%20differences%20in%20common%22&btnG=Search%20Books&tbm=bks&tbo=1#q=%22I%20am%20disappointed%20with%20you%22&tbm=bks))
>
> 3: *"I am disappointed **by** you"* ([7 results](https://www.google.com/search?q=%22organisms%20have%20differences%20in%20common%22&btnG=Search%20Books&tbm=bks&tbo=1#q=%22I%20am%20disappointed%20by%20you%22&tbm=bks))
>
>
>
Apart from the obvious difference in *prevalence*, I think there's also a case for saying that #1 there tends to imply ***everything about you*** disappoints me, whereas #2 and #3 carry a stronger implication of being *disappointed by **some specific thing you did***. | Normal usage is as follows:
1. Disappointed with (object) - an object of neutral gender.
E.g: I am disappointed with your **service**.
2. Disappointed over - an incidence.
3. Disappointed in/with - very similar but slightly different connotation. 'In' is more personal and conveys reflection on the individual. 'With' is more used for disappointment over an isolated incidence. |
22,990 | Are all of those words used? How does the meaning of the sentence change when either one is used instead of the others?
1.I was disappointed with/by my result.
2.I am disappointed with/by/in you/him/her. | 2014/05/08 | [
"https://ell.stackexchange.com/questions/22990",
"https://ell.stackexchange.com",
"https://ell.stackexchange.com/users/5852/"
] | The difference between "in", "by", and "with" in this context actually depends on the nature or type of disappointment you feel:
"Disappointed with" implies that the cause of the disappointment was something basic about the nature or attributes of the thing:
>
> I was disappointed with my new toaster. It really didn't toast the bread as well as I hoped.
>
>
>
The "with" form is usually used with inanimate objects (like toasters), though can sometimes be used for people if you're expressing a general disappointment about their qualifications/abilities/etc, rather than being disappointed by any specific thing that they've done:
>
> I was disappointed with the second candidate. He didn't really have the skills we need for the job.
>
>
>
On the other hand, "disappointed by" usually indicates that somebody has done something specific to cause you to be disappointed:
>
> I was disappointed by Fred. He said he'd give me a ride, but he never showed up!
>
>
>
(The "by" form is occasionally used with objects, but most of the time only makes sense for people.)
"Disappointed in" usually indicates a deeper level of disappointment with the nature of somebody or something, or repeated problems with them, and often indicates that the speaker has lost faith in someone's ability to do what's expected of them:
>
> I'm very disappointed in Bill. I thought he had experience with this job, but every time he does it he does something wrong.
>
>
>
or
>
> I'm disappointed in the government. They just can't seem to get anything done!
>
>
> | Normal usage is as follows:
1. Disappointed with (object) - an object of neutral gender.
E.g: I am disappointed with your **service**.
2. Disappointed over - an incidence.
3. Disappointed in/with - very similar but slightly different connotation. 'In' is more personal and conveys reflection on the individual. 'With' is more used for disappointment over an isolated incidence. |
22,990 | Are all of those words used? How does the meaning of the sentence change when either one is used instead of the others?
1.I was disappointed with/by my result.
2.I am disappointed with/by/in you/him/her. | 2014/05/08 | [
"https://ell.stackexchange.com/questions/22990",
"https://ell.stackexchange.com",
"https://ell.stackexchange.com/users/5852/"
] | Normal usage is as follows:
1. Disappointed with (object) - an object of neutral gender.
E.g: I am disappointed with your **service**.
2. Disappointed over - an incidence.
3. Disappointed in/with - very similar but slightly different connotation. 'In' is more personal and conveys reflection on the individual. 'With' is more used for disappointment over an isolated incidence. | Welp, it depends on regional usage. There isn't any difference between the usage of with or by ... Hence the above explanation is cancellenced referring to Comprehensive English grammar .. available online too. However I agree with other part elaborated above |
22,990 | Are all of those words used? How does the meaning of the sentence change when either one is used instead of the others?
1.I was disappointed with/by my result.
2.I am disappointed with/by/in you/him/her. | 2014/05/08 | [
"https://ell.stackexchange.com/questions/22990",
"https://ell.stackexchange.com",
"https://ell.stackexchange.com/users/5852/"
] | The difference between "in", "by", and "with" in this context actually depends on the nature or type of disappointment you feel:
"Disappointed with" implies that the cause of the disappointment was something basic about the nature or attributes of the thing:
>
> I was disappointed with my new toaster. It really didn't toast the bread as well as I hoped.
>
>
>
The "with" form is usually used with inanimate objects (like toasters), though can sometimes be used for people if you're expressing a general disappointment about their qualifications/abilities/etc, rather than being disappointed by any specific thing that they've done:
>
> I was disappointed with the second candidate. He didn't really have the skills we need for the job.
>
>
>
On the other hand, "disappointed by" usually indicates that somebody has done something specific to cause you to be disappointed:
>
> I was disappointed by Fred. He said he'd give me a ride, but he never showed up!
>
>
>
(The "by" form is occasionally used with objects, but most of the time only makes sense for people.)
"Disappointed in" usually indicates a deeper level of disappointment with the nature of somebody or something, or repeated problems with them, and often indicates that the speaker has lost faith in someone's ability to do what's expected of them:
>
> I'm very disappointed in Bill. I thought he had experience with this job, but every time he does it he does something wrong.
>
>
>
or
>
> I'm disappointed in the government. They just can't seem to get anything done!
>
>
> | Where the cause of disappointment is a *person*, we [normally use **in**](https://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=disappointed%20in%20you,disappointed%20with%20you,disappointed%20by%20you&year_start=1800&year_end=2000&corpus=15&smoothing=3&share=&direct_url=t1;,disappointed%20in%20you;,c0;.t1;,disappointed%20with%20you;,c0;.t1;,disappointed%20by%20you;,c0). Where the cause is a physical *thing* or an *action/event*, we're [more likely to use **by** or **with**.](https://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=disappointed%20in%20the,disappointed%20with%20the,disappointed%20by%20the&year_start=1800&year_end=2000&corpus=15&smoothing=3&share=&direct_url=t1;,disappointed%20in%20the;,c0;.t1;,disappointed%20with%20the;,c0;.t1;,disappointed%20by%20the;,c0)
Thus, for OP's first example context, *"I was disappointed **by** my result"* is the most common form. There's nothing wrong with ***with*** there, but ***in*** is unlikely.
In OP's second example, the most common form is *"I am disappointed **in** you"*. There's nothing inherently "wrong" with either ***with*** or ***by*** - they're just not so common.
---
Not all native speakers will necessarily agree with me here, but I feel the above usage tendencies can lead to a potential distinction...
>
> 1: *"I am disappointed **in** you"* [(about 26,400 results in Google Books)](https://www.google.com/search?q=%22organisms%20have%20differences%20in%20common%22&btnG=Search%20Books&tbm=bks&tbo=1#q=%22I%20am%20disappointed%20in%20you%22&tbm=bks)
>
> 2: *"I am disappointed **with** you"* ([525 results](https://www.google.com/search?q=%22organisms%20have%20differences%20in%20common%22&btnG=Search%20Books&tbm=bks&tbo=1#q=%22I%20am%20disappointed%20with%20you%22&tbm=bks))
>
> 3: *"I am disappointed **by** you"* ([7 results](https://www.google.com/search?q=%22organisms%20have%20differences%20in%20common%22&btnG=Search%20Books&tbm=bks&tbo=1#q=%22I%20am%20disappointed%20by%20you%22&tbm=bks))
>
>
>
Apart from the obvious difference in *prevalence*, I think there's also a case for saying that #1 there tends to imply ***everything about you*** disappoints me, whereas #2 and #3 carry a stronger implication of being *disappointed by **some specific thing you did***. |
22,990 | Are all of those words used? How does the meaning of the sentence change when either one is used instead of the others?
1.I was disappointed with/by my result.
2.I am disappointed with/by/in you/him/her. | 2014/05/08 | [
"https://ell.stackexchange.com/questions/22990",
"https://ell.stackexchange.com",
"https://ell.stackexchange.com/users/5852/"
] | Where the cause of disappointment is a *person*, we [normally use **in**](https://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=disappointed%20in%20you,disappointed%20with%20you,disappointed%20by%20you&year_start=1800&year_end=2000&corpus=15&smoothing=3&share=&direct_url=t1;,disappointed%20in%20you;,c0;.t1;,disappointed%20with%20you;,c0;.t1;,disappointed%20by%20you;,c0). Where the cause is a physical *thing* or an *action/event*, we're [more likely to use **by** or **with**.](https://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=disappointed%20in%20the,disappointed%20with%20the,disappointed%20by%20the&year_start=1800&year_end=2000&corpus=15&smoothing=3&share=&direct_url=t1;,disappointed%20in%20the;,c0;.t1;,disappointed%20with%20the;,c0;.t1;,disappointed%20by%20the;,c0)
Thus, for OP's first example context, *"I was disappointed **by** my result"* is the most common form. There's nothing wrong with ***with*** there, but ***in*** is unlikely.
In OP's second example, the most common form is *"I am disappointed **in** you"*. There's nothing inherently "wrong" with either ***with*** or ***by*** - they're just not so common.
---
Not all native speakers will necessarily agree with me here, but I feel the above usage tendencies can lead to a potential distinction...
>
> 1: *"I am disappointed **in** you"* [(about 26,400 results in Google Books)](https://www.google.com/search?q=%22organisms%20have%20differences%20in%20common%22&btnG=Search%20Books&tbm=bks&tbo=1#q=%22I%20am%20disappointed%20in%20you%22&tbm=bks)
>
> 2: *"I am disappointed **with** you"* ([525 results](https://www.google.com/search?q=%22organisms%20have%20differences%20in%20common%22&btnG=Search%20Books&tbm=bks&tbo=1#q=%22I%20am%20disappointed%20with%20you%22&tbm=bks))
>
> 3: *"I am disappointed **by** you"* ([7 results](https://www.google.com/search?q=%22organisms%20have%20differences%20in%20common%22&btnG=Search%20Books&tbm=bks&tbo=1#q=%22I%20am%20disappointed%20by%20you%22&tbm=bks))
>
>
>
Apart from the obvious difference in *prevalence*, I think there's also a case for saying that #1 there tends to imply ***everything about you*** disappoints me, whereas #2 and #3 carry a stronger implication of being *disappointed by **some specific thing you did***. | Welp, it depends on regional usage. There isn't any difference between the usage of with or by ... Hence the above explanation is cancellenced referring to Comprehensive English grammar .. available online too. However I agree with other part elaborated above |
22,990 | Are all of those words used? How does the meaning of the sentence change when either one is used instead of the others?
1.I was disappointed with/by my result.
2.I am disappointed with/by/in you/him/her. | 2014/05/08 | [
"https://ell.stackexchange.com/questions/22990",
"https://ell.stackexchange.com",
"https://ell.stackexchange.com/users/5852/"
] | The difference between "in", "by", and "with" in this context actually depends on the nature or type of disappointment you feel:
"Disappointed with" implies that the cause of the disappointment was something basic about the nature or attributes of the thing:
>
> I was disappointed with my new toaster. It really didn't toast the bread as well as I hoped.
>
>
>
The "with" form is usually used with inanimate objects (like toasters), though can sometimes be used for people if you're expressing a general disappointment about their qualifications/abilities/etc, rather than being disappointed by any specific thing that they've done:
>
> I was disappointed with the second candidate. He didn't really have the skills we need for the job.
>
>
>
On the other hand, "disappointed by" usually indicates that somebody has done something specific to cause you to be disappointed:
>
> I was disappointed by Fred. He said he'd give me a ride, but he never showed up!
>
>
>
(The "by" form is occasionally used with objects, but most of the time only makes sense for people.)
"Disappointed in" usually indicates a deeper level of disappointment with the nature of somebody or something, or repeated problems with them, and often indicates that the speaker has lost faith in someone's ability to do what's expected of them:
>
> I'm very disappointed in Bill. I thought he had experience with this job, but every time he does it he does something wrong.
>
>
>
or
>
> I'm disappointed in the government. They just can't seem to get anything done!
>
>
> | Welp, it depends on regional usage. There isn't any difference between the usage of with or by ... Hence the above explanation is cancellenced referring to Comprehensive English grammar .. available online too. However I agree with other part elaborated above |
6,454 | As I was just looking for a marshrutka in Ukraine in noticed the tag:
<https://travel.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/marshrutkas>
It's a Russian word commonly used in all countries of the former Soviet Union with no equivalent in English. I would suggest to use the Russian plural (which is suitable for most Slavic languages) instead of a weird arbitrary English plural.
Marshrutk*i* instead of Marshrutka*s*
Or if there is no agreement on that the singular should do it: Marshrutka | 2020/01/25 | [
"https://travel.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/6454",
"https://travel.meta.stackexchange.com",
"https://travel.meta.stackexchange.com/users/105125/"
] | I think a better approach is possible here - using a proper English name instead. I've created the tag [shared-taxis](https://travel.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/shared-taxis "show questions tagged 'shared-taxis'") and made tag [marshrutkas](https://travel.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/marshrutkas "show questions tagged 'marshrutkas'") it's synonym. This way we can also reuse the same tag for questions about similar forms of transportation in other countries, as currently this tag only has 7 questions. | As per [this comment](https://travel.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/6454/marshrutkas-tag-wrongly-written#comment15256_6455) I suggest creating the tag [kyrgyz-marshrutkas](https://travel.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/kyrgyz-marshrutkas "show questions tagged 'kyrgyz-marshrutkas'") else I'd like to see all airline tags merged into [airlines](https://travel.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/airlines "show questions tagged 'airlines'"). |
216 | How many competing Android markets (other than the Play Store itself) are there and are they any good? Which ones do you use and why? | 2010/09/14 | [
"https://android.stackexchange.com/questions/216",
"https://android.stackexchange.com",
"https://android.stackexchange.com/users/119/"
] | ~~Missing in previous answers is **[AndroidPIT](http://www.androidpit.com/)** which is running a separate market. Sure, almost all apps found there are also in the Playstore (but not necessarily vice-versa: so for missing apps there are links to the playstore provided). Developers need to actively maintain their apps on this platform (i.e. upload new versions), and for paid apps *AndroidPIT* provides its own license API.~~
So what is the plus of this platform? It has an active community (in the forums and the news blogs), and one can use alternative payment methods (e.g. Paypal) in addition to credit cards. Moreover, reviews for apps can be found there as well. So with the playstore comments, local comments, *and* the reviews, one can get a better idea of what an app is like -- before downloading it. Furthermore, the [German branch](http://www.androidpit.de/) even has an *App Reviews* section in their forum, including overviews for apps on a kind of "per-category" base -- which makes it easier to find a suiting app, as similar apps are grouped together.
So if you like that idea, but do not want another "source of apps" (it's a good idea to stick to one market platform, especially for paid apps -- so you don't lose track which app you installed from what source, and get into trouble on a re-install for a new (or factory-reset) device), you can still go there for information.
**UPDATE:** AndroidPIT has [closed its independent app market on 2014-12-31](http://www.androidpit.com/site-announcement-androidpit-app-center-closing). | Though it's rather a "link only answer", in this case there's no way around as the given source is (hopefully) maintained and the content subject to change: Here's a [list of available markets](http://www.dmoz.org/Computers/Software/Operating_Systems/Android/Markets) in the [DMOZ](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DMOZ) Mozilla directory, also giving users the possibility to report issues with them (if any). In addition to those already mentioned in answers here, it also names e.g. [Aptoide](http://www.aptoide.com/), [AOpenSource](http://www.aopensource.com/) – altogether at the moment of this writing 25 Android markets. |
216 | How many competing Android markets (other than the Play Store itself) are there and are they any good? Which ones do you use and why? | 2010/09/14 | [
"https://android.stackexchange.com/questions/216",
"https://android.stackexchange.com",
"https://android.stackexchange.com/users/119/"
] | [The Samsung app store](https://www.samsung.com/us/apps/galaxy-store/) is installed on every Samsung mobile device (which is a lot). They are ultra helpful, unlike every other app store I have submitted to.
It can take over a week to get a new app past their quality control but it's worth the wait. They are so good at reviewing apps that I now submit to Samsung before Google Play.
It can be a little confusing at first to understand what they call their seller office is all about but hey, we are developers so are used to learning curves.
Among other things they review content to ensure that there are no copyright issues (something that can get you banned from Google Play) and they review every option VERY thoroughly on ALL the devices you have selected.
If anything goes wrong and quality control fails you get a complete breakdown of exactly what went wrong (including log cat) and even a video replicating the issue and they provide details on what is expected from you to fix it and re-submit.
What really impresses me is that they are so constructive with their criticisms.
Once an app has been approved by Samsung, I am more than happy that I have a very solid app that functions the way I want it to.
I just get a comfortable feeling when Samsung approves one of my apps. They don't tell you off or slap you on the wrists or, in any other way treat you like a naughty school kid if you get something wrong. They just help you to understand what to put right. Google Play will just pull your app and suspend you with no help whatsoever to put things right. | I received a very good amount of installs from [mobiletoones.com](https://www.mobiletoones.com/downloads/android-apps/) and [apps.opera.com (now android.oms.apps.bemobi.com)](http://android.oms.apps.bemobi.com/en_us/).
Also, my revenue was ramped up too within 2 days. If you are looking for targeted users for your app, then you should distribute your app to many sources, not just stick to one website! |
216 | How many competing Android markets (other than the Play Store itself) are there and are they any good? Which ones do you use and why? | 2010/09/14 | [
"https://android.stackexchange.com/questions/216",
"https://android.stackexchange.com",
"https://android.stackexchange.com/users/119/"
] | I use [AppBrain](http://www.appbrain.com/) because it provides a nice site, and it makes it really easy to install apps onto my phone. Additionally, I'm finding that many bloggers that are reviewing apps are putting links to the AppBrain page for the app in their posts. This makes it really easy to mark something for install while I'm at my computer reading the blog posts, and then install it when I get a chance.
---
Edit by Izzy:
[AppBrain](http://www.appbrain.com/) offers an alternative (and much cleaner) interface to the [Google Play Store](https://play.google.com/store/apps), which offers several advantages:
* search results are much less limited (30 pages à 10 apps = 300 results, much more than Play offers)
* search results "gray out" possible spam, offensive, and otherwise harmful apps. You still can see them, though – but it's quite clear what to skip
* app details page gives the most important details at a glance. It's easy to see what permissions are requested. And if those form "potential dangerous combinations" (called "concerns" at AppBrain), that's automatically pointed out by a warning sign on the permissions tab
* Their app (an alternative to the Playstore app) enables you to skip single (or all) updates on a per-app-base, which keeps your list of "pending updates" quite clean.
For installation, you will be redirected to [Google Play](https://play.google.com/store/apps). In the past, [AppBrain](http://www.appbrain.com/) had a separate app for this called the "Fast Web Installer", but unfortunately this app was banned by Google. So even for batch updates, the Playstore app will now be opened for each app separately (not AppBrains fault).
[](https://i.stack.imgur.com/VYZ8c.png) [](https://i.stack.imgur.com/jhWDI.png) [](https://i.stack.imgur.com/PbqoY.png)
*AppBrain App Market* (source: [AppBrain](http://www.appbrain.com/app/appbrain-app-market/com.appspot.swisscodemonkeys.apps); click images for larger variants)
Still, I count their Website as a much better alternative to the [Google Play](https://play.google.com/store/apps) website – and the same is to be said for their app, though for installations it has to redirect you as described above. | [Yalp Store](https://f-droid.org/en/packages/com.github.yeriomin.yalpstore/ "Yalp Store") allows the download of apps directly from Google Play Store.
>
> By default Yalp Store connects to Google services using a built-in account, so you do not have to own a Google account to use it . The only reason to use a live Google account is to access the paid apps you own or leave reviews.
>
>
>
It has an option to know the number of trackers found in an app and view the app's report via [Exodus Privacy](https://exodus-privacy.eu.org/en/)
[](https://i.stack.imgur.com/Z5SCa.jpg) |
216 | How many competing Android markets (other than the Play Store itself) are there and are they any good? Which ones do you use and why? | 2010/09/14 | [
"https://android.stackexchange.com/questions/216",
"https://android.stackexchange.com",
"https://android.stackexchange.com/users/119/"
] | There are actually several alternatives to the 'official' Google Android market (aka Play Store).
I personally like to search for new apps from my PC browser, and a bit less from my phone. Most (all?) of the markets nowadays offer both, via a dedicated phone-app that you'll have to install, except from the official one which is already there.
Until, well, yesterday, the 'official' market would not have been available from your PC (meaning: on a PC web browser). Now it is, with a neat push-to-your-phone one-click installation that is taking away one of the advantages of the competition (see AppBrain). The alternative markets, though, have still their peculiarities. I'll make a short summary but don't expect it to highlight all of the differences. Some markets (e.g. AndSpot) do not offer very specific features to users, but try to gather developers by offering advanced features such as easy stats.
* **[Amazon AppStore](http://www.amazon.com/mobile-apps/b?ie=UTF8&node=2350149011)**: latest big entry. countries limitations; catalog looking very promising with some (exclusive?) good pay-for apps; also features special offers and daily freebies. Def worth checking out
* **[AppBrain](http://www.appbrain.com/)**: born to let you install Android Market applications directly from your PC web browser, also allows you to discover new apps based on the ones you have. It's a *meta-store* (my favourite before the official market update)
* **[APKPure](https://apkpure.com)**: don't need any registration to use it
* **[SlideME](http://slideme.org/)**: they provide *applications to niche markets, based on geographic location, payment method, or even types of applications that users can't find in traditional channels*
* **[Samsung Apps](http://apps.samsung.com/)** (must be installed on Samsung Galaxy devices, or else you can't use this): Samsung app store, which of course requires you to own a Samsung Android device
* **[F-Droid](https://f-droid.org/)** they distribute FOSS open source packages that pass audit and verification to ensure that code has no malicious parts.
* **[GetJar](http://www.getjar.com/)**: my latest discovery. Quite a lot of apps, and they have special ("GOLD") commercial apps for free. An extremely interesting platform for developers, since they seem to offer above-the-average marketing and PS activities!
I suggest you click on some of these links and see for yourself if the look/applications suit your style!
Thanks to various sources, in particular, this [thenextweb.com](http://thenextweb.com/apps/2011/01/09/6-alternatives-to-the-android-market/) article | **[Aptoide](https://www.aptoide.com/)** serves a bunch of repositories in [APT](https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Advanced_Packaging_Tool) style (which some of you might know from [Debian](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Debian) and its derivates). They also have their own Android client used to access (search and install apps from) them. For checking available apps, any web browser can be used as well – simply point it to [m.aptoide.com](http://m.aptoide.com/). According to [Wikipedia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aptoide), they serve more than 900,000 different apps with over 3.6 billion downloads in over 250,000 stores (as of 5/2017).
[](https://i.stack.imgur.com/x8X0o.png) [](https://i.stack.imgur.com/4uykC.png) [](https://i.stack.imgur.com/iLPZB.png)
*Aptoide App* for Android (source: [Aptoide](http://m.apps.store.aptoide.com/app/market/cm.aptoide.pt/436/6160394/Aptoide); click images for larger variants)
Often associated with black markets and other "unsafe sources", that's not what it is by default (like peer-to-peer exchanges are not, and like Youtube isn't – though you easily can find "pirated content" there). Paulo Trezentos, co-founder of Aptoide, kindly pointed out several details behind Aptoide in [his answer](https://android.stackexchange.com/a/74813/16575) on [How safe is it to use Aptoide?](https://android.stackexchange.com/q/74618/16575) And even more in a mail he sent to me. Some core-points:
* Like *Google Play*, [Aptoide](https://www.aptoide.com/) actively scans its repositories for malware. They're using 3 different malware scanners, doing signature checks, and having implemented a chain-of-trust based in the signature of the developers.
* They work with several universities and research centers to make and keep the environment as safe as possible.
* They use a "trust stamp" to mark apps they've thoroughly checked (see the now archived [1000contest](https://web.archive.org/web/20130713104454/http://m.aptoide.com/1000contest)). If you see that on the page for an app, you can consider it 99.9% safe (according to Paulo).1
* Privacy is considered a high value. *Aptoide* is very cautious about the way they internally handle the user’s private information.
* Their “Apps” store is manually curated. So when looking for a way to stay as safe as possible with all those hundred-thousands of repositories, this would be the place (all the app links in this post point there). But even towards all the other repos, Paulo states:
>
> we have a responsibility to assure that the apps in those stores do not harm the end user.
>
>
>
In his mail to me, Paulo concluded: *Believe we still can do better.* Which to me indicates they don't settle on what they have achieved, but try to continually improve. If you additionally consider there's a company behind the "stores" which recently even [filed an antitrust complaint against Google](http://www.electronista.com/articles/14/06/18/claims.google.abusing.position.over.third.party.app.store.measures/ "Aptoide files European antitrust complaint over Google Play dominance"), that should be sufficient to deviate from associating *Aptoide* with "black markets" and "piracy" any more than *Youtube* – but rather consider it a good alternative (or supplement) to other Android app markets.
---
There are some more advantages worth mentioning:
* you can have your own repository there – whether private or public. Their [Aptoide Uploader](http://m.apps.store.aptoide.com/app/market/pt.caixamagica.aptoide.uploader/20/5840422/Aptoide%20Uploader) helps you upload your apps there.
* you can use a private repository to automatically backup your apps. Their [Aptoide Backup Apps](http://m.apps.store.aptoide.com/app/market/pt.aptoide.backupapps/20101/5840328/Aptoide%20Backup%20Apps) is your helper for that.
* you can schedule installs/updates. Comes in handy when you're e.g. on mobile data, and just found a bigger app you'd prefer installing on WiFi. Just mark it, and when on WiFi toggle the "scheduled installs" (see third screenshot above).
Try that with *Google Play* :)
---
**1** Example of *untrusted* app detection:
[](https://i.stack.imgur.com/pJvC0.png)
*Aptoide* warns an application might be malicious (source: Aptoide; click image for larger variant)
A couple of things to see here:
* The little yellow exclamation mark with the red "Warning" title is visible immediately; details below are displayed when "show" was clicked
* 3 anti-malware-checks have been run against this package, one of them the *Aptoide* specific malware guard
* the signature was found suspicious for multiple reasons:
+ it is not known to Aptoide as a "trusted signature" (*Aptoide* maintains a "chain of trust" for signatures, comparable to PGP/GPG)
+ it was used elsewhere to sign another developers package (and moreover, that developers signature was known to Aptoide, so that was a "re-sign" possibly introducing a hack of some kind)
* some information on the Anti-Malware checks is included at the end of the box |
216 | How many competing Android markets (other than the Play Store itself) are there and are they any good? Which ones do you use and why? | 2010/09/14 | [
"https://android.stackexchange.com/questions/216",
"https://android.stackexchange.com",
"https://android.stackexchange.com/users/119/"
] | [Yalp Store](https://f-droid.org/en/packages/com.github.yeriomin.yalpstore/ "Yalp Store") allows the download of apps directly from Google Play Store.
>
> By default Yalp Store connects to Google services using a built-in account, so you do not have to own a Google account to use it . The only reason to use a live Google account is to access the paid apps you own or leave reviews.
>
>
>
It has an option to know the number of trackers found in an app and view the app's report via [Exodus Privacy](https://exodus-privacy.eu.org/en/)
[](https://i.stack.imgur.com/Z5SCa.jpg) | I received a very good amount of installs from [mobiletoones.com](https://www.mobiletoones.com/downloads/android-apps/) and [apps.opera.com (now android.oms.apps.bemobi.com)](http://android.oms.apps.bemobi.com/en_us/).
Also, my revenue was ramped up too within 2 days. If you are looking for targeted users for your app, then you should distribute your app to many sources, not just stick to one website! |
216 | How many competing Android markets (other than the Play Store itself) are there and are they any good? Which ones do you use and why? | 2010/09/14 | [
"https://android.stackexchange.com/questions/216",
"https://android.stackexchange.com",
"https://android.stackexchange.com/users/119/"
] | There are actually several alternatives to the 'official' Google Android market (aka Play Store).
I personally like to search for new apps from my PC browser, and a bit less from my phone. Most (all?) of the markets nowadays offer both, via a dedicated phone-app that you'll have to install, except from the official one which is already there.
Until, well, yesterday, the 'official' market would not have been available from your PC (meaning: on a PC web browser). Now it is, with a neat push-to-your-phone one-click installation that is taking away one of the advantages of the competition (see AppBrain). The alternative markets, though, have still their peculiarities. I'll make a short summary but don't expect it to highlight all of the differences. Some markets (e.g. AndSpot) do not offer very specific features to users, but try to gather developers by offering advanced features such as easy stats.
* **[Amazon AppStore](http://www.amazon.com/mobile-apps/b?ie=UTF8&node=2350149011)**: latest big entry. countries limitations; catalog looking very promising with some (exclusive?) good pay-for apps; also features special offers and daily freebies. Def worth checking out
* **[AppBrain](http://www.appbrain.com/)**: born to let you install Android Market applications directly from your PC web browser, also allows you to discover new apps based on the ones you have. It's a *meta-store* (my favourite before the official market update)
* **[APKPure](https://apkpure.com)**: don't need any registration to use it
* **[SlideME](http://slideme.org/)**: they provide *applications to niche markets, based on geographic location, payment method, or even types of applications that users can't find in traditional channels*
* **[Samsung Apps](http://apps.samsung.com/)** (must be installed on Samsung Galaxy devices, or else you can't use this): Samsung app store, which of course requires you to own a Samsung Android device
* **[F-Droid](https://f-droid.org/)** they distribute FOSS open source packages that pass audit and verification to ensure that code has no malicious parts.
* **[GetJar](http://www.getjar.com/)**: my latest discovery. Quite a lot of apps, and they have special ("GOLD") commercial apps for free. An extremely interesting platform for developers, since they seem to offer above-the-average marketing and PS activities!
I suggest you click on some of these links and see for yourself if the look/applications suit your style!
Thanks to various sources, in particular, this [thenextweb.com](http://thenextweb.com/apps/2011/01/09/6-alternatives-to-the-android-market/) article | The [Amazon Appstore](https://www.amazon.com/gp/mas/get/amazonapp) (download link).
* [Web site](http://www.amazon.com/mobile-apps/b/?node=2350149011) (You can download apps from here to your device once its set up)
* [Advantages of the Amazon Appstore](https://android.stackexchange.com/q/7258/2422)
* [Uninstalling Apps from the Amazon Appstore](https://android.stackexchange.com/q/7352/2422)
* [Using the Amazon Appstore from an "Unsupported Region"](https://android.stackexchange.com/q/7254/2422)
* [Developer FAQ](https://developer.amazon.com/help/faq.html) |
216 | How many competing Android markets (other than the Play Store itself) are there and are they any good? Which ones do you use and why? | 2010/09/14 | [
"https://android.stackexchange.com/questions/216",
"https://android.stackexchange.com",
"https://android.stackexchange.com/users/119/"
] | There are actually several alternatives to the 'official' Google Android market (aka Play Store).
I personally like to search for new apps from my PC browser, and a bit less from my phone. Most (all?) of the markets nowadays offer both, via a dedicated phone-app that you'll have to install, except from the official one which is already there.
Until, well, yesterday, the 'official' market would not have been available from your PC (meaning: on a PC web browser). Now it is, with a neat push-to-your-phone one-click installation that is taking away one of the advantages of the competition (see AppBrain). The alternative markets, though, have still their peculiarities. I'll make a short summary but don't expect it to highlight all of the differences. Some markets (e.g. AndSpot) do not offer very specific features to users, but try to gather developers by offering advanced features such as easy stats.
* **[Amazon AppStore](http://www.amazon.com/mobile-apps/b?ie=UTF8&node=2350149011)**: latest big entry. countries limitations; catalog looking very promising with some (exclusive?) good pay-for apps; also features special offers and daily freebies. Def worth checking out
* **[AppBrain](http://www.appbrain.com/)**: born to let you install Android Market applications directly from your PC web browser, also allows you to discover new apps based on the ones you have. It's a *meta-store* (my favourite before the official market update)
* **[APKPure](https://apkpure.com)**: don't need any registration to use it
* **[SlideME](http://slideme.org/)**: they provide *applications to niche markets, based on geographic location, payment method, or even types of applications that users can't find in traditional channels*
* **[Samsung Apps](http://apps.samsung.com/)** (must be installed on Samsung Galaxy devices, or else you can't use this): Samsung app store, which of course requires you to own a Samsung Android device
* **[F-Droid](https://f-droid.org/)** they distribute FOSS open source packages that pass audit and verification to ensure that code has no malicious parts.
* **[GetJar](http://www.getjar.com/)**: my latest discovery. Quite a lot of apps, and they have special ("GOLD") commercial apps for free. An extremely interesting platform for developers, since they seem to offer above-the-average marketing and PS activities!
I suggest you click on some of these links and see for yourself if the look/applications suit your style!
Thanks to various sources, in particular, this [thenextweb.com](http://thenextweb.com/apps/2011/01/09/6-alternatives-to-the-android-market/) article | [Yalp Store](https://f-droid.org/en/packages/com.github.yeriomin.yalpstore/ "Yalp Store") allows the download of apps directly from Google Play Store.
>
> By default Yalp Store connects to Google services using a built-in account, so you do not have to own a Google account to use it . The only reason to use a live Google account is to access the paid apps you own or leave reviews.
>
>
>
It has an option to know the number of trackers found in an app and view the app's report via [Exodus Privacy](https://exodus-privacy.eu.org/en/)
[](https://i.stack.imgur.com/Z5SCa.jpg) |
216 | How many competing Android markets (other than the Play Store itself) are there and are they any good? Which ones do you use and why? | 2010/09/14 | [
"https://android.stackexchange.com/questions/216",
"https://android.stackexchange.com",
"https://android.stackexchange.com/users/119/"
] | [SlideME](http://slideme.org/), this is very handy when you want to buy stuff in countries without paid Market. (actually you mention it in your question. I posted this answer just for the sake of completeness) | Now Google is focusing on the educational side, offering a special version of its app store called [Google Play for Education](http://www.google.com/edu/tablets/). (Initially applicable to USA only I believe).
It makes it easier for educators to find apps, books, videos, and other content appropriate for K-12 students, enables bulk purchasing and the ability to distribute apps to a group of students’ tablets wirelessly.
At launch, Google is offering Play for Education bundled with Google Nexus 7 tablets. In early 2014 the company plans to offer Asus Transformer Pad and HP Slate 8 Pro tablets as well.
Teachers can find apps by grade level, subject, or other criteria, and content can be paid for using a purchase order.
Video: [Introducing Tablets with Google Play for Education](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vzvpcEffvaE) |
216 | How many competing Android markets (other than the Play Store itself) are there and are they any good? Which ones do you use and why? | 2010/09/14 | [
"https://android.stackexchange.com/questions/216",
"https://android.stackexchange.com",
"https://android.stackexchange.com/users/119/"
] | [SlideME](http://slideme.org/), this is very handy when you want to buy stuff in countries without paid Market. (actually you mention it in your question. I posted this answer just for the sake of completeness) | [**Aurora Store**](https://gitlab.com/AuroraOSS/AuroraStore) is an open source fork of [Yalp Store](https://f-droid.org/en/packages/com.github.yeriomin.yalpstore/) which provides a Material UI to the later.
>
> Aurora Store is an UnOfficial FOSS client to Google's Play Store, with an elegant design, using Aurora you can download apps,
> update existing apps, search for apps, get details about in-app trackers and much more.
>
> You can also Spoof your Device Information, Language and Region to get access to the apps that are not yet available or restricted in your Country | Device.
>
> Aurora Store does not require Google's Proprietary Framework to operate, it works perfectly fine with or without GooglePlayService or MicroG. Thereby avoiding the various privacy issues.
>
>
> |
216 | How many competing Android markets (other than the Play Store itself) are there and are they any good? Which ones do you use and why? | 2010/09/14 | [
"https://android.stackexchange.com/questions/216",
"https://android.stackexchange.com",
"https://android.stackexchange.com/users/119/"
] | I use [AppBrain](http://www.appbrain.com/) because it provides a nice site, and it makes it really easy to install apps onto my phone. Additionally, I'm finding that many bloggers that are reviewing apps are putting links to the AppBrain page for the app in their posts. This makes it really easy to mark something for install while I'm at my computer reading the blog posts, and then install it when I get a chance.
---
Edit by Izzy:
[AppBrain](http://www.appbrain.com/) offers an alternative (and much cleaner) interface to the [Google Play Store](https://play.google.com/store/apps), which offers several advantages:
* search results are much less limited (30 pages à 10 apps = 300 results, much more than Play offers)
* search results "gray out" possible spam, offensive, and otherwise harmful apps. You still can see them, though – but it's quite clear what to skip
* app details page gives the most important details at a glance. It's easy to see what permissions are requested. And if those form "potential dangerous combinations" (called "concerns" at AppBrain), that's automatically pointed out by a warning sign on the permissions tab
* Their app (an alternative to the Playstore app) enables you to skip single (or all) updates on a per-app-base, which keeps your list of "pending updates" quite clean.
For installation, you will be redirected to [Google Play](https://play.google.com/store/apps). In the past, [AppBrain](http://www.appbrain.com/) had a separate app for this called the "Fast Web Installer", but unfortunately this app was banned by Google. So even for batch updates, the Playstore app will now be opened for each app separately (not AppBrains fault).
[](https://i.stack.imgur.com/VYZ8c.png) [](https://i.stack.imgur.com/jhWDI.png) [](https://i.stack.imgur.com/PbqoY.png)
*AppBrain App Market* (source: [AppBrain](http://www.appbrain.com/app/appbrain-app-market/com.appspot.swisscodemonkeys.apps); click images for larger variants)
Still, I count their Website as a much better alternative to the [Google Play](https://play.google.com/store/apps) website – and the same is to be said for their app, though for installations it has to redirect you as described above. | **[Aptoide](https://www.aptoide.com/)** serves a bunch of repositories in [APT](https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Advanced_Packaging_Tool) style (which some of you might know from [Debian](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Debian) and its derivates). They also have their own Android client used to access (search and install apps from) them. For checking available apps, any web browser can be used as well – simply point it to [m.aptoide.com](http://m.aptoide.com/). According to [Wikipedia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aptoide), they serve more than 900,000 different apps with over 3.6 billion downloads in over 250,000 stores (as of 5/2017).
[](https://i.stack.imgur.com/x8X0o.png) [](https://i.stack.imgur.com/4uykC.png) [](https://i.stack.imgur.com/iLPZB.png)
*Aptoide App* for Android (source: [Aptoide](http://m.apps.store.aptoide.com/app/market/cm.aptoide.pt/436/6160394/Aptoide); click images for larger variants)
Often associated with black markets and other "unsafe sources", that's not what it is by default (like peer-to-peer exchanges are not, and like Youtube isn't – though you easily can find "pirated content" there). Paulo Trezentos, co-founder of Aptoide, kindly pointed out several details behind Aptoide in [his answer](https://android.stackexchange.com/a/74813/16575) on [How safe is it to use Aptoide?](https://android.stackexchange.com/q/74618/16575) And even more in a mail he sent to me. Some core-points:
* Like *Google Play*, [Aptoide](https://www.aptoide.com/) actively scans its repositories for malware. They're using 3 different malware scanners, doing signature checks, and having implemented a chain-of-trust based in the signature of the developers.
* They work with several universities and research centers to make and keep the environment as safe as possible.
* They use a "trust stamp" to mark apps they've thoroughly checked (see the now archived [1000contest](https://web.archive.org/web/20130713104454/http://m.aptoide.com/1000contest)). If you see that on the page for an app, you can consider it 99.9% safe (according to Paulo).1
* Privacy is considered a high value. *Aptoide* is very cautious about the way they internally handle the user’s private information.
* Their “Apps” store is manually curated. So when looking for a way to stay as safe as possible with all those hundred-thousands of repositories, this would be the place (all the app links in this post point there). But even towards all the other repos, Paulo states:
>
> we have a responsibility to assure that the apps in those stores do not harm the end user.
>
>
>
In his mail to me, Paulo concluded: *Believe we still can do better.* Which to me indicates they don't settle on what they have achieved, but try to continually improve. If you additionally consider there's a company behind the "stores" which recently even [filed an antitrust complaint against Google](http://www.electronista.com/articles/14/06/18/claims.google.abusing.position.over.third.party.app.store.measures/ "Aptoide files European antitrust complaint over Google Play dominance"), that should be sufficient to deviate from associating *Aptoide* with "black markets" and "piracy" any more than *Youtube* – but rather consider it a good alternative (or supplement) to other Android app markets.
---
There are some more advantages worth mentioning:
* you can have your own repository there – whether private or public. Their [Aptoide Uploader](http://m.apps.store.aptoide.com/app/market/pt.caixamagica.aptoide.uploader/20/5840422/Aptoide%20Uploader) helps you upload your apps there.
* you can use a private repository to automatically backup your apps. Their [Aptoide Backup Apps](http://m.apps.store.aptoide.com/app/market/pt.aptoide.backupapps/20101/5840328/Aptoide%20Backup%20Apps) is your helper for that.
* you can schedule installs/updates. Comes in handy when you're e.g. on mobile data, and just found a bigger app you'd prefer installing on WiFi. Just mark it, and when on WiFi toggle the "scheduled installs" (see third screenshot above).
Try that with *Google Play* :)
---
**1** Example of *untrusted* app detection:
[](https://i.stack.imgur.com/pJvC0.png)
*Aptoide* warns an application might be malicious (source: Aptoide; click image for larger variant)
A couple of things to see here:
* The little yellow exclamation mark with the red "Warning" title is visible immediately; details below are displayed when "show" was clicked
* 3 anti-malware-checks have been run against this package, one of them the *Aptoide* specific malware guard
* the signature was found suspicious for multiple reasons:
+ it is not known to Aptoide as a "trusted signature" (*Aptoide* maintains a "chain of trust" for signatures, comparable to PGP/GPG)
+ it was used elsewhere to sign another developers package (and moreover, that developers signature was known to Aptoide, so that was a "re-sign" possibly introducing a hack of some kind)
* some information on the Anti-Malware checks is included at the end of the box |
66,667 | If we accept that dragons are *big* and they hoard gold and gems (and don't make or mine these baubles, themselves), **how do dragons physically manipulate and transport human/elf/dwarf-sized coins and jewels back to their lairs?**
Even if we assume considerable dexterity of dragons' front paws (namely an opposable 'thumb' claw), their paws are huge, compared to human hands. Unless they win all their loot in conveniently large treasure chests or sturdy bags, how can they grasp gems and coins, without their slipping between the dragon's huge talons?
I suppose they could wear clothing (something like a belt with pouches), if they were tool users and had suitable materials. But unless they're cannibals, I think they may need to trade for (or steal) leather, strong thread and needles. (Tool-using dragons might be tough, tough opponents. Hmmm.) | 2017/01/03 | [
"https://worldbuilding.stackexchange.com/questions/66667",
"https://worldbuilding.stackexchange.com",
"https://worldbuilding.stackexchange.com/users/30166/"
] | Sharks of the Skies
-------------------
Maybe when they go raiding and pillaging, they go into bezerker mode, especially when they see a king and his noblemen, and he just gobbles them and anything around them up, like [sharks do](https://www.google.com/search?q=contents+of+sharks+stomachs&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&hl=en-us&client=safari), Then expells the hard bits after digestion.
This theory is all the more plausible because [a full suit of armor was found inside a shark stomach](http://www.nytimes.com/1994/03/04/arts/the-good-side-of-sharks-on-display.html)! | Dragons haven't always been dragons. Think about it, when in a movie have you seen an actual dragon take loot? They pillage and breathe fire and burn stuff. But where did the dragon come from? You never see two of them in one area, so there can't be a mommy dragon and a daddy dragon making a family of new dragons. No, dragons were originally another kind of creature, one that walked on legs and had arms and hands that could carry stuff. That creature acquired lots of treasure, and as it did so its greed grew as did its fear of losing its treasure. So it hoarded it all away somewhere safe and over time the magical transformation began as it guarded its treasure in the dark, it morphed into a fearsome creature whose sole purpose was to keep its precious hoard from other, coming out only when provoked, or occasionally to seek sustenance. |
66,667 | If we accept that dragons are *big* and they hoard gold and gems (and don't make or mine these baubles, themselves), **how do dragons physically manipulate and transport human/elf/dwarf-sized coins and jewels back to their lairs?**
Even if we assume considerable dexterity of dragons' front paws (namely an opposable 'thumb' claw), their paws are huge, compared to human hands. Unless they win all their loot in conveniently large treasure chests or sturdy bags, how can they grasp gems and coins, without their slipping between the dragon's huge talons?
I suppose they could wear clothing (something like a belt with pouches), if they were tool users and had suitable materials. But unless they're cannibals, I think they may need to trade for (or steal) leather, strong thread and needles. (Tool-using dragons might be tough, tough opponents. Hmmm.) | 2017/01/03 | [
"https://worldbuilding.stackexchange.com/questions/66667",
"https://worldbuilding.stackexchange.com",
"https://worldbuilding.stackexchange.com/users/30166/"
] | Only small dragons collect coins; large ones don't need to
----------------------------------------------------------
Dragons hoard gold for the same reason many birds collect shiny objects: to adorn their nests and attract mates. Unlike birds, though, dragons never stop growing, even after reaching maturity.
A young adult dragon is only moderately bigger than a human. When they are first making their nests, they usually target individual, defenseless peddlers, killing them and taking their purses, which they carry in their claws or mouths. As they grow larger, they will begin attacking caravans which might be carrying large chests.
Of course, dragons are highly territorial. Large dragons will often kill or drive out smaller dragons living nearby, then stealing gold from *their* hordes. Some devious dragons will intentionally allow smaller dragons to live in their territory for a while in order to collect more gold before taking it from them.
Sometimes, dragons will live in family groups, with the young collecting gold for the family. Dragons with larger hoards will typically have more mates, and more children, allowing the size of their hoard to grow exponentially. Sometimes, a child may "inherit" a portion of the hoard when they leave the nest to build their own, although they will usually not take as much away as they put into it in the first place. Other times, especially in wealthy dragon families, dragons may spend a good part of their lives living in their family's lair; the huge size difference between older and younger dragons means that younger dragons are only able to mate with younger partners, preventing competition between generations.
Larger dragons, naturally, will attract adventurous humans to their cave simply by virtue of living there. Whatever was in these adventurer's pockets at the time will naturally be added to the hoard.
Most dragons have only a single hoard. However, extremely large dragons may migrate between lairs. When they are away, it is possible that a smaller dragon will attempt to take over their hoard, and will likewise end up adding to it. When the owner returns, whatever the smaller dragon collected will be added to the hoard. Some larger dragons will actually encourage this, seeing the additions as "payment" for use of their nest. Only the largest dragons will do this, as it otherwise carries the risk of a similarly-sized or larger dragon squatter that cannot be driven away so easily.
Dragons who are feared by humans may increase their horde even further by allowing humans to live in their territory in exchange for occasional tributes of gold.
By the time a dragon reaches legendary sizes, it is no longer collecting coins, instead targeting larger, more impressive fare like golden statues or the crowns of kings. However, an ancient dragon is still likely to have truly colossal piles of coins thanks to the accumulation of collection by children, squatters, adventurers, and tribute. | Most people don't know this but a dragon's mouth works like a [pelican's beak](http://animals.howstuffworks.com/birds/pelican-bill-vs-belly1.htm). It has a pouch which expands to hold things. |
66,667 | If we accept that dragons are *big* and they hoard gold and gems (and don't make or mine these baubles, themselves), **how do dragons physically manipulate and transport human/elf/dwarf-sized coins and jewels back to their lairs?**
Even if we assume considerable dexterity of dragons' front paws (namely an opposable 'thumb' claw), their paws are huge, compared to human hands. Unless they win all their loot in conveniently large treasure chests or sturdy bags, how can they grasp gems and coins, without their slipping between the dragon's huge talons?
I suppose they could wear clothing (something like a belt with pouches), if they were tool users and had suitable materials. But unless they're cannibals, I think they may need to trade for (or steal) leather, strong thread and needles. (Tool-using dragons might be tough, tough opponents. Hmmm.) | 2017/01/03 | [
"https://worldbuilding.stackexchange.com/questions/66667",
"https://worldbuilding.stackexchange.com",
"https://worldbuilding.stackexchange.com/users/30166/"
] | The same way that governments, kings, tyrants, and warlords gather their wealth: taxation. If the humans and other creatures in your domain don't bring you enough treasure, torch them. | Most dragons are known to swallow and regurgitate their loot. Many have magic to extradimensionally expand their gullets for just this purpose. |
66,667 | If we accept that dragons are *big* and they hoard gold and gems (and don't make or mine these baubles, themselves), **how do dragons physically manipulate and transport human/elf/dwarf-sized coins and jewels back to their lairs?**
Even if we assume considerable dexterity of dragons' front paws (namely an opposable 'thumb' claw), their paws are huge, compared to human hands. Unless they win all their loot in conveniently large treasure chests or sturdy bags, how can they grasp gems and coins, without their slipping between the dragon's huge talons?
I suppose they could wear clothing (something like a belt with pouches), if they were tool users and had suitable materials. But unless they're cannibals, I think they may need to trade for (or steal) leather, strong thread and needles. (Tool-using dragons might be tough, tough opponents. Hmmm.) | 2017/01/03 | [
"https://worldbuilding.stackexchange.com/questions/66667",
"https://worldbuilding.stackexchange.com",
"https://worldbuilding.stackexchange.com/users/30166/"
] | If you're a dragon, why are you gathering coins one at a time?
==============================================================
If I'm a dragon, the biggest baddest dude on Middle Earth or Faerun or wherever, I'm not going to pick-pocket people. I'm not robbing local barons, I'm going to knock over a king's palace and take the [Peacock Throne](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peacock_Throne) and the [Crown Jewels](http://www.rozanehmagazine.com/JanuaryFebruary06/ANationalJelleries.html). I'm not going after the loose change in the offering plate, I'm taking the whole [50 foot tall gold altar](https://i.imgur.com/mOEn54s.jpg) (from the Cathedral of Seville, fyi). Instead of hitting a tax collector, I'm going to rob the treasury at the point of delivery. All that money is going to be in nice convenient boxes or sacks. Snag a couple of those, and I'm on my way.
Basically, I'm going to go after things that are pre-packaged and worth the most. They don't have to stay that way. I may have nabbed a few strongboxes from rich merchants, and if it suits my fancy I'll smash the sides in and let the coins spill out. It makes a more imposing visual effect for visiting hobbits. Maybe I decide to sit on the golden throne and discover it wasn't really made to support my weight? Oh well, I can just melt it down into a nice golden blob and use it as a pillow.
Dragons have all the time in the world to put together their collection, and only the occasional pesky knight errant or black-arrowed archer to stop them. Dragons aren't going to waste their time on stuff that takes longer to carry home than it does to incinerate whoever was guarding it. | What type of dragons are we talking about? A lot of myths and fantasy have dragons being able to assume a human shape. If that's not possible in this situation, then it's easy for them to force others to do their bidding. Most people would do whatever needed to be done to survive. |
66,667 | If we accept that dragons are *big* and they hoard gold and gems (and don't make or mine these baubles, themselves), **how do dragons physically manipulate and transport human/elf/dwarf-sized coins and jewels back to their lairs?**
Even if we assume considerable dexterity of dragons' front paws (namely an opposable 'thumb' claw), their paws are huge, compared to human hands. Unless they win all their loot in conveniently large treasure chests or sturdy bags, how can they grasp gems and coins, without their slipping between the dragon's huge talons?
I suppose they could wear clothing (something like a belt with pouches), if they were tool users and had suitable materials. But unless they're cannibals, I think they may need to trade for (or steal) leather, strong thread and needles. (Tool-using dragons might be tough, tough opponents. Hmmm.) | 2017/01/03 | [
"https://worldbuilding.stackexchange.com/questions/66667",
"https://worldbuilding.stackexchange.com",
"https://worldbuilding.stackexchange.com/users/30166/"
] | Dragons haven't always been dragons. Think about it, when in a movie have you seen an actual dragon take loot? They pillage and breathe fire and burn stuff. But where did the dragon come from? You never see two of them in one area, so there can't be a mommy dragon and a daddy dragon making a family of new dragons. No, dragons were originally another kind of creature, one that walked on legs and had arms and hands that could carry stuff. That creature acquired lots of treasure, and as it did so its greed grew as did its fear of losing its treasure. So it hoarded it all away somewhere safe and over time the magical transformation began as it guarded its treasure in the dark, it morphed into a fearsome creature whose sole purpose was to keep its precious hoard from other, coming out only when provoked, or occasionally to seek sustenance. | What type of dragons are we talking about? A lot of myths and fantasy have dragons being able to assume a human shape. If that's not possible in this situation, then it's easy for them to force others to do their bidding. Most people would do whatever needed to be done to survive. |
66,667 | If we accept that dragons are *big* and they hoard gold and gems (and don't make or mine these baubles, themselves), **how do dragons physically manipulate and transport human/elf/dwarf-sized coins and jewels back to their lairs?**
Even if we assume considerable dexterity of dragons' front paws (namely an opposable 'thumb' claw), their paws are huge, compared to human hands. Unless they win all their loot in conveniently large treasure chests or sturdy bags, how can they grasp gems and coins, without their slipping between the dragon's huge talons?
I suppose they could wear clothing (something like a belt with pouches), if they were tool users and had suitable materials. But unless they're cannibals, I think they may need to trade for (or steal) leather, strong thread and needles. (Tool-using dragons might be tough, tough opponents. Hmmm.) | 2017/01/03 | [
"https://worldbuilding.stackexchange.com/questions/66667",
"https://worldbuilding.stackexchange.com",
"https://worldbuilding.stackexchange.com/users/30166/"
] | On Kibota, the world of one of my novels, dragons work in close partnership with humans. When the industrial revolution hit that world, the dragons developed a fondness for trains. Kids love model trains, and to massive dragons, our full-sized trains are like toy train sets. Believe me, you want to have dragons patrolling your lines, otherwise the herds of dinosaurs will cause massive derailments. | Not all the coins are coins; some are scales.
---------------------------------------------
Part of the reason dragons pick up coins to begin with is to make them look older, more established, more distinguished (very important for establishing prior claim if your dragons are territorial). But that's *why*, you wanted *how*. And for that, well, it'll depend on the dragon: for instance, some will simply grab whatever they can in their talons, and the trail of dropped coins will likely lead a steady stream of adventurers in pursuit (the first one presumably retrieving the coins as they go), providing a delightful residual income of snacks and treasure.
Of course, such dragons *do* have to take care not to attract too many such streams, lest the visitors arrive while the host is out, or worse, scratch a wing. |
66,667 | If we accept that dragons are *big* and they hoard gold and gems (and don't make or mine these baubles, themselves), **how do dragons physically manipulate and transport human/elf/dwarf-sized coins and jewels back to their lairs?**
Even if we assume considerable dexterity of dragons' front paws (namely an opposable 'thumb' claw), their paws are huge, compared to human hands. Unless they win all their loot in conveniently large treasure chests or sturdy bags, how can they grasp gems and coins, without their slipping between the dragon's huge talons?
I suppose they could wear clothing (something like a belt with pouches), if they were tool users and had suitable materials. But unless they're cannibals, I think they may need to trade for (or steal) leather, strong thread and needles. (Tool-using dragons might be tough, tough opponents. Hmmm.) | 2017/01/03 | [
"https://worldbuilding.stackexchange.com/questions/66667",
"https://worldbuilding.stackexchange.com",
"https://worldbuilding.stackexchange.com/users/30166/"
] | The same way that governments, kings, tyrants, and warlords gather their wealth: taxation. If the humans and other creatures in your domain don't bring you enough treasure, torch them. | Most people don't know this but a dragon's mouth works like a [pelican's beak](http://animals.howstuffworks.com/birds/pelican-bill-vs-belly1.htm). It has a pouch which expands to hold things. |
66,667 | If we accept that dragons are *big* and they hoard gold and gems (and don't make or mine these baubles, themselves), **how do dragons physically manipulate and transport human/elf/dwarf-sized coins and jewels back to their lairs?**
Even if we assume considerable dexterity of dragons' front paws (namely an opposable 'thumb' claw), their paws are huge, compared to human hands. Unless they win all their loot in conveniently large treasure chests or sturdy bags, how can they grasp gems and coins, without their slipping between the dragon's huge talons?
I suppose they could wear clothing (something like a belt with pouches), if they were tool users and had suitable materials. But unless they're cannibals, I think they may need to trade for (or steal) leather, strong thread and needles. (Tool-using dragons might be tough, tough opponents. Hmmm.) | 2017/01/03 | [
"https://worldbuilding.stackexchange.com/questions/66667",
"https://worldbuilding.stackexchange.com",
"https://worldbuilding.stackexchange.com/users/30166/"
] | **The gold is an illusion to lure in what the dragons *really* want:** *adventurers.* Dragons don't need gold or treasure. That's just silly. Where would they spend it? The local DracoMarttm? Nope. Gold has no value to a dragon. It's just another shiny rock.
**Dragons need food.** And lots of it. And flying around, snatching cattle and sheep from hillsides is tiring work. Much easier to make the food come to you. See, adventurers are high muscle, low fat. They are often fortified with fiber (scrolls, wooden weapon parts, clothes) and iron (weapons, armor). Very tasty *and* nutritious! Sure, they have to travel out and scare the locals from time to time. You know, to drum up business. But as long as the adventurers keep coming, the dragon has to expend far less effort to stay well-fed.
*They're the snack that fights back.*
Dragons aren't hoarders. They are spiders whose web is made of illusory treasure to lure you in.
Eventually, there would be real treasure. Some as coinage / loot dropped by adventurers as the dragon feasts. Some coughed up as [pellets](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pellet_(ornithology)) after the dragon has feasted. But the initial hoard is fake. | What type of dragons are we talking about? A lot of myths and fantasy have dragons being able to assume a human shape. If that's not possible in this situation, then it's easy for them to force others to do their bidding. Most people would do whatever needed to be done to survive. |
66,667 | If we accept that dragons are *big* and they hoard gold and gems (and don't make or mine these baubles, themselves), **how do dragons physically manipulate and transport human/elf/dwarf-sized coins and jewels back to their lairs?**
Even if we assume considerable dexterity of dragons' front paws (namely an opposable 'thumb' claw), their paws are huge, compared to human hands. Unless they win all their loot in conveniently large treasure chests or sturdy bags, how can they grasp gems and coins, without their slipping between the dragon's huge talons?
I suppose they could wear clothing (something like a belt with pouches), if they were tool users and had suitable materials. But unless they're cannibals, I think they may need to trade for (or steal) leather, strong thread and needles. (Tool-using dragons might be tough, tough opponents. Hmmm.) | 2017/01/03 | [
"https://worldbuilding.stackexchange.com/questions/66667",
"https://worldbuilding.stackexchange.com",
"https://worldbuilding.stackexchange.com/users/30166/"
] | Only small dragons collect coins; large ones don't need to
----------------------------------------------------------
Dragons hoard gold for the same reason many birds collect shiny objects: to adorn their nests and attract mates. Unlike birds, though, dragons never stop growing, even after reaching maturity.
A young adult dragon is only moderately bigger than a human. When they are first making their nests, they usually target individual, defenseless peddlers, killing them and taking their purses, which they carry in their claws or mouths. As they grow larger, they will begin attacking caravans which might be carrying large chests.
Of course, dragons are highly territorial. Large dragons will often kill or drive out smaller dragons living nearby, then stealing gold from *their* hordes. Some devious dragons will intentionally allow smaller dragons to live in their territory for a while in order to collect more gold before taking it from them.
Sometimes, dragons will live in family groups, with the young collecting gold for the family. Dragons with larger hoards will typically have more mates, and more children, allowing the size of their hoard to grow exponentially. Sometimes, a child may "inherit" a portion of the hoard when they leave the nest to build their own, although they will usually not take as much away as they put into it in the first place. Other times, especially in wealthy dragon families, dragons may spend a good part of their lives living in their family's lair; the huge size difference between older and younger dragons means that younger dragons are only able to mate with younger partners, preventing competition between generations.
Larger dragons, naturally, will attract adventurous humans to their cave simply by virtue of living there. Whatever was in these adventurer's pockets at the time will naturally be added to the hoard.
Most dragons have only a single hoard. However, extremely large dragons may migrate between lairs. When they are away, it is possible that a smaller dragon will attempt to take over their hoard, and will likewise end up adding to it. When the owner returns, whatever the smaller dragon collected will be added to the hoard. Some larger dragons will actually encourage this, seeing the additions as "payment" for use of their nest. Only the largest dragons will do this, as it otherwise carries the risk of a similarly-sized or larger dragon squatter that cannot be driven away so easily.
Dragons who are feared by humans may increase their horde even further by allowing humans to live in their territory in exchange for occasional tributes of gold.
By the time a dragon reaches legendary sizes, it is no longer collecting coins, instead targeting larger, more impressive fare like golden statues or the crowns of kings. However, an ancient dragon is still likely to have truly colossal piles of coins thanks to the accumulation of collection by children, squatters, adventurers, and tribute. | Not all the coins are coins; some are scales.
---------------------------------------------
Part of the reason dragons pick up coins to begin with is to make them look older, more established, more distinguished (very important for establishing prior claim if your dragons are territorial). But that's *why*, you wanted *how*. And for that, well, it'll depend on the dragon: for instance, some will simply grab whatever they can in their talons, and the trail of dropped coins will likely lead a steady stream of adventurers in pursuit (the first one presumably retrieving the coins as they go), providing a delightful residual income of snacks and treasure.
Of course, such dragons *do* have to take care not to attract too many such streams, lest the visitors arrive while the host is out, or worse, scratch a wing. |
66,667 | If we accept that dragons are *big* and they hoard gold and gems (and don't make or mine these baubles, themselves), **how do dragons physically manipulate and transport human/elf/dwarf-sized coins and jewels back to their lairs?**
Even if we assume considerable dexterity of dragons' front paws (namely an opposable 'thumb' claw), their paws are huge, compared to human hands. Unless they win all their loot in conveniently large treasure chests or sturdy bags, how can they grasp gems and coins, without their slipping between the dragon's huge talons?
I suppose they could wear clothing (something like a belt with pouches), if they were tool users and had suitable materials. But unless they're cannibals, I think they may need to trade for (or steal) leather, strong thread and needles. (Tool-using dragons might be tough, tough opponents. Hmmm.) | 2017/01/03 | [
"https://worldbuilding.stackexchange.com/questions/66667",
"https://worldbuilding.stackexchange.com",
"https://worldbuilding.stackexchange.com/users/30166/"
] | The same way that governments, kings, tyrants, and warlords gather their wealth: taxation. If the humans and other creatures in your domain don't bring you enough treasure, torch them. | **The gold is an illusion to lure in what the dragons *really* want:** *adventurers.* Dragons don't need gold or treasure. That's just silly. Where would they spend it? The local DracoMarttm? Nope. Gold has no value to a dragon. It's just another shiny rock.
**Dragons need food.** And lots of it. And flying around, snatching cattle and sheep from hillsides is tiring work. Much easier to make the food come to you. See, adventurers are high muscle, low fat. They are often fortified with fiber (scrolls, wooden weapon parts, clothes) and iron (weapons, armor). Very tasty *and* nutritious! Sure, they have to travel out and scare the locals from time to time. You know, to drum up business. But as long as the adventurers keep coming, the dragon has to expend far less effort to stay well-fed.
*They're the snack that fights back.*
Dragons aren't hoarders. They are spiders whose web is made of illusory treasure to lure you in.
Eventually, there would be real treasure. Some as coinage / loot dropped by adventurers as the dragon feasts. Some coughed up as [pellets](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pellet_(ornithology)) after the dragon has feasted. But the initial hoard is fake. |
140,772 | When you have a singular noun as subject, a singular verb follows. However, the pronouns "I" and "you" are singular but singular verbs do not follow after them. Does anyone know something about this reason or historical explanations?
For example, you say "I live" instead of saying "I lives". | 2013/12/07 | [
"https://english.stackexchange.com/questions/140772",
"https://english.stackexchange.com",
"https://english.stackexchange.com/users/57039/"
] | As Mari-Lou has said in her comment, the first person singular of *be* is *am* in the present tense and *was* in the past tense. Neither is ever used as a plural in Standard English. The second person singular in the present tense is *are* and *were* in the past tense. Both are also used for all other numbers and persons except the first and third.
The reason English has such inconsistent forms of the verb *be* is that Old English had two equivalent verbs, *beon* and *wesan*, from different roots. The first person singular of the present tense of *beon* was *eom*, which gives us today’s *am*. *Was* is from the past tense of *wesan*, which had *wæs* in the first person singular. The origins of *are* are a little less certain, but the past tense of *wesan* was *wære* in the second person singular and *wæron* in the second person plural.
**EDIT**
I’m sorry, I got distracted by the verb *be*.
Verbs like *live*, which are regular in Modern English, had several inflections in Old and Middle English. The first person singular in the present tense was the base form with an optional *-e* ending, the second person singular had the ending *-est*, and the third person singular had the ending *-eth*. All persons in the plural had the ending *-e(n)*. All these forms were simplified after the Middle English period, until now we have only the two forms in the present tense.
I haven’t researched the history of the transformation of *-eth* to *-s*, but I would guess that it came about through phonetic change. Others may be able to give a detailed explanation, but the history of English verb forms is complex. | Your question implies some *a priori* reason to expect nouns and verbs to "adhere to the same system" in the first place with regard to plural marking (or presumably, by extension, marking of other features). But it's not clear, looking across languages generally, that there's much pressure for languages to evolve in that way: there are many languages with completely different morphology for nouns vs verbs.
Historically, you could point to features that have provided a "seed" for the -s in the nouns and verbs of English. But it's difficult to pinpoint a precise reason why -s was what "stuck" out of other possible courses of evolution. For example, many masculine nouns in Old English had an -(e)s ending in the plural. But many other nouns didn't: an -an ending (cf the -en of "oxen" today) was actually much more typical overall and a person in 1200 trying to predict the future might equally have thought that -en would prevail. In the verb system, there were various endings that had -s in, but equally you might have predicted that -(e)th would survive rather than -s.
But the historical details don't particularly matter anyway: in Darwinian terms, if there was "selective pressure" for the language to evolve to have "the same system" for nouns and verbs, then the language could essentially have evolved in that way whatever the historical "starting point" (there's really no magical "starting point" of course: languages are continually evolving from their previous state). But there just doesn't seem to be much pressure for languages to evolve in that way: the pressure seems to be rather for verbs vs nouns to have different systems. |
140,772 | When you have a singular noun as subject, a singular verb follows. However, the pronouns "I" and "you" are singular but singular verbs do not follow after them. Does anyone know something about this reason or historical explanations?
For example, you say "I live" instead of saying "I lives". | 2013/12/07 | [
"https://english.stackexchange.com/questions/140772",
"https://english.stackexchange.com",
"https://english.stackexchange.com/users/57039/"
] | In regular verbs, it’s the third person singular which changes in the present tense. Just because “I live” is the same as “we live,” it does not mean that *live* is a plural form when used with *I.* It’s a singular form which happens to be the same as the plural form.
The third person singular is the exception. | Your question implies some *a priori* reason to expect nouns and verbs to "adhere to the same system" in the first place with regard to plural marking (or presumably, by extension, marking of other features). But it's not clear, looking across languages generally, that there's much pressure for languages to evolve in that way: there are many languages with completely different morphology for nouns vs verbs.
Historically, you could point to features that have provided a "seed" for the -s in the nouns and verbs of English. But it's difficult to pinpoint a precise reason why -s was what "stuck" out of other possible courses of evolution. For example, many masculine nouns in Old English had an -(e)s ending in the plural. But many other nouns didn't: an -an ending (cf the -en of "oxen" today) was actually much more typical overall and a person in 1200 trying to predict the future might equally have thought that -en would prevail. In the verb system, there were various endings that had -s in, but equally you might have predicted that -(e)th would survive rather than -s.
But the historical details don't particularly matter anyway: in Darwinian terms, if there was "selective pressure" for the language to evolve to have "the same system" for nouns and verbs, then the language could essentially have evolved in that way whatever the historical "starting point" (there's really no magical "starting point" of course: languages are continually evolving from their previous state). But there just doesn't seem to be much pressure for languages to evolve in that way: the pressure seems to be rather for verbs vs nouns to have different systems. |
20,611 | My system forwards encrypted and/or signed messages on a gossip network. Replay is part of the design. What should I do with the nonce? I'm tempted to just set it to the same number always. Is this a bad idea? | 2014/12/03 | [
"https://crypto.stackexchange.com/questions/20611",
"https://crypto.stackexchange.com",
"https://crypto.stackexchange.com/users/18620/"
] | It can be safe, but using the same key in both directions adds several things you need to be careful about:
* One thing you need to make sure is not a problem is if an attacker takes a message from Alice to Bob, and sends it back to Alice as if it were from Bob. Since Bob to Alice communications use the same key, Alice might decrypt the message, and act as if it came from Bob. There are several possible defenses against this; the easiest (if you include a Message Authentication Code, which you really ought) is to include a direction flag within the authentication data; that way, a wrong way message would be rejected.
* If you use a nonce-based encryption method (such as Counter Mode or GCM), you need to make sure that both sides don't use the same nonce. This can be as easy as telling Alice to use even nonces, and Bob to use odd ones. However, if you are going to use the same password (and hence the same keys) for multiple sessions, this would indicate that a nonce-based encryption method is probably the Wrong Answer; something like CBC mode + HMAC would make rather more sense.
However, even though it can be done safely, I would suggest you avoid the issue entirely. Instead, when you send your password to the KDF, ask the KDF for twice the key length (say, 256 bits instead of 128), and use the first 128 bits for Alice to Bob messages, and the second half for Bob to Alice messages. | The question is quite vague, but I'll answer the part of it that's specific.
It's not bad practice to use one symmetric key for both directions of the communication. It's the normal way to use symmetric crypto.
Having a separate symmetric key for each direction would not make it more secure, nor would it add authentication or non-repudiation. Even though the key is derived from a secret, that same secret would need to be known by the receiving end as well.
There's almost no value to be gained by using a separate key in each direction, and in fact, relying on such a scheme to provide any extra security may weaken the overall security.
As for it being "good enough" for "many things", that's just way too vague. |
20,611 | My system forwards encrypted and/or signed messages on a gossip network. Replay is part of the design. What should I do with the nonce? I'm tempted to just set it to the same number always. Is this a bad idea? | 2014/12/03 | [
"https://crypto.stackexchange.com/questions/20611",
"https://crypto.stackexchange.com",
"https://crypto.stackexchange.com/users/18620/"
] | It can be safe, but using the same key in both directions adds several things you need to be careful about:
* One thing you need to make sure is not a problem is if an attacker takes a message from Alice to Bob, and sends it back to Alice as if it were from Bob. Since Bob to Alice communications use the same key, Alice might decrypt the message, and act as if it came from Bob. There are several possible defenses against this; the easiest (if you include a Message Authentication Code, which you really ought) is to include a direction flag within the authentication data; that way, a wrong way message would be rejected.
* If you use a nonce-based encryption method (such as Counter Mode or GCM), you need to make sure that both sides don't use the same nonce. This can be as easy as telling Alice to use even nonces, and Bob to use odd ones. However, if you are going to use the same password (and hence the same keys) for multiple sessions, this would indicate that a nonce-based encryption method is probably the Wrong Answer; something like CBC mode + HMAC would make rather more sense.
However, even though it can be done safely, I would suggest you avoid the issue entirely. Instead, when you send your password to the KDF, ask the KDF for twice the key length (say, 256 bits instead of 128), and use the first 128 bits for Alice to Bob messages, and the second half for Bob to Alice messages. | In general - no, as mentioned above. But if it's used in addition with message sequencing and hashing - yes. Any symmetric cipher suffers from the simple problem, regardless of direction, that the same key is on both sides. |
118,133 | There is a stylistic device where you begin and end a text with the same metaphor. I'm sorry I don't have a "real-world" example in English, but I'll try to describe what I mean.
Let's say there's an article on software development. The article begins by likening the development process it to the construction of a car. Then it goes on talking about software, and in the last phrase it goes back to the car metaphor, achieving a "closure" effect.
Is there a proper name for this? | 2013/07/01 | [
"https://english.stackexchange.com/questions/118133",
"https://english.stackexchange.com",
"https://english.stackexchange.com/users/10344/"
] | There is a device that often appears in Hebrew writings known as **chiastic structure**. Essentially it extends *chiasmus* (a common literary device that relates clauses in criss-cross fashion—think *"the first shall be last and the last shall be first"*) to an entire passage. It is particularly common in Old Testament writing. Another word used to mean *chiastic structure* is **palistrophe**.
For example, a palistrophe or chiastic structure may have the form *ABCDEDCBA*, meaning that an idea *A* is presented, followed by an idea *B*, and so on. Thus the first idea presented is also the last. Other chiastic structures are possible, but they are still structured so that the first and last ideas are the same (or, at the very least, similar).
I think *chiastic structure* appropriately describes what you are seeking.
**Added**: a link to a [picture of the chiastic structure of Genesis 6–9](http://josephfogarty.files.wordpress.com/2011/08/palistrophe.jpg?w=432) for reference. | Within literary fiction, that might be called a *circular plot* or a *circular narrative style* - you begin and end the story at the same place. It is typically used to signify that the character achieved nothing from their struggles, or that "life goes on as it always does", etc. It is not exclusive to locations within the narrative world; you could have a story framed by the same metaphoric imagery, but that is rare in my experience.
In the case of nonfiction, you could say the author employs a "circular narrative style", or a "circular technique".
Another term that could also apply (more rarely used) is *Structural Symmetry*. I think this might be closer to what you're looking for. |
118,133 | There is a stylistic device where you begin and end a text with the same metaphor. I'm sorry I don't have a "real-world" example in English, but I'll try to describe what I mean.
Let's say there's an article on software development. The article begins by likening the development process it to the construction of a car. Then it goes on talking about software, and in the last phrase it goes back to the car metaphor, achieving a "closure" effect.
Is there a proper name for this? | 2013/07/01 | [
"https://english.stackexchange.com/questions/118133",
"https://english.stackexchange.com",
"https://english.stackexchange.com/users/10344/"
] | There is a device that often appears in Hebrew writings known as **chiastic structure**. Essentially it extends *chiasmus* (a common literary device that relates clauses in criss-cross fashion—think *"the first shall be last and the last shall be first"*) to an entire passage. It is particularly common in Old Testament writing. Another word used to mean *chiastic structure* is **palistrophe**.
For example, a palistrophe or chiastic structure may have the form *ABCDEDCBA*, meaning that an idea *A* is presented, followed by an idea *B*, and so on. Thus the first idea presented is also the last. Other chiastic structures are possible, but they are still structured so that the first and last ideas are the same (or, at the very least, similar).
I think *chiastic structure* appropriately describes what you are seeking.
**Added**: a link to a [picture of the chiastic structure of Genesis 6–9](http://josephfogarty.files.wordpress.com/2011/08/palistrophe.jpg?w=432) for reference. | Maybe you are referring to [foreshadowing](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foreshadowing):
>
> Foreshadowing is a literary device in which a writer gives an advance hint of what is to come later in the story. Foreshadowing often appears at the beginning of a story, or a chapter, and it helps the reader develop expectations about the upcoming events.
>
>
>
The use of likening the development process to the construction of a car suggests that this device combines foreshadowing with metaphor. The closure effect can also be seen as a [flashback](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stylistic_device#Flashback), in a not very strict sense. |
118,133 | There is a stylistic device where you begin and end a text with the same metaphor. I'm sorry I don't have a "real-world" example in English, but I'll try to describe what I mean.
Let's say there's an article on software development. The article begins by likening the development process it to the construction of a car. Then it goes on talking about software, and in the last phrase it goes back to the car metaphor, achieving a "closure" effect.
Is there a proper name for this? | 2013/07/01 | [
"https://english.stackexchange.com/questions/118133",
"https://english.stackexchange.com",
"https://english.stackexchange.com/users/10344/"
] | There is a device that often appears in Hebrew writings known as **chiastic structure**. Essentially it extends *chiasmus* (a common literary device that relates clauses in criss-cross fashion—think *"the first shall be last and the last shall be first"*) to an entire passage. It is particularly common in Old Testament writing. Another word used to mean *chiastic structure* is **palistrophe**.
For example, a palistrophe or chiastic structure may have the form *ABCDEDCBA*, meaning that an idea *A* is presented, followed by an idea *B*, and so on. Thus the first idea presented is also the last. Other chiastic structures are possible, but they are still structured so that the first and last ideas are the same (or, at the very least, similar).
I think *chiastic structure* appropriately describes what you are seeking.
**Added**: a link to a [picture of the chiastic structure of Genesis 6–9](http://josephfogarty.files.wordpress.com/2011/08/palistrophe.jpg?w=432) for reference. | An extended form of [Epanalepsis](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epanalepsis) perhaps? |
13,869 | can somebody explain to me what happens or how do the correlation functions/partition functions in general behave (if such general answer/behavior exists and if not then why not) during a first and second order phase transition?
I think the answer is this:
1. Correlation function diverges @ phase transition.
2. 1st (2nd) derivative of partition function diverges at first (second) order phase transition.
I kind of assume that it might be common knowledge for people who do Quantum Statistical mechanics or QFT in condensed matter (I even probably saw these answers in one or two websites). So, sorry if this question is naive.
But it would be useful for me to get an answer from a general QFT background point of view (no emphasis on condensed matter) and also it would be nice to know if there is an easier way to see it from general QFT background.
More importantly it would be nice to have a reference mentioned.
Thanks. | 2011/08/23 | [
"https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/13869",
"https://physics.stackexchange.com",
"https://physics.stackexchange.com/users/1349/"
] | The general rule is that in a first order transition the partition function (or its logarithm, the "free entropy" or free energy over T) is continuous but its derivative with respect to the thermodynamic parameter which is driving the transition is not. The reason is that as you come into the transition from the left, you have all phase 1, and the derivative is a bulk phase 1 property. At the transition, phase 1 and phase 2 have equal bulk free energies, and phase l turns into phase 2 as you try to drive the parameter further. The partition function is continuous at the transition, because both phases have equal free energy per unit volume in bulk at this point, which is why they can freely turn one into the other.
The original idea was that at a second order transition, the derivative would be continuous and the second derivative discontinuous, allowing you to define third order transitions by the third derivative, and so on. This idea is incorrect (at least in finite dimensions, maybe it can be salvaged in mean field theory) because the second order transition is completely different from the first order in terms of the statistical degrees of freedom,
In first order transitions, the correlation functions fall off exponentially at long distances, with no fluctuations bigger than the atomic level. Nothing happens to the correlation functions of the bulk phases there, the transition is just caused by the collision of the bulk free entropy of the two phases.
At a second order transition the system at the transition point is not transitioning between two distinct phases, but has a continuum statistical limit defined by looking at the fluctuating statistical fields which are no longer "massive" (meaning they are no longer statisically clamped to a fixed value in such a way that they forget their boundary values on a large sphere). The generic behavior is that the correlations in the fluctuations of these fields falls off as a power at the transition, and this power is one of the critical exponents. Away from the transition they fall off exponentially, but at a distance called the correlation length which diverges as you approach the transition, and it diverges as another power, another critical exponent.
The properties of a second order transition is always by a statistical field theory, and these are very constrained, because they obey the analog of a central limit theorem. All properties of the transition except the type of fluctuating fields and their renormalizable "Lagrangian" are not important, or irrelevant, for the long-distance behavior. The renormalizable Lagrangians (free entropy as a function of the field, but this is the statistical analogs of quantum field theory Lagrangian because it is the weight in a path integral) have only a finite parameter space, and these parameters correspond to the number of parameters you need to tune to approach the transition. Symmetries can reduce the number of directions by forcing some parameters to be zero automatically.
The generic behavior is that the free energy as a function of some collection of bulk thermodynamic fields becomes a function of the derivatives of these fields and their values so that the continuum path integral considering these fields makes sense. | You should have specify, what type of a correlation function you have in mind. You should agree that there may be many types. Without specification let me assume that the correlation function of the order parameter is understood. In this case, the correlator in k-space is given by the formula (146,8) of the book Statistical Physics, V.5 of Landau and Lifshitz, while in the x-space - by Eq. (146,11) of the same book. Since in the books of different years the numerations of formulas may slightly vary, it is useful to have in mind the paragraph "Order parameter fluctuations". The formulas I referred to relate to bare correlators, therefore in k-space stays
>
> [LeftAngleBracket][Eta](k)[Eta](-k)[RightAngleBracket]=(g k^2+[Alpha])^-1
>
>
>
, where \alpha is the coefficient at the order parameter square. For the "dressed" correlator it changes including (in principle) a sum of an infinite number of terms (Feinman diagrams with two tails, and k=0), which is expected to converge. Now this parameter can exhibit either a power law dependence upon t=T-T\_c, or somewhat else.
The answer seems strongly depend upon the state of the art. I mean, what people strongly believe to happen.
Here one should clearly distinguish, what happens in experiment and what is predicted in theory. In theory there is one exact solution of the 2D Ising problem. The solution is difficult, but the comprehensive answer one finds in the same book in the Chapter entitled "Second order phase transition in a 2D lattice". Eq. (151.12) gives the answer. |
35,359,382 | I want to uninstall xampp and reinstall with the latest version. I've recently upgraded from Win7 to Win10 which I think is causing many of my problems.
I have saved all my files and folders, so that I can insert into the new version of xampp.
After I click "uninstall" I get this message "The uninstall.dat file cannot be found and is required to uninstall the application, aborting".
There is an uninstall.dat file in xampp and it is an Adobe file. I've tried changing it to Notepad and Editpad but still get the cannot be found message. And I've tried many times without success.
Can somebody tell me how to overcome this problem?
Maybe I need to uninstall by piecemeal but I don't know how to do that.
18/02/16 - Update.
The only solution I can think of is to move the xampp folder to the recycle bin.
In that event, how could I see if any of the programs are still running, and if they are, how to delete them? | 2016/02/12 | [
"https://Stackoverflow.com/questions/35359382",
"https://Stackoverflow.com",
"https://Stackoverflow.com/users/5079836/"
] | I need to answer my own question, in case another person has the same problem. I deleted the xampp folder to the recycle bin, downloaded Version 7.0.4, installed and uninstalled, then installed once more. Everything appears to be working now. This may have been a fault with Version 7.0.2 which is what I had these problems with. | Copy paste required file into xampp folder and uninstall xampp as regular procedure via control panel. |
35,359,382 | I want to uninstall xampp and reinstall with the latest version. I've recently upgraded from Win7 to Win10 which I think is causing many of my problems.
I have saved all my files and folders, so that I can insert into the new version of xampp.
After I click "uninstall" I get this message "The uninstall.dat file cannot be found and is required to uninstall the application, aborting".
There is an uninstall.dat file in xampp and it is an Adobe file. I've tried changing it to Notepad and Editpad but still get the cannot be found message. And I've tried many times without success.
Can somebody tell me how to overcome this problem?
Maybe I need to uninstall by piecemeal but I don't know how to do that.
18/02/16 - Update.
The only solution I can think of is to move the xampp folder to the recycle bin.
In that event, how could I see if any of the programs are still running, and if they are, how to delete them? | 2016/02/12 | [
"https://Stackoverflow.com/questions/35359382",
"https://Stackoverflow.com",
"https://Stackoverflow.com/users/5079836/"
] | Actually I used XAMPP nearly four years ago during my college project, now not using it anymore, so I though to uninstall it but unfortunately got this same issue, just did a simple thing to resolve the issue, I had that setup from which I installed it, so using that I reinstalled it and then did the un-installation and it worked for me. | Copy paste required file into xampp folder and uninstall xampp as regular procedure via control panel. |
135,477 | Can we add any two vectors? If not, why is that so?
I think this is not true, but I am not sure. My book says it is true, but I guess it is a misprint. For example, adding acceleration to velocity. | 2014/09/14 | [
"https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/135477",
"https://physics.stackexchange.com",
"https://physics.stackexchange.com/users/56263/"
] | I doubt if your textbook makes it explicit, but the only sacred tenet in here is to respect [dimensional homogeneity](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homogeneity_(physics)#Dimensional_homogeneity). One can make no sense of the sum of quantities with different dimensions. | You can ague that you can add any vector, since you can look at a adding vectors with different units as other dimensions. So you example of adding velocity and acceleration, both in three spacial dimensions, will give you a six dimensional vector. An example of this would be [phase space](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phase_space).
However usually those vectors with higher dimensions do not have any physical meaning, so in most formula the units of scalars and vectors you would add together will be the same. |
135,477 | Can we add any two vectors? If not, why is that so?
I think this is not true, but I am not sure. My book says it is true, but I guess it is a misprint. For example, adding acceleration to velocity. | 2014/09/14 | [
"https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/135477",
"https://physics.stackexchange.com",
"https://physics.stackexchange.com/users/56263/"
] | I doubt if your textbook makes it explicit, but the only sacred tenet in here is to respect [dimensional homogeneity](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homogeneity_(physics)#Dimensional_homogeneity). One can make no sense of the sum of quantities with different dimensions. | From the commentary to the question, the textbook in question appears to be a mathematics textbook rather than a physics textbook. In mathematics, any two elements of a vector space can be added to one another to yield another member of that space. This is one of the requisites of what it means for something to be a "vector" in mathematics. Specifically, a set of objects forms a vector space over a field if
* Addition amongst elements of the set is well defined (i.e., any two elements of the vector space can be added to one another, with the result being a member of the vector space),
* Vector addition is commutative and associative,
* The set contains an additive element, the zero vector, which when added to any other element yields that other element,
* Every element of the set has an additive inverse,
* Scalar multiplication, multiplication of elements of the vector space by members of the field is well defined (i.e., any element of the vector space be multiplied by any member of the field, with the result being a member of the vector space),
* Scalar multiplication is associative and distributive, and
* Multiplying any vector by the multiplicative identity of the field yields the original vector.
Mathematicians typically don't worry about units. When they do, they would deem the space of velocity vectors and the space of acceleration vectors to be two very distinct spaces. |
135,477 | Can we add any two vectors? If not, why is that so?
I think this is not true, but I am not sure. My book says it is true, but I guess it is a misprint. For example, adding acceleration to velocity. | 2014/09/14 | [
"https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/135477",
"https://physics.stackexchange.com",
"https://physics.stackexchange.com/users/56263/"
] | From the commentary to the question, the textbook in question appears to be a mathematics textbook rather than a physics textbook. In mathematics, any two elements of a vector space can be added to one another to yield another member of that space. This is one of the requisites of what it means for something to be a "vector" in mathematics. Specifically, a set of objects forms a vector space over a field if
* Addition amongst elements of the set is well defined (i.e., any two elements of the vector space can be added to one another, with the result being a member of the vector space),
* Vector addition is commutative and associative,
* The set contains an additive element, the zero vector, which when added to any other element yields that other element,
* Every element of the set has an additive inverse,
* Scalar multiplication, multiplication of elements of the vector space by members of the field is well defined (i.e., any element of the vector space be multiplied by any member of the field, with the result being a member of the vector space),
* Scalar multiplication is associative and distributive, and
* Multiplying any vector by the multiplicative identity of the field yields the original vector.
Mathematicians typically don't worry about units. When they do, they would deem the space of velocity vectors and the space of acceleration vectors to be two very distinct spaces. | You can ague that you can add any vector, since you can look at a adding vectors with different units as other dimensions. So you example of adding velocity and acceleration, both in three spacial dimensions, will give you a six dimensional vector. An example of this would be [phase space](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phase_space).
However usually those vectors with higher dimensions do not have any physical meaning, so in most formula the units of scalars and vectors you would add together will be the same. |
88,420 | When I create my own dmg-images, I always attach a software license agreement to them. When I opened the flattened image, I always got the Jaguar "X" in the background of the agreement dialog, where I have to confirm to the SLA before the image will be mounted. I believe that since Lion, apple removed that, so the eula-dialog is clean.
![[Please upload pictures of what you are seeing here]](https://i.stack.imgur.com/cicGj.png)
Is it possible to set a custom image into the SLA-Dialog on Lion or later OS X? | 2013/04/10 | [
"https://apple.stackexchange.com/questions/88420",
"https://apple.stackexchange.com",
"https://apple.stackexchange.com/users/47162/"
] | One easy way to create DMGs and play with every option is to use the popular [DropDMG](http://c-command.com/dropdmg/) from Michael Tsai. It's not free, but he has great support and it's very communicative and there's a trial version.
*Disclaimer: I'm not affiliated with Michael Tsai, but I've known him (and his products) for a long time now, when I started using [SpamSieve](http://c-command.com/spamsieve/) (another of his great products).* | I found out, that it is not possible – the "X" in the background is OS specific.
The last macOS version that showed it on mounting the image was Snow Leopard. All versions of macOS that followed after that did not use it anymore.
However, you could use an image within the Textfield, since it represents an RTF-File Format. |
176,444 | Does anyone have any experience building a curbless shower pan? I have built multiple showers and have generally mastered the typical shower pan with a 3"-4" curb but we now have my wife's 91-year-old mother living with us and she has trouble stepping over the curb. We are getting ready to remodel her bathroom to make it more accessible and a curbless shower pan would help.
My first thought is to cut into the sub-floor and joists (2x12) enough to create a 1/4" slope for a 42"x60" shower pan (roughly 1-1/4"). Then add stabilizers between the joists (perpendicular) and new subfloor. This seems like a lot of work! But with our aging population we should see more of them than we typically do.
Someone has to have done this before and could possibly shine a little light... | 2019/10/14 | [
"https://diy.stackexchange.com/questions/176444",
"https://diy.stackexchange.com",
"https://diy.stackexchange.com/users/108080/"
] | To long for a comment
My niece is disabled and uses a wheelchair no curb shower pans are easy but remember the pan is now going to be 2-4x the size of a normal shower. We used a glass brick wall on the center to divide the bathroom up because the large unusual size. For her shower the floor has a slope from the opposing wall all the way back to the drain. We considered a speed bump (very slight) to contain the water that may splash but at 7’ felt it would not be needed. 10 years later the shower is still fully functional. One thing my sister insisted on was thermostatic water valves so if she bumped the valve they would not get froze or burned. The valve has required replacement 1 time recently. The rest of the bathroom floor was raised 3/4 or 1 inch I do not remember. For the floor tiles a rough finished natural stone was used so it would not be slippery when it was sealed, my sister says this is both a blessing and a curse it is not slippery but is hard to clean, we added another outlet close to the opening that she can turn on and spray down the floor pushing the water and soap back to the drain. Since it has a minimal slope. Since this is for an elderly person you might consider a fold away bench. I installed one of these many years ago for an elderly couple in a standard shower. I don’t know if they ever dropped it down but they told me it was very nice.
So you can go totally curbless but you need the pan to extend beyond the splash zone. | basically you build the whole room like it's a shower
(but you only need th waterfproof the floor and the walls near the shower)
usually what's done is to slope the bathroom floor towards the shower drain (either the whole bathroom or just the part near the shower. This is typically accomplished by raising the whole bathroom floor using mortar screed to form the slope.
If you're doing the floor in linoleum instead of tile, you need to rip up the floor and install vallety boards etc so that the floor panels can be cut to slope to the shower drain. the linoleum is welded into a single piece and seals the floor and the base of the walls. then waterproof panels are installed near shower outlet that overlap the top of the linoleum.
If I was to fall, I'd much rather fall on linoleum.
Either way there'll be a small step to enter the bathroom unless you can lower the joists to compensate.
your're planning to reduce the joists. unless you can find an answer in the framing manual you probably need to talk to an engineer. I would expect than you can go to
4x8 and get the same strength as 2x12 (so adding 2x8 beams to the 2x12 beams should be acceptable, but don't take my word for it. |
138,482 | i was studying SSB demodulation and learned that a local carrier is added to the SSB signal to make sure that envelope detection is possible. I came across a problem to find the percentage of power saved in this type of modulation if the modulation index is .5.
I tried to derive the expression, % saving = (Useful power ) / Total power
However i am not able to reach the final expression given in the answer. Please help !
 | 2014/11/14 | [
"https://electronics.stackexchange.com/questions/138482",
"https://electronics.stackexchange.com",
"https://electronics.stackexchange.com/users/57288/"
] | When m=.5 total power is given by
Pt(total power)=pc(power of carrier)\*(1+m²/2)
=Pc(1+(0.5)²/2)
=1.125Pc
One sideband power
Psb=Pc.m²/4
=Pc.(0.5)²/4
=0.0625Pc
Savings In power
(1.125-0.0625)/1.125
=94.4% | The main advantage would be almost doubling spectral power density and almost halving bandwidth with the main disadvantage receivers not ready for the bandwidth and requiring linearity in the transmitter. Calculation is not very interesting in this cases to decide. |
11,829,913 | I have been looking for a good explanation of how to implement a password login system in a typical website environment. I have read some great wikipedia articles and SO Q&A and blogs etc but they always seem to focus on purely generating the hash rather than the whole process of creating hash sending which parts of it, storing which parts of it, what the server side code does with it etc. If there is already a good answer on SO I apologise for reposting, and please link.
My current understanding is:
1) A new user creates a new account on your website. They enter a "password", the client side code then generates and appends a long random string "salt" to the end and generates a hash -> BCrypt(password+salt) for example. The client code then sends the full hash plus the unhashed salt to the server.
2) The server stores the full hash and the unhashed salt in the users entry in a DB.
3) During the user login they type their password which is then hashed with a salt again,
Question 1) How does the client side code generate the same 'random' salt value for each user?
Question 2) at this point does the client side code just send the full hash without the salt?
Question 3) what does the server side do with the full hash once it has received it? (simply compare the sent full hash with the stored full hash? If that's the case then can't an attacker upon breaking into the db and getting the stored full hash values just use them directly to send to the server to log in? This is based on my assumption that the log in process essentially involves the server comparing the full hash sent from the client with the full hash stored in the db.
Question 4) should passwords always be sent over secure connection? or does salting and hashing them make it ok for anyone to see? | 2012/08/06 | [
"https://Stackoverflow.com/questions/11829913",
"https://Stackoverflow.com",
"https://Stackoverflow.com/users/1259261/"
] | You are confusing the purpose of the hashing. It is not intended to secure the password for wire transmission. The client does not generate the hash. the purpose of the hash is to prevent an attacker who compromises your database from being able to quickly use a pre-generated hash lookup table to determine what your user's passwords are.
A trivial example follows- as @jhoyla points out in the comments below, industrial grade production schemes are even more complex.
To create an account:
1. The client establishes a secure (encrypted, e.g. SSL) connection with the server, and sends the username and password, usually in plaintext (which is OK, because it is encrypted).
2. The server generates a random salt, appends it to the password, hashes the result, and stores the hash and the unhashed salt value.
To log in:
1. The client establishes a secure (encrypted, e.g. SSL) connection with the server, and sends the username and password, usually in plaintext (which is OK, because it is encrypted).
2. The server retrieves the salt from storage, appends it to the password, hashes it, and compares the result to the hashed password in storage. If they match, the user is logged in.
To establish why we do this, imagine that I have successfully attacked a website's database server and downloaded the database. I now have a list of usernames, probably email addresses, and password hashes. If the passwords are not salted, then there is a very high probability that many of the hashes will be the same (because many people use the same weak passwords). I know that the likelihood of one of those users having that same weak password on (for example) their email account is quite high. So I go to work and hash the whole dictionary, plus many other likely passwords, looking for a hash that matches one of these popular ones. If I get a hit, I've just broken a bunch of passwords. If I was smart, I'd have generated this list in advance so that I can do it quickly.
Now imagine that the passwords are salted. Now, even if two people use the same password, a different salt will have been generated for each of them, and the resulting hashes will be different. I have no way of knowing which passwords are weak, common passwords, and which ones are strong passwords. I can try my dictionary attack by appending the salt to each possible password, but the difficulty (in terms of time) of cracking a password has now gone up exponentially. | never ever implement it yourself! if you need it just for learning then @Chris answered you. but if you need for for a working software then don't do it. every language has security libraries and every data store (ldap, database) has password storing mechanism already implemented. use it, don't invent the wheel again because you will most probably miss some detail |
48,036 | In Matthew 4 (The Message)
>
> For the third test, the Devil took him to the peak of a huge mountain. He gestured expansively, pointing out all the earth’s kingdoms, how glorious they all were. Then he said, “They’re yours—lock, stock, and barrel. **Just go down on your knees and worship me, and they’re yours.**”
>
>
>
Where comes the authority over the world that the Devil was given, allowing him to offer the world to Jesus? Shouldn't all these belong to the God as this is his world? It's like when your kid says to you "*If you play with me I will let you watch TV*", obviously you don't need your kid's permission to watch your favourite shows. So how is the 3rd test even a test for Jesus as it is God who has authority over the world not the Devil?
If we look at the 1st test in Matthew 4
>
> “Since you are God’s Son, speak the word that will turn these stones into loaves of bread.”
>
>
>
It was not the Devil's power, instead, the Devil was tempting Jesus to use Jesus's own power, which makes sense to me. And then in the 2nd test
>
> “Since you are God’s Son, jump.” The Devil goaded him by quoting Psalm 91: “He has placed you in the care of angels. They will catch you so that you won’t so much as stub your toe on a stone.”
>
>
>
Again, it wasn't the Devil's power to catch Jesus but the angels. So how come suddenly in the 3rd test the Devil has the power to offer Jesus the world? Wouldn't it make much more sense for the Devil to tempt Jesus "*Pray to the God to give you the world now*"? | 2020/05/26 | [
"https://hermeneutics.stackexchange.com/questions/48036",
"https://hermeneutics.stackexchange.com",
"https://hermeneutics.stackexchange.com/users/29582/"
] | The sphere of political power is different from the sphere of the supra-political divine power. Now, it is impossible to get the supra-political divine power, but by observing divine commandments and being born anew in Holy Spirit: such a person indeed will become a citizen of the Heavenly Kingdom and co-heir of Christ.
However, it is quite possible to get political power by just doing opposite: cheating to the electorate, promising the things to them that are from the outset impossible to be fulfilled etc. Or, graver things: one can get a political power by plotting and conspiring against the acting ruler, denigrating and slandering him, for sake of making him a political corpse, or even contriving a real murder. All those things: cheating, slander, murder are outright conscious violations of divine commandments and as such a service of devil.
Thus, devil in this passage does not claim that he has authority over the earthly kingdoms, to the effect that earthly kingdoms are evil as such, not at all! This suggestion would be kind of a gnostic and not in tune with the Gospels' logic that it is right to give to Caesar what is of Caesar. Had it been so, the last principle would have accounted to saying: "give to Satan, what belongs to Satan", which is stupid. Of course, God wishes the politics and earthly kingdoms to be also just, but there is a possibility that in earthly realm a violation of commandments of God can amount for base and wrong persons to acquire political power at detriment of health of their soul/conscience.
But Jesus gives an answer debunking all contrivances of devil by a single blow of His rhetorical question: "what is there if one gains the entire world and harms one's soul? what is there more precious than one's soul?" That is to say, all political power lasts only until this short temporal life of any most powerful king or emperor, but then comes the eternity where the earthly political power has no relevance at all, but what matters there is the health of one's soul/conscience.
Thus, Jesus gives a paradigm to all humans: you can practice everything safely - politics, business etc. - for they are not *per se* bad at all! On the contrary, they are even necessary for human society to fare well. However, in politics, business, sports etc. there is always a temptation to acquire success at detriment of conscience (for instance, politician can cheat, or sportsman can take doping etc.), and beware of this, for nothing is more valuable than healthy soul or upright conscience, the two being the same. | What the third temptation is saying is using military/governmental might to force beliefs on people is equal to worshiping Satan. Military might is justified to enforce freedom to believe, not the opposite. Church history hasn't done well grasping this concept, which has taken millennia to learn. It was the temptation to be exactly what the Jews expected the Messiah to be. It is what Peter expected of the Christ, which resulted in Jesus' response, "Get behind me, Satan." (Matt. 16:23, Mark 8:33) |
48,036 | In Matthew 4 (The Message)
>
> For the third test, the Devil took him to the peak of a huge mountain. He gestured expansively, pointing out all the earth’s kingdoms, how glorious they all were. Then he said, “They’re yours—lock, stock, and barrel. **Just go down on your knees and worship me, and they’re yours.**”
>
>
>
Where comes the authority over the world that the Devil was given, allowing him to offer the world to Jesus? Shouldn't all these belong to the God as this is his world? It's like when your kid says to you "*If you play with me I will let you watch TV*", obviously you don't need your kid's permission to watch your favourite shows. So how is the 3rd test even a test for Jesus as it is God who has authority over the world not the Devil?
If we look at the 1st test in Matthew 4
>
> “Since you are God’s Son, speak the word that will turn these stones into loaves of bread.”
>
>
>
It was not the Devil's power, instead, the Devil was tempting Jesus to use Jesus's own power, which makes sense to me. And then in the 2nd test
>
> “Since you are God’s Son, jump.” The Devil goaded him by quoting Psalm 91: “He has placed you in the care of angels. They will catch you so that you won’t so much as stub your toe on a stone.”
>
>
>
Again, it wasn't the Devil's power to catch Jesus but the angels. So how come suddenly in the 3rd test the Devil has the power to offer Jesus the world? Wouldn't it make much more sense for the Devil to tempt Jesus "*Pray to the God to give you the world now*"? | 2020/05/26 | [
"https://hermeneutics.stackexchange.com/questions/48036",
"https://hermeneutics.stackexchange.com",
"https://hermeneutics.stackexchange.com/users/29582/"
] | The sphere of political power is different from the sphere of the supra-political divine power. Now, it is impossible to get the supra-political divine power, but by observing divine commandments and being born anew in Holy Spirit: such a person indeed will become a citizen of the Heavenly Kingdom and co-heir of Christ.
However, it is quite possible to get political power by just doing opposite: cheating to the electorate, promising the things to them that are from the outset impossible to be fulfilled etc. Or, graver things: one can get a political power by plotting and conspiring against the acting ruler, denigrating and slandering him, for sake of making him a political corpse, or even contriving a real murder. All those things: cheating, slander, murder are outright conscious violations of divine commandments and as such a service of devil.
Thus, devil in this passage does not claim that he has authority over the earthly kingdoms, to the effect that earthly kingdoms are evil as such, not at all! This suggestion would be kind of a gnostic and not in tune with the Gospels' logic that it is right to give to Caesar what is of Caesar. Had it been so, the last principle would have accounted to saying: "give to Satan, what belongs to Satan", which is stupid. Of course, God wishes the politics and earthly kingdoms to be also just, but there is a possibility that in earthly realm a violation of commandments of God can amount for base and wrong persons to acquire political power at detriment of health of their soul/conscience.
But Jesus gives an answer debunking all contrivances of devil by a single blow of His rhetorical question: "what is there if one gains the entire world and harms one's soul? what is there more precious than one's soul?" That is to say, all political power lasts only until this short temporal life of any most powerful king or emperor, but then comes the eternity where the earthly political power has no relevance at all, but what matters there is the health of one's soul/conscience.
Thus, Jesus gives a paradigm to all humans: you can practice everything safely - politics, business etc. - for they are not *per se* bad at all! On the contrary, they are even necessary for human society to fare well. However, in politics, business, sports etc. there is always a temptation to acquire success at detriment of conscience (for instance, politician can cheat, or sportsman can take doping etc.), and beware of this, for nothing is more valuable than healthy soul or upright conscience, the two being the same. | >
> NIV Matthew 4:9 "All this I will give you," he said, "if you will bow down and worship me."
>
>
>
If Jesus had bowed down and worshiped the tricky Satan, Satan would have had the authority. It's not exactly like when your kid says to you "If you play with me I will let you watch TV". It is more like when your kid says to you "If you give me your bank card and pin, I will give you $10." You reply, "Get out of here. I would only give my bank card and pin to Mommy." |
48,036 | In Matthew 4 (The Message)
>
> For the third test, the Devil took him to the peak of a huge mountain. He gestured expansively, pointing out all the earth’s kingdoms, how glorious they all were. Then he said, “They’re yours—lock, stock, and barrel. **Just go down on your knees and worship me, and they’re yours.**”
>
>
>
Where comes the authority over the world that the Devil was given, allowing him to offer the world to Jesus? Shouldn't all these belong to the God as this is his world? It's like when your kid says to you "*If you play with me I will let you watch TV*", obviously you don't need your kid's permission to watch your favourite shows. So how is the 3rd test even a test for Jesus as it is God who has authority over the world not the Devil?
If we look at the 1st test in Matthew 4
>
> “Since you are God’s Son, speak the word that will turn these stones into loaves of bread.”
>
>
>
It was not the Devil's power, instead, the Devil was tempting Jesus to use Jesus's own power, which makes sense to me. And then in the 2nd test
>
> “Since you are God’s Son, jump.” The Devil goaded him by quoting Psalm 91: “He has placed you in the care of angels. They will catch you so that you won’t so much as stub your toe on a stone.”
>
>
>
Again, it wasn't the Devil's power to catch Jesus but the angels. So how come suddenly in the 3rd test the Devil has the power to offer Jesus the world? Wouldn't it make much more sense for the Devil to tempt Jesus "*Pray to the God to give you the world now*"? | 2020/05/26 | [
"https://hermeneutics.stackexchange.com/questions/48036",
"https://hermeneutics.stackexchange.com",
"https://hermeneutics.stackexchange.com/users/29582/"
] | The sphere of political power is different from the sphere of the supra-political divine power. Now, it is impossible to get the supra-political divine power, but by observing divine commandments and being born anew in Holy Spirit: such a person indeed will become a citizen of the Heavenly Kingdom and co-heir of Christ.
However, it is quite possible to get political power by just doing opposite: cheating to the electorate, promising the things to them that are from the outset impossible to be fulfilled etc. Or, graver things: one can get a political power by plotting and conspiring against the acting ruler, denigrating and slandering him, for sake of making him a political corpse, or even contriving a real murder. All those things: cheating, slander, murder are outright conscious violations of divine commandments and as such a service of devil.
Thus, devil in this passage does not claim that he has authority over the earthly kingdoms, to the effect that earthly kingdoms are evil as such, not at all! This suggestion would be kind of a gnostic and not in tune with the Gospels' logic that it is right to give to Caesar what is of Caesar. Had it been so, the last principle would have accounted to saying: "give to Satan, what belongs to Satan", which is stupid. Of course, God wishes the politics and earthly kingdoms to be also just, but there is a possibility that in earthly realm a violation of commandments of God can amount for base and wrong persons to acquire political power at detriment of health of their soul/conscience.
But Jesus gives an answer debunking all contrivances of devil by a single blow of His rhetorical question: "what is there if one gains the entire world and harms one's soul? what is there more precious than one's soul?" That is to say, all political power lasts only until this short temporal life of any most powerful king or emperor, but then comes the eternity where the earthly political power has no relevance at all, but what matters there is the health of one's soul/conscience.
Thus, Jesus gives a paradigm to all humans: you can practice everything safely - politics, business etc. - for they are not *per se* bad at all! On the contrary, they are even necessary for human society to fare well. However, in politics, business, sports etc. there is always a temptation to acquire success at detriment of conscience (for instance, politician can cheat, or sportsman can take doping etc.), and beware of this, for nothing is more valuable than healthy soul or upright conscience, the two being the same. | **How could the Devil test Jesus in the third test?**
The Bible tells us that Satan offered Jesus "all the kingdoms of the world and their glory" in exchange for one act of worship.
Matthew 4:8-10 (NASB)
>
> 8 Again, the devil \*took Him to a very high mountain and \*showed Him
> all the kingdoms of the world and their glory; 9 and he said to Him,
> “All these things I will give You, if You fall down and [a]worship
> me.” 10 Then Jesus \*said to him, “Go, Satan! For it is written, ‘You
> shall worship the Lord your God, and [b]serve Him only.’”
>
>
>
In essence, Jesus was offered rulership of the world on Satan's terms, Jesus did not fall prey to this temptation. But how could Satan make such a grandiose offer? **Yes, it is possible for Jesus said that Satan was "the ruler of the world."**
John 14:30 (NASB)
>
> 30 I will not speak much more with you, for the ruler of the world is
> coming, and he has nothing in Me;
>
>
>
Paul described Satan as the god of this world.
2 Corinthians 4:4 (NASB)
>
> 4 in whose case the god of this world has blinded the minds of the
> unbelieving so that they might not see the light of the gospel of the
> glory of Christ, who is the image of God.
>
>
>
Ephesians 6:12 (NASB)
>
> 12 For our struggle is not against flesh and blood, but against the
> rulers, against the powers, against the world forces of this darkness,
> against the spiritual forces of wickedness in the heavenly places.
>
>
> |
48,036 | In Matthew 4 (The Message)
>
> For the third test, the Devil took him to the peak of a huge mountain. He gestured expansively, pointing out all the earth’s kingdoms, how glorious they all were. Then he said, “They’re yours—lock, stock, and barrel. **Just go down on your knees and worship me, and they’re yours.**”
>
>
>
Where comes the authority over the world that the Devil was given, allowing him to offer the world to Jesus? Shouldn't all these belong to the God as this is his world? It's like when your kid says to you "*If you play with me I will let you watch TV*", obviously you don't need your kid's permission to watch your favourite shows. So how is the 3rd test even a test for Jesus as it is God who has authority over the world not the Devil?
If we look at the 1st test in Matthew 4
>
> “Since you are God’s Son, speak the word that will turn these stones into loaves of bread.”
>
>
>
It was not the Devil's power, instead, the Devil was tempting Jesus to use Jesus's own power, which makes sense to me. And then in the 2nd test
>
> “Since you are God’s Son, jump.” The Devil goaded him by quoting Psalm 91: “He has placed you in the care of angels. They will catch you so that you won’t so much as stub your toe on a stone.”
>
>
>
Again, it wasn't the Devil's power to catch Jesus but the angels. So how come suddenly in the 3rd test the Devil has the power to offer Jesus the world? Wouldn't it make much more sense for the Devil to tempt Jesus "*Pray to the God to give you the world now*"? | 2020/05/26 | [
"https://hermeneutics.stackexchange.com/questions/48036",
"https://hermeneutics.stackexchange.com",
"https://hermeneutics.stackexchange.com/users/29582/"
] | The sphere of political power is different from the sphere of the supra-political divine power. Now, it is impossible to get the supra-political divine power, but by observing divine commandments and being born anew in Holy Spirit: such a person indeed will become a citizen of the Heavenly Kingdom and co-heir of Christ.
However, it is quite possible to get political power by just doing opposite: cheating to the electorate, promising the things to them that are from the outset impossible to be fulfilled etc. Or, graver things: one can get a political power by plotting and conspiring against the acting ruler, denigrating and slandering him, for sake of making him a political corpse, or even contriving a real murder. All those things: cheating, slander, murder are outright conscious violations of divine commandments and as such a service of devil.
Thus, devil in this passage does not claim that he has authority over the earthly kingdoms, to the effect that earthly kingdoms are evil as such, not at all! This suggestion would be kind of a gnostic and not in tune with the Gospels' logic that it is right to give to Caesar what is of Caesar. Had it been so, the last principle would have accounted to saying: "give to Satan, what belongs to Satan", which is stupid. Of course, God wishes the politics and earthly kingdoms to be also just, but there is a possibility that in earthly realm a violation of commandments of God can amount for base and wrong persons to acquire political power at detriment of health of their soul/conscience.
But Jesus gives an answer debunking all contrivances of devil by a single blow of His rhetorical question: "what is there if one gains the entire world and harms one's soul? what is there more precious than one's soul?" That is to say, all political power lasts only until this short temporal life of any most powerful king or emperor, but then comes the eternity where the earthly political power has no relevance at all, but what matters there is the health of one's soul/conscience.
Thus, Jesus gives a paradigm to all humans: you can practice everything safely - politics, business etc. - for they are not *per se* bad at all! On the contrary, they are even necessary for human society to fare well. However, in politics, business, sports etc. there is always a temptation to acquire success at detriment of conscience (for instance, politician can cheat, or sportsman can take doping etc.), and beware of this, for nothing is more valuable than healthy soul or upright conscience, the two being the same. | ### So how is the 3rd test even a test for Jesus as it is God who has authority over the world not the Devil?
Very interesting indeed! But look at the parallel account and what it says:
>
> "Then the Devil said to him: 'I will give you all this authority and their glory, *because it has been handed over to me,* and I give it to whomever I wish.'"–Luke 4:6 (NWT)
>
>
>
How can this be? If the Devil **didn't** have the authority, then Jesus would have "called his bluff" so to speak. As your question states, this would **not** have been a test.
Jesus himself acknowledges the fact that the Devil is the ruler of this world:
>
> "Now there is a judging of this world; now the ruler of this world will be cast out."–John 12:31 (NWT)
>
>
>
>
> "I will not speak with you much more, for the ruler of the world is coming, and he has no hold on me."–John 14:30 (NWT)
>
>
>
Is Jesus talking about the Father? No, of course not. Why would the Father be "cast out"?
So how could the Devil have this authority? Take a look at what happened in the account of Job. The Devil is taunting Jehovah God a second time by saying that Jehovah is protecting Job. Then what does God say?
>
> "Then Jehovah said to Satan: 'Look! He is in your hand! Only do not take his life!'"–Job 2:6 (NWT)
>
>
>
At that moment, Jehovah God gave Satan the authority to do whatever he wanted to Job except for killing him. So could God have given Satan a measure of authority over the world to see if he could bend it to his will?
So the Devil **does** have authority as is acknowledged by the apostle Paul:
>
> "3 If, in fact, the good news we declare is veiled, it is veiled among those who are perishing, 4 among whom *the god of this system of things* has blinded the minds of the unbelievers, so that the illumination of the glorious good news about the Christ, who is the image of God, might not shine through."–2 Cor. 4:3, 4 (NWT)
>
>
>
and the apostle John:
>
> "We know that we originate with God, but *the whole world is lying in the power of the wicked one.*"–1 John 5:19 (NWT)
>
>
>
For more information, please see the article ["The World's Secret Ruler Exposed"](https://www.jw.org/en/library/magazines/wp20110901/The-Worlds-Secret-Ruler-Exposed/) in the Watchtower of September 2011.
(all italics in this response are mine) |
462,820 | could someone please suggest me if the sentence below is correct or not (in context to the usage of blend in/blend into)? Please also share the reason/logic behind your answer. Thanks.
>
> "Never imagined how beautifully one can blend comedy in a scary movie without compromising its thriller quotient."
>
>
>
Also, thriller quotient or thrill quotient - which one do you think is correct in the above context? | 2018/09/02 | [
"https://english.stackexchange.com/questions/462820",
"https://english.stackexchange.com",
"https://english.stackexchange.com/users/314713/"
] | **Blend something into** means the thing being blended loses its original form.
This is apparent in cooking recipes:
>
> Blend the milk into the flour mixtures until smooth.
>
>
>
whereas: Here: "Never imagined how beautifully one can blend comedy in a scary movie without compromising its thriller quotient."
The author does not mean blend in or into so it loses its form. Because if he did (like a cooking ingredient), it would no longer be comedy, would it?
>
> So, he has not written it very clearly.
>
>
>
The author means: blend comedy with the thriller bits, where there would be no dilution. **This is like fabric or material, where one sees: this is a cotton blend. That is, a mix of cotton and some other thread.**
**This movie is a blend of a comedy and a thriller.**
Please note: this does not cover the idea of blend as the opposite of standing out. For example: You can always see him in a crowd. That hat does not blend in with what other people are wearing. | Blend into is more graceful, and it fits better with "without compromising" as one might say "stir warm cream into coffee without diluting its heat." The idea is that it's primarily a scary movie with some comedic elements.
"Thriller quotient" is the intended meaning. Both comedy and thriller are types of books, plays, or films. Other types include romance and documentary.
Additionally, what you have written is a sentence fragment, since the subject (I) is not stated. Sentence fragments are common in conversation. |
14,025 | I've worked with a CEO of a small company who never admit its mistakes, but usually choose a scapegoat which will be blamed publicly. How to deal with this kind of situation in general?
Edit: I would prefer constructive solutions to conflicting ones. | 2013/08/28 | [
"https://workplace.stackexchange.com/questions/14025",
"https://workplace.stackexchange.com",
"https://workplace.stackexchange.com/users/3163/"
] | Executive Summary
=================
Make sure you're not the scapegoat:
1. Try not to fail
2. If you do fail then fail with a smile
3. Be nice
Nobody Gets Blamed for Succeeding
=================================
Find a way to make whatever you are assigned work out. If it works, he can't blame you for its failure, and it won't have been a mistake.
Positive Discouragement
=======================
If you think the boss is making a mistake, there's a good chance he can tell you think he's making a mistake. That means that if the project fails, he may very well blame you for that failure.
Assume he's right. If he asks you to move a mountain of sand with a pair of tweezers within the next 20 minutes, smile, pick up those tweezers, and get moving! A positive attitude toward an unreasonable request will make the task seem more absurd (and stand a good chance of making the boss feel bad about you rather than throwing you in the public stocks).
For tasks less obvious than moving a mountain of sand with tweezers, it may help to regularly point out that you're doing it, and seem to be visibly doing it to the people around. The goal is to show that you're really giving it an honest shot, and any failure isn't due to a poor attitude or lack of effort.
Business is People
==================
Your CEO, as stubborn as he may seem, is also a human. He may have trouble at home. Or perhaps he took a hit in the market. Or his gout is acting up. Or his pet just died. Or all of these and more at the same time.
Separate the job he does (CEO with a mean streak) and the person he is (when not said CEO) and make sure you don't hold his actions as CEO against him as a person. Treating him like a human should (hopefully) take a bit of the edge off your interaction, and it may inspire him to view you as more than just another drone from sector C. | The right thing to do is leave - this is an oppressive environment and you shouldn't put up with it. However, for various reasons that option may not be available.
An alternative is to conference with the 'audience', the people that are being told the 'not quite right' story. If the boss spreads the manure around evenly then everyone gets theirs and everyone knows better. Otherwise, it might help to present an alternative point of view in settings where the boss isn't nearby.
The 'passive aggressive' response is to have some kind of poster or desk toy with a saying such as: '1. The Captain is always right. 2. If the Captain is wrong, see #1'. Perhaps you can find a mug or something that goes in the kitchen where the quote can't be attributed to any one person. |
14,025 | I've worked with a CEO of a small company who never admit its mistakes, but usually choose a scapegoat which will be blamed publicly. How to deal with this kind of situation in general?
Edit: I would prefer constructive solutions to conflicting ones. | 2013/08/28 | [
"https://workplace.stackexchange.com/questions/14025",
"https://workplace.stackexchange.com",
"https://workplace.stackexchange.com/users/3163/"
] | Couple options:
1. Side channels - if the concern is loss of reputation, then you need to get the word out informally to counter that.
2. Documentation - if the CEO is using his blame-stick to justify loss-of-pay, bad reviews, etc., then you need to start documenting the instructions given - if push comes to shove, you have paperwork showing that the bad decision wasn't yours. (Beware "buy-in", which bad bosses use to push responsibility down by making you "agree" to their dumb idea)
3. Coaching - if the above doesn't work (some bosses don't like paper-trails), then when chew-out time comes, ask for coaching on what should have been done differently. Sometimes the pushback will make the boss find a new sucker.
4. Negotiate - if they're publicly using your name as a scapegoat (and you don't want to lawyer up), negotiate for better pay as compensation. (I had a boss who did this once - came in, was the public face of all the unpopular changes, actively *encouraged* all the hate to go his way, and then was "let go" with a nice severance. Changes stayed in place and the new boss didn't have to take the heat.) | The right thing to do is leave - this is an oppressive environment and you shouldn't put up with it. However, for various reasons that option may not be available.
An alternative is to conference with the 'audience', the people that are being told the 'not quite right' story. If the boss spreads the manure around evenly then everyone gets theirs and everyone knows better. Otherwise, it might help to present an alternative point of view in settings where the boss isn't nearby.
The 'passive aggressive' response is to have some kind of poster or desk toy with a saying such as: '1. The Captain is always right. 2. If the Captain is wrong, see #1'. Perhaps you can find a mug or something that goes in the kitchen where the quote can't be attributed to any one person. |
14,025 | I've worked with a CEO of a small company who never admit its mistakes, but usually choose a scapegoat which will be blamed publicly. How to deal with this kind of situation in general?
Edit: I would prefer constructive solutions to conflicting ones. | 2013/08/28 | [
"https://workplace.stackexchange.com/questions/14025",
"https://workplace.stackexchange.com",
"https://workplace.stackexchange.com/users/3163/"
] | Executive Summary
=================
Make sure you're not the scapegoat:
1. Try not to fail
2. If you do fail then fail with a smile
3. Be nice
Nobody Gets Blamed for Succeeding
=================================
Find a way to make whatever you are assigned work out. If it works, he can't blame you for its failure, and it won't have been a mistake.
Positive Discouragement
=======================
If you think the boss is making a mistake, there's a good chance he can tell you think he's making a mistake. That means that if the project fails, he may very well blame you for that failure.
Assume he's right. If he asks you to move a mountain of sand with a pair of tweezers within the next 20 minutes, smile, pick up those tweezers, and get moving! A positive attitude toward an unreasonable request will make the task seem more absurd (and stand a good chance of making the boss feel bad about you rather than throwing you in the public stocks).
For tasks less obvious than moving a mountain of sand with tweezers, it may help to regularly point out that you're doing it, and seem to be visibly doing it to the people around. The goal is to show that you're really giving it an honest shot, and any failure isn't due to a poor attitude or lack of effort.
Business is People
==================
Your CEO, as stubborn as he may seem, is also a human. He may have trouble at home. Or perhaps he took a hit in the market. Or his gout is acting up. Or his pet just died. Or all of these and more at the same time.
Separate the job he does (CEO with a mean streak) and the person he is (when not said CEO) and make sure you don't hold his actions as CEO against him as a person. Treating him like a human should (hopefully) take a bit of the edge off your interaction, and it may inspire him to view you as more than just another drone from sector C. | I'm not going to pretend this is an enjoyable situation, but are there any other negative consequences?
* Written formal reviews indicate poor performance
* Bonuses decreased
* promotions and pay raises denied
* denial of other privileges: expense account, time-off requests, free coffee, etc.
* dismissal
If so, this is a serious problem.
My guess is this person feels he/she should never show weakness by admitting failures and is doing a little venting as well. He's in charge so there's nothing any of you can do about it (as far as he knows, but you can all slack off behind his back). If everyone starts acting like scared little children who have been scolded, he's being reinforced into thinking you'll all go back to your desks and work harder. |
14,025 | I've worked with a CEO of a small company who never admit its mistakes, but usually choose a scapegoat which will be blamed publicly. How to deal with this kind of situation in general?
Edit: I would prefer constructive solutions to conflicting ones. | 2013/08/28 | [
"https://workplace.stackexchange.com/questions/14025",
"https://workplace.stackexchange.com",
"https://workplace.stackexchange.com/users/3163/"
] | Executive Summary
=================
Make sure you're not the scapegoat:
1. Try not to fail
2. If you do fail then fail with a smile
3. Be nice
Nobody Gets Blamed for Succeeding
=================================
Find a way to make whatever you are assigned work out. If it works, he can't blame you for its failure, and it won't have been a mistake.
Positive Discouragement
=======================
If you think the boss is making a mistake, there's a good chance he can tell you think he's making a mistake. That means that if the project fails, he may very well blame you for that failure.
Assume he's right. If he asks you to move a mountain of sand with a pair of tweezers within the next 20 minutes, smile, pick up those tweezers, and get moving! A positive attitude toward an unreasonable request will make the task seem more absurd (and stand a good chance of making the boss feel bad about you rather than throwing you in the public stocks).
For tasks less obvious than moving a mountain of sand with tweezers, it may help to regularly point out that you're doing it, and seem to be visibly doing it to the people around. The goal is to show that you're really giving it an honest shot, and any failure isn't due to a poor attitude or lack of effort.
Business is People
==================
Your CEO, as stubborn as he may seem, is also a human. He may have trouble at home. Or perhaps he took a hit in the market. Or his gout is acting up. Or his pet just died. Or all of these and more at the same time.
Separate the job he does (CEO with a mean streak) and the person he is (when not said CEO) and make sure you don't hold his actions as CEO against him as a person. Treating him like a human should (hopefully) take a bit of the edge off your interaction, and it may inspire him to view you as more than just another drone from sector C. | Couple options:
1. Side channels - if the concern is loss of reputation, then you need to get the word out informally to counter that.
2. Documentation - if the CEO is using his blame-stick to justify loss-of-pay, bad reviews, etc., then you need to start documenting the instructions given - if push comes to shove, you have paperwork showing that the bad decision wasn't yours. (Beware "buy-in", which bad bosses use to push responsibility down by making you "agree" to their dumb idea)
3. Coaching - if the above doesn't work (some bosses don't like paper-trails), then when chew-out time comes, ask for coaching on what should have been done differently. Sometimes the pushback will make the boss find a new sucker.
4. Negotiate - if they're publicly using your name as a scapegoat (and you don't want to lawyer up), negotiate for better pay as compensation. (I had a boss who did this once - came in, was the public face of all the unpopular changes, actively *encouraged* all the hate to go his way, and then was "let go" with a nice severance. Changes stayed in place and the new boss didn't have to take the heat.) |
14,025 | I've worked with a CEO of a small company who never admit its mistakes, but usually choose a scapegoat which will be blamed publicly. How to deal with this kind of situation in general?
Edit: I would prefer constructive solutions to conflicting ones. | 2013/08/28 | [
"https://workplace.stackexchange.com/questions/14025",
"https://workplace.stackexchange.com",
"https://workplace.stackexchange.com/users/3163/"
] | Couple options:
1. Side channels - if the concern is loss of reputation, then you need to get the word out informally to counter that.
2. Documentation - if the CEO is using his blame-stick to justify loss-of-pay, bad reviews, etc., then you need to start documenting the instructions given - if push comes to shove, you have paperwork showing that the bad decision wasn't yours. (Beware "buy-in", which bad bosses use to push responsibility down by making you "agree" to their dumb idea)
3. Coaching - if the above doesn't work (some bosses don't like paper-trails), then when chew-out time comes, ask for coaching on what should have been done differently. Sometimes the pushback will make the boss find a new sucker.
4. Negotiate - if they're publicly using your name as a scapegoat (and you don't want to lawyer up), negotiate for better pay as compensation. (I had a boss who did this once - came in, was the public face of all the unpopular changes, actively *encouraged* all the hate to go his way, and then was "let go" with a nice severance. Changes stayed in place and the new boss didn't have to take the heat.) | I'm not going to pretend this is an enjoyable situation, but are there any other negative consequences?
* Written formal reviews indicate poor performance
* Bonuses decreased
* promotions and pay raises denied
* denial of other privileges: expense account, time-off requests, free coffee, etc.
* dismissal
If so, this is a serious problem.
My guess is this person feels he/she should never show weakness by admitting failures and is doing a little venting as well. He's in charge so there's nothing any of you can do about it (as far as he knows, but you can all slack off behind his back). If everyone starts acting like scared little children who have been scolded, he's being reinforced into thinking you'll all go back to your desks and work harder. |
3,785,085 | I am working with **mvc.net 2.0**, **sql server 2005**.
Is it possible to implement Apache Solr search on this platform? | 2010/09/24 | [
"https://Stackoverflow.com/questions/3785085",
"https://Stackoverflow.com",
"https://Stackoverflow.com/users/453780/"
] | If you mean Lucene search, you could take a look at [Examine](http://examine.codeplex.com/) it's a non-enterprise Lucene search.
If you need your search as a service then use Solr, you'll need to install a [Solr server](http://wiki.apache.org/solr/SolrInstall). For that you'll need to install [Tomcat](http://wiki.apache.org/solr/SolrTomcat) or another servlet container and create a Solr instance.
Once you've done that you can [post XML fragments](http://wiki.apache.org/solr/UpdateXmlMessages) from your code to create your index as you would normally perform HttpPost's. Then you use HttpGet requests to [search the index](http://wiki.apache.org/solr/SolrQuerySyntax). | What you are trying to do is to use lucence. Solr is the client that you can use to query lucene and from what I know is that you donot need to build a client that specifically handles query calls to lucene. The beauty of solr is that it uses http calls to query lucene. So all you need is to use Solr to create your indexes via http calls. Lucene takes care of the back end processing of these calls.
Try <http://www.lucidimagination.com/> you will find lots of examples. here
And you can download the Solr package from Apache site. You can set it up and simple use your browser to test the queries. It will take you some time to setup Solr, once you are through it you can test it very easly. |
3,785,085 | I am working with **mvc.net 2.0**, **sql server 2005**.
Is it possible to implement Apache Solr search on this platform? | 2010/09/24 | [
"https://Stackoverflow.com/questions/3785085",
"https://Stackoverflow.com",
"https://Stackoverflow.com/users/453780/"
] | There is a Solr example site called Solrnet which you may be interested in.
Source code:
<http://github.com/mausch/SolrNet>
Wiki:
<http://code.google.com/p/solrnet/> | What you are trying to do is to use lucence. Solr is the client that you can use to query lucene and from what I know is that you donot need to build a client that specifically handles query calls to lucene. The beauty of solr is that it uses http calls to query lucene. So all you need is to use Solr to create your indexes via http calls. Lucene takes care of the back end processing of these calls.
Try <http://www.lucidimagination.com/> you will find lots of examples. here
And you can download the Solr package from Apache site. You can set it up and simple use your browser to test the queries. It will take you some time to setup Solr, once you are through it you can test it very easly. |
405,268 | First of all, I just want to make it clear that I'm not here to rant about my question being closed or demanding my post be reopened. I'm just curious.
The post in question is [this one](https://stackoverflow.com/questions/66226175/indexing-an-unsigned-long-variable-and-printing-the-result). The question is a bit too weird to properly explain in one line, so you might have to see the post itself to understand what I'm asking. I noticed two close votes were cast yesterday and today, the post was finally closed for not being reproducible and/or caused by a typo. This is the feedback I got: [This question was caused by a typo or a problem that can no longer be reproduced. While similar questions may be on-topic here, this one was resolved in a way less likely to help future readers.](https://i.stack.imgur.com/zpT8c.png)
Now I'm not sure how this is not reproducible and/or caused by a typo (maybe not reproducible because it would have to be tweaked to run on a system where a `long` is 32 bits), but maybe the feedback makes sense. The question *is* a very weird one, and even though I tried my best to make an answer that explained the question, it could still be useless and/or too confusing for future readers. If there's anyone who understands why my question was closed, could you explain why to me so I can make sure this doesn't happen in the future? | 2021/02/17 | [
"https://meta.stackoverflow.com/questions/405268",
"https://meta.stackoverflow.com",
"https://meta.stackoverflow.com/users/13188071/"
] | I thought it was a fine question, and I haven't read the (vast!) number of comments that have been posted on it since yesterday, but I suspect the reason it was closed as "not reproducible" boils down to this fact: the "Vote to close" dialog does not have a radio button for "This question doesn't meet my standards for what we should be discussing here."
I don't know about other tags, but there are still some *very* strongly held minority opinions under the [c] tag for what is and is not allowed to be said. One such opinion is that *you must not write any code that depends on any aspect of unspecified, implementation-defined, or undefined behavior, under any circumstances, ever*. (I may be exaggerating, but only slightly.) Moreover, unless you are a high-rep regular, it is best not even to talk about these concepts, because you will probably fail to talk about them in properly draconian terms, meaning that an overworked, underappreciated pedant will have to swoop in and correct you.
The, er, question in question discussed some low-level, and, yes, implementation-defined behavior that was nevertheless quite instructive. But evidently the fact that it was implementation-defined roused the ire of the strict-portability-or-die vanguard, although somehow in their excitement they never managed to properly describe what the implementation-defined aspect actually was. (For some reason they got bogged down in discussions of alignment and strict aliasing and other unrelated matters.) | Less-experienced C programmers may have run the code & not got your output, hence "not reproducible". (Sufficiently-experienced C programmers would know that, as I commented on your self-answer, this can happen since the code is subject to "implementation-defined behavior"--a technical term. Presumably they wouldn't close as "not reproducible".) That is what the close notice said is a reason for closing. Why didn't you think, if there's no typo, then at least one person thinks this is not reproducible? (Rhetorical.) Then you could edit it & say, I'm told this may not be reproducible but I don't know what part of this isn't reproducible. (And, I researched the following bits of code not being reproducible & ....)
Lack of focus is a close reason, and you don't say what is the first subexpression that you don't, having researched, understand. So although one could know the language perfectly & not understand what a program is doing & ask about it, people might have felt that you should have pinned down your question to the 1st thing you didn't understand, supported by your saying what you understood before that point, justified by referencing documentation. In comments here you say your "real question" was "why exactly is a long being indexed?"; what stopped you from answering yourself? (Rhetorical.)
I voted to reopen yesterday when I commented re implementation-defined behaviour, I wasn't troubled, and now you have upvotes on the linked question & its self-answer. But the more I've composed here & there re how it could be improved & considered unfocused or unresearched I wonder how in so voting I was so ... compassionate. (Understand that all my comments here & there apply to & could be commented on many, many questions, that are poor unfocused unresearched code dumps. SO/SE Inc poorly educates askers.)
PS On your linked question & self-answer I commented further on making your question more focused & on researching, including researching researching--including for how to search & for good documentation.
PS Ask exactly 1 (concise specific researched non-duplicate) question in a question post. Exactly one question mark. Don't ask subsidiary/example wonderings or rhetorical questions. It just makes the post hard to follow. Find another way to express what you mean. |
405,268 | First of all, I just want to make it clear that I'm not here to rant about my question being closed or demanding my post be reopened. I'm just curious.
The post in question is [this one](https://stackoverflow.com/questions/66226175/indexing-an-unsigned-long-variable-and-printing-the-result). The question is a bit too weird to properly explain in one line, so you might have to see the post itself to understand what I'm asking. I noticed two close votes were cast yesterday and today, the post was finally closed for not being reproducible and/or caused by a typo. This is the feedback I got: [This question was caused by a typo or a problem that can no longer be reproduced. While similar questions may be on-topic here, this one was resolved in a way less likely to help future readers.](https://i.stack.imgur.com/zpT8c.png)
Now I'm not sure how this is not reproducible and/or caused by a typo (maybe not reproducible because it would have to be tweaked to run on a system where a `long` is 32 bits), but maybe the feedback makes sense. The question *is* a very weird one, and even though I tried my best to make an answer that explained the question, it could still be useless and/or too confusing for future readers. If there's anyone who understands why my question was closed, could you explain why to me so I can make sure this doesn't happen in the future? | 2021/02/17 | [
"https://meta.stackoverflow.com/questions/405268",
"https://meta.stackoverflow.com",
"https://meta.stackoverflow.com/users/13188071/"
] | I thought it was a fine question, and I haven't read the (vast!) number of comments that have been posted on it since yesterday, but I suspect the reason it was closed as "not reproducible" boils down to this fact: the "Vote to close" dialog does not have a radio button for "This question doesn't meet my standards for what we should be discussing here."
I don't know about other tags, but there are still some *very* strongly held minority opinions under the [c] tag for what is and is not allowed to be said. One such opinion is that *you must not write any code that depends on any aspect of unspecified, implementation-defined, or undefined behavior, under any circumstances, ever*. (I may be exaggerating, but only slightly.) Moreover, unless you are a high-rep regular, it is best not even to talk about these concepts, because you will probably fail to talk about them in properly draconian terms, meaning that an overworked, underappreciated pedant will have to swoop in and correct you.
The, er, question in question discussed some low-level, and, yes, implementation-defined behavior that was nevertheless quite instructive. But evidently the fact that it was implementation-defined roused the ire of the strict-portability-or-die vanguard, although somehow in their excitement they never managed to properly describe what the implementation-defined aspect actually was. (For some reason they got bogged down in discussions of alignment and strict aliasing and other unrelated matters.) | My question has been closed again (this time by my approval) and comments and votes have mostly stopped coming. It seems like the dust has settled, so I just want to post a self-answer to this post too, just to tell my final opinion and a sort of update.
The first time my question was closed, I was definitely confused. Looking back, it was possibly because some people tried my program on a different implementation/system where they got a different output (maybe because a `long` is 32 bits on some systems, for example). I still find it strange that all three apparently voted to close because of the same reason, but @SteveSummit and @philipxy present some possibilities too.
In hindsight, I agree that the post should have been closed, but probably for lacking focus. I definitely wrote less than I should have, mainly because I didn't think it would be helpful (yes, bad excuse), and that I wasn't expecting this to become a lesson in pointers, so I didn't delve too deep into that kind of research. Furthermore, I was indeed phrasing my question in such a way that I was asking many questions, leaving my real question unclear. I think the question has improved a lot since then, but yes, at the time, it could have been closed for lacking focus.
Anyway, the post was reopened, I started getting a slew of downvotes and upvotes alike. At some point, I guess the downvotes mostly stopped. Comments started coming too, and there were *lots*. Nothing like this had ever happened to me before, very complex words were being thrown around, and I was left answering all of them to the best of my ability. People gave suggestions and I improved my post along the way. A troll came and gave a useless joke answer (thankfully it was downvoted and deleted swiftly).
Today, there were more upvotes, more comments and more edits to the post. About a few minutes ago, I got a notification asking if [this question](https://stackoverflow.com/questions/4810417/when-is-casting-between-pointer-types-not-undefined-behavior-in-c) gave me the answer I wanted. The question talks a lot about undefined behavior with pointers in C. I chose to approve this and as of now, my question has been marked as a duplicate.
The main reason I approved the post (apart from the answers helping the program in my question seem somewhat more understandable) was that, on its own, I don't think this would be a very helpful post in the future. It asks a very specific question and it is unlikely someone will stumble upon this post in the future. The comments on my question and answer were very informative and talked about a lot of different things, so I didn't want that to go to waste. Now that this question is linked to the duplicate question, hopefully someone will stumble upon it and find some nice information. I was also very overwhelmed by the amount of traction my post had gained. Anyways, now it's all settled down and everything is pretty much over.
**EDIT:** things have changed since I posted this answer. For an update, see Lundin's post. |
405,268 | First of all, I just want to make it clear that I'm not here to rant about my question being closed or demanding my post be reopened. I'm just curious.
The post in question is [this one](https://stackoverflow.com/questions/66226175/indexing-an-unsigned-long-variable-and-printing-the-result). The question is a bit too weird to properly explain in one line, so you might have to see the post itself to understand what I'm asking. I noticed two close votes were cast yesterday and today, the post was finally closed for not being reproducible and/or caused by a typo. This is the feedback I got: [This question was caused by a typo or a problem that can no longer be reproduced. While similar questions may be on-topic here, this one was resolved in a way less likely to help future readers.](https://i.stack.imgur.com/zpT8c.png)
Now I'm not sure how this is not reproducible and/or caused by a typo (maybe not reproducible because it would have to be tweaked to run on a system where a `long` is 32 bits), but maybe the feedback makes sense. The question *is* a very weird one, and even though I tried my best to make an answer that explained the question, it could still be useless and/or too confusing for future readers. If there's anyone who understands why my question was closed, could you explain why to me so I can make sure this doesn't happen in the future? | 2021/02/17 | [
"https://meta.stackoverflow.com/questions/405268",
"https://meta.stackoverflow.com",
"https://meta.stackoverflow.com/users/13188071/"
] | My question has been closed again (this time by my approval) and comments and votes have mostly stopped coming. It seems like the dust has settled, so I just want to post a self-answer to this post too, just to tell my final opinion and a sort of update.
The first time my question was closed, I was definitely confused. Looking back, it was possibly because some people tried my program on a different implementation/system where they got a different output (maybe because a `long` is 32 bits on some systems, for example). I still find it strange that all three apparently voted to close because of the same reason, but @SteveSummit and @philipxy present some possibilities too.
In hindsight, I agree that the post should have been closed, but probably for lacking focus. I definitely wrote less than I should have, mainly because I didn't think it would be helpful (yes, bad excuse), and that I wasn't expecting this to become a lesson in pointers, so I didn't delve too deep into that kind of research. Furthermore, I was indeed phrasing my question in such a way that I was asking many questions, leaving my real question unclear. I think the question has improved a lot since then, but yes, at the time, it could have been closed for lacking focus.
Anyway, the post was reopened, I started getting a slew of downvotes and upvotes alike. At some point, I guess the downvotes mostly stopped. Comments started coming too, and there were *lots*. Nothing like this had ever happened to me before, very complex words were being thrown around, and I was left answering all of them to the best of my ability. People gave suggestions and I improved my post along the way. A troll came and gave a useless joke answer (thankfully it was downvoted and deleted swiftly).
Today, there were more upvotes, more comments and more edits to the post. About a few minutes ago, I got a notification asking if [this question](https://stackoverflow.com/questions/4810417/when-is-casting-between-pointer-types-not-undefined-behavior-in-c) gave me the answer I wanted. The question talks a lot about undefined behavior with pointers in C. I chose to approve this and as of now, my question has been marked as a duplicate.
The main reason I approved the post (apart from the answers helping the program in my question seem somewhat more understandable) was that, on its own, I don't think this would be a very helpful post in the future. It asks a very specific question and it is unlikely someone will stumble upon this post in the future. The comments on my question and answer were very informative and talked about a lot of different things, so I didn't want that to go to waste. Now that this question is linked to the duplicate question, hopefully someone will stumble upon it and find some nice information. I was also very overwhelmed by the amount of traction my post had gained. Anyways, now it's all settled down and everything is pretty much over.
**EDIT:** things have changed since I posted this answer. For an update, see Lundin's post. | Less-experienced C programmers may have run the code & not got your output, hence "not reproducible". (Sufficiently-experienced C programmers would know that, as I commented on your self-answer, this can happen since the code is subject to "implementation-defined behavior"--a technical term. Presumably they wouldn't close as "not reproducible".) That is what the close notice said is a reason for closing. Why didn't you think, if there's no typo, then at least one person thinks this is not reproducible? (Rhetorical.) Then you could edit it & say, I'm told this may not be reproducible but I don't know what part of this isn't reproducible. (And, I researched the following bits of code not being reproducible & ....)
Lack of focus is a close reason, and you don't say what is the first subexpression that you don't, having researched, understand. So although one could know the language perfectly & not understand what a program is doing & ask about it, people might have felt that you should have pinned down your question to the 1st thing you didn't understand, supported by your saying what you understood before that point, justified by referencing documentation. In comments here you say your "real question" was "why exactly is a long being indexed?"; what stopped you from answering yourself? (Rhetorical.)
I voted to reopen yesterday when I commented re implementation-defined behaviour, I wasn't troubled, and now you have upvotes on the linked question & its self-answer. But the more I've composed here & there re how it could be improved & considered unfocused or unresearched I wonder how in so voting I was so ... compassionate. (Understand that all my comments here & there apply to & could be commented on many, many questions, that are poor unfocused unresearched code dumps. SO/SE Inc poorly educates askers.)
PS On your linked question & self-answer I commented further on making your question more focused & on researching, including researching researching--including for how to search & for good documentation.
PS Ask exactly 1 (concise specific researched non-duplicate) question in a question post. Exactly one question mark. Don't ask subsidiary/example wonderings or rhetorical questions. It just makes the post hard to follow. Find another way to express what you mean. |
1,701,843 | Or maybe other OS cms?
I want to form a members website, with registration, member profile and member personal photo galleries
What would you suggest? I'm pretty advanced with PHP just don't have the time to develop from scratch | 2009/11/09 | [
"https://Stackoverflow.com/questions/1701843",
"https://Stackoverflow.com",
"https://Stackoverflow.com/users/207052/"
] | Drupal does what you are asking from a basic install with quite a degree of fine grained control over members, profiles, permissions etc. I have set several up with little or no extra modules, plugins or programming.
I actually run one site with several hundred members with not problems. I am not saying you cannot do this with Joomla, just have not had the experience. I think Drupal may well be more "community" oriented in this respect. | In my experience, Drupal is far more flexible than Joomla. If you're comfortable with PHP, I'd recommend picking it. |
1,701,843 | Or maybe other OS cms?
I want to form a members website, with registration, member profile and member personal photo galleries
What would you suggest? I'm pretty advanced with PHP just don't have the time to develop from scratch | 2009/11/09 | [
"https://Stackoverflow.com/questions/1701843",
"https://Stackoverflow.com",
"https://Stackoverflow.com/users/207052/"
] | I don't know much about Drupal but if you're using Joomla you may need to install something like [Community Builder](http://www.joomlapolis.com/) and/or [Simple ACL](http://extensions.joomla.org/extensions/access-a-security/frontend-access-control/4836). Joomla's default user management isn't great. | In my experience, Drupal is far more flexible than Joomla. If you're comfortable with PHP, I'd recommend picking it. |
1,701,843 | Or maybe other OS cms?
I want to form a members website, with registration, member profile and member personal photo galleries
What would you suggest? I'm pretty advanced with PHP just don't have the time to develop from scratch | 2009/11/09 | [
"https://Stackoverflow.com/questions/1701843",
"https://Stackoverflow.com",
"https://Stackoverflow.com/users/207052/"
] | In my experience, Drupal is far more flexible than Joomla. If you're comfortable with PHP, I'd recommend picking it. | I think both Drupal and Joomla would be able to handle creating a basic version of what you describe. The turning point is going to be, what more you want to do.
One of Drupal's strengths is first truely uncovered when you develop. You can very easily customize the look and feel of your Drupal site. You'll have more fine grained control of both what it does and what how it outputs it's markup etc. It's a powerful tool, only downside is that it can be a bit hard to understand for normal people. But knowing PHP that shouldn't be a hindrance to you. |
1,701,843 | Or maybe other OS cms?
I want to form a members website, with registration, member profile and member personal photo galleries
What would you suggest? I'm pretty advanced with PHP just don't have the time to develop from scratch | 2009/11/09 | [
"https://Stackoverflow.com/questions/1701843",
"https://Stackoverflow.com",
"https://Stackoverflow.com/users/207052/"
] | I vote for Drupal. Even Obama [has voted](http://techpresident.com/blog-entry/why-white-houses-embrace-drupal-matters-0) for Drupal. | I think both Drupal and Joomla would be able to handle creating a basic version of what you describe. The turning point is going to be, what more you want to do.
One of Drupal's strengths is first truely uncovered when you develop. You can very easily customize the look and feel of your Drupal site. You'll have more fine grained control of both what it does and what how it outputs it's markup etc. It's a powerful tool, only downside is that it can be a bit hard to understand for normal people. But knowing PHP that shouldn't be a hindrance to you. |
1,701,843 | Or maybe other OS cms?
I want to form a members website, with registration, member profile and member personal photo galleries
What would you suggest? I'm pretty advanced with PHP just don't have the time to develop from scratch | 2009/11/09 | [
"https://Stackoverflow.com/questions/1701843",
"https://Stackoverflow.com",
"https://Stackoverflow.com/users/207052/"
] | I vote for Drupal. Even Obama [has voted](http://techpresident.com/blog-entry/why-white-houses-embrace-drupal-matters-0) for Drupal. | I already created 2 Drupal Sites and 1 Joomla Site with this Feature.
Since I've worked with Joomla some years too, I think I can give you some Hints on it:
Drupal is WAY more flexible and professional than Joomla. But you have to put some effort into it. But if you know how to use it, it will do what you want. And since Drupal itself is so flexible the core does handle almost every feature you need. So it is possible to mix a lot of features together and do things nobody has thinked of before.
If you use Joomla, you have to pick a module for this task (like CommunityBuilder <http://www.joomlapolis.com/>) and while this module is very powerful, it may work together with other modules, but likely it will not. |
1,701,843 | Or maybe other OS cms?
I want to form a members website, with registration, member profile and member personal photo galleries
What would you suggest? I'm pretty advanced with PHP just don't have the time to develop from scratch | 2009/11/09 | [
"https://Stackoverflow.com/questions/1701843",
"https://Stackoverflow.com",
"https://Stackoverflow.com/users/207052/"
] | Joomla and Community Builder / JomSocial should be a nice pair. | I already created 2 Drupal Sites and 1 Joomla Site with this Feature.
Since I've worked with Joomla some years too, I think I can give you some Hints on it:
Drupal is WAY more flexible and professional than Joomla. But you have to put some effort into it. But if you know how to use it, it will do what you want. And since Drupal itself is so flexible the core does handle almost every feature you need. So it is possible to mix a lot of features together and do things nobody has thinked of before.
If you use Joomla, you have to pick a module for this task (like CommunityBuilder <http://www.joomlapolis.com/>) and while this module is very powerful, it may work together with other modules, but likely it will not. |
1,701,843 | Or maybe other OS cms?
I want to form a members website, with registration, member profile and member personal photo galleries
What would you suggest? I'm pretty advanced with PHP just don't have the time to develop from scratch | 2009/11/09 | [
"https://Stackoverflow.com/questions/1701843",
"https://Stackoverflow.com",
"https://Stackoverflow.com/users/207052/"
] | Drupal does what you are asking from a basic install with quite a degree of fine grained control over members, profiles, permissions etc. I have set several up with little or no extra modules, plugins or programming.
I actually run one site with several hundred members with not problems. I am not saying you cannot do this with Joomla, just have not had the experience. I think Drupal may well be more "community" oriented in this respect. | I vote for Drupal. Even Obama [has voted](http://techpresident.com/blog-entry/why-white-houses-embrace-drupal-matters-0) for Drupal. |
1,701,843 | Or maybe other OS cms?
I want to form a members website, with registration, member profile and member personal photo galleries
What would you suggest? I'm pretty advanced with PHP just don't have the time to develop from scratch | 2009/11/09 | [
"https://Stackoverflow.com/questions/1701843",
"https://Stackoverflow.com",
"https://Stackoverflow.com/users/207052/"
] | I don't know much about Drupal but if you're using Joomla you may need to install something like [Community Builder](http://www.joomlapolis.com/) and/or [Simple ACL](http://extensions.joomla.org/extensions/access-a-security/frontend-access-control/4836). Joomla's default user management isn't great. | I already created 2 Drupal Sites and 1 Joomla Site with this Feature.
Since I've worked with Joomla some years too, I think I can give you some Hints on it:
Drupal is WAY more flexible and professional than Joomla. But you have to put some effort into it. But if you know how to use it, it will do what you want. And since Drupal itself is so flexible the core does handle almost every feature you need. So it is possible to mix a lot of features together and do things nobody has thinked of before.
If you use Joomla, you have to pick a module for this task (like CommunityBuilder <http://www.joomlapolis.com/>) and while this module is very powerful, it may work together with other modules, but likely it will not. |
1,701,843 | Or maybe other OS cms?
I want to form a members website, with registration, member profile and member personal photo galleries
What would you suggest? I'm pretty advanced with PHP just don't have the time to develop from scratch | 2009/11/09 | [
"https://Stackoverflow.com/questions/1701843",
"https://Stackoverflow.com",
"https://Stackoverflow.com/users/207052/"
] | Drupal does what you are asking from a basic install with quite a degree of fine grained control over members, profiles, permissions etc. I have set several up with little or no extra modules, plugins or programming.
I actually run one site with several hundred members with not problems. I am not saying you cannot do this with Joomla, just have not had the experience. I think Drupal may well be more "community" oriented in this respect. | Definitely Drupal, especially if you already know advanced PHP.
Nobody has great user features out of the box, but Drupal has more and better quality user-related modules.
Look at drupalmodules.com for 'user' modules in the 6.x versions, and you'll see tons of related modules for each one you check out.
There are modules for advanced profiles, for a percentage (of the profile) completed, user badges to make them feel special, imagecache for excellent image support, image upload with cropping, ckk and views can setup many different kinds of photo galleries from scratch so they are completely customized for your site, ubercart if you want to sell premium memberships, etc. |
1,701,843 | Or maybe other OS cms?
I want to form a members website, with registration, member profile and member personal photo galleries
What would you suggest? I'm pretty advanced with PHP just don't have the time to develop from scratch | 2009/11/09 | [
"https://Stackoverflow.com/questions/1701843",
"https://Stackoverflow.com",
"https://Stackoverflow.com/users/207052/"
] | Drupal does what you are asking from a basic install with quite a degree of fine grained control over members, profiles, permissions etc. I have set several up with little or no extra modules, plugins or programming.
I actually run one site with several hundred members with not problems. I am not saying you cannot do this with Joomla, just have not had the experience. I think Drupal may well be more "community" oriented in this respect. | I think both Drupal and Joomla would be able to handle creating a basic version of what you describe. The turning point is going to be, what more you want to do.
One of Drupal's strengths is first truely uncovered when you develop. You can very easily customize the look and feel of your Drupal site. You'll have more fine grained control of both what it does and what how it outputs it's markup etc. It's a powerful tool, only downside is that it can be a bit hard to understand for normal people. But knowing PHP that shouldn't be a hindrance to you. |
24,217 | If there is no clear definition stemming from the Bible of what makes one a Christian, how does mainstream Christianity justify labeling groups like the Mormons and Jehovah Witnesses as Non Christians?
Members from both groups seem to take a more active role in spreading Christ's message of salvation than do the most rooted mainstream Christian church members, based off of their missionary efforts even though some of their doctrines do not conform to the norms as held by most Christians. There is evidence enough to come to their doctrinal conclusions, even if we disagree with them.
So is non normative theology enough for mainstream Christianity to label others as non-Christian? | 2013/12/29 | [
"https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/24217",
"https://christianity.stackexchange.com",
"https://christianity.stackexchange.com/users/9200/"
] | **Mainstream Christian groups limit the term 'Christian' to those who believe Jesus is *the Christ* and agree with them about what that means.** The term 'Christian' isn't used for anyone who simply likes Jesus or believes he was special in some way. We can see this because Islam teaches that Jesus was a prophet, but Muslims aren't called 'Christian'! Similarly an atheist who thought Jesus was a good teacher wouldn't be called a Christian. Clearly it's more than just thinking highly of Jesus.
At the barest minimum, the term 'Christian' is used for people who believe that *Jesus is the Christ*, the Greek word for the Hebrew concept of the *Messiah*. The Messiah is a character prophesied about in the Old Testament, though there is much debate in and outside of Christianity as to what exactly it means to be the Messiah. Both mainstream Christian and restorationist groups such as the Mormons and Jehovah's Witnesses agree this far; they disagree, and limit how the term is used, because of what they believe the Messiah means.
What you call 'mainstream Christianity' is Trinitarian Christianity: they believe that the Messiah is God himself, who came incarnate to the earth. They call the other groups non-Christian because they believe the Jesus they proclaim actually has a very different identity. To Trinitarians saying that Jesus is a created being, is a 'mode' of God, or that he only became divine at his baptism is just as wrong as saying that God doesn't exist and Jesus was nothing more than a human teacher.
Trinitarian Christians believe their views are supported by the historical creeds, such as the Apostles' and Nicene creeds. When those creeds were first constructed there were many who disagreed with them, but by the time the first restorationist groups were founded the creeds were accepted by almost everyone; before the restorationist groups were founded 'Christian' and 'Trinitarian' were effectively synonymous.
Lastly, note that sometimes a group likes to reserve the label 'Christian' only for those who hold very similar beliefs to their own. You will find many protestants who will call the Roman Catholic Church a non-Christian organisation. They refuse to call the other side 'Christian' because they believe they have distorted the gospel or replaced it with a completely different gospel. | This is most definitely not the only reason that Jehovah's Witnesses and Mormons are often viewed as "non-Christian" but it is a major one. @metal had the right idea but it wouldn't let me comment on his post, so I am writing another answer instead. What some refer to as "Mainstream Christians" or "Mainstream Christianity" are usually inclusive of Catholic, Orthodox, Protestant, and Reformationist sects of Christianity (such as Baptist, Evangelical, Lutheran, Episcopalian, and others). These sects of Christianity are all tied together in their belief in the Ecumenical Christian Creeds, sometimes earning them the title "Creedal Christians". Restorationist Churches, such as the Jehovah's Witness and The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints do not believe in these Creeds and since the creeds are such an integral part of the doctrinal tenets of "Mainstream Christianity", they are rejected as "Christians". Again, it is not the only reason, as everybody seems to have their own beliefs concerning the beliefs of these two churches, for good or bad (evidenced by the number of posts and comments of varying levels of contention and condemnation on this page). From a core doctrinal standpoint, however, the difference of belief in the Ecuminical Creeds is a very large point of conflict in their trying to claim their place within "Mainstream Christianity".
As a side note: I am a member of the LDS Church. |
24,217 | If there is no clear definition stemming from the Bible of what makes one a Christian, how does mainstream Christianity justify labeling groups like the Mormons and Jehovah Witnesses as Non Christians?
Members from both groups seem to take a more active role in spreading Christ's message of salvation than do the most rooted mainstream Christian church members, based off of their missionary efforts even though some of their doctrines do not conform to the norms as held by most Christians. There is evidence enough to come to their doctrinal conclusions, even if we disagree with them.
So is non normative theology enough for mainstream Christianity to label others as non-Christian? | 2013/12/29 | [
"https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/24217",
"https://christianity.stackexchange.com",
"https://christianity.stackexchange.com/users/9200/"
] | **What is the basis that many mainstream Christian groups justify labeling groups like the Mormons and Jehovah’s Witnesses as Non Christians?**
As far as Catholicism is concerned and possible some other denominations may be concerned neither the Mormons and Jehovah’s Witnesses is because the Church has declared their baptisms [invalid](https://www.dosp.org/wp-content/uploads/9_3.-Valid-and-Invalid-Baptisms.pdf) and they do not believe in the Trinity as most mainstream Christian Churches understand this terminology.
Baptism makes us members of the Church! It is also [**the one sacrament that all true Christian denominations share in common**](https://www.dummies.com/religion/christianity/catholicism/the-catholic-sacrament-of-baptism/): Catholics, Orthodox, Anglicans, Lutherans, and so on.
>
> 1213 Holy Baptism is the basis of the whole Christian life, the gateway to life in the Spirit (vitae spiritualis ianua),4 and the door which gives access to the other sacraments. Through Baptism we are freed from sin and reborn as sons of God; we become members of Christ, are incorporated into the Church and made sharers in her mission: "Baptism is the sacrament of regeneration through water in the word." - [Catechism of the Catholic Church](http://www.scborromeo.org/ccc/p2s2c1a1.htm)
>
>
>
In the eyes of the Catholic Church, any Baptism that uses water and the invocation of the Holy Trinity, as in **“I baptize you in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit,”** is a valid sacrament. So if a follower of a Christian church that performs Baptism to these standards wants to become Catholic, he doesn’t have to be re-baptized. Also, the minister must intend to do what the Church does when baptizing.
Converts from the Mormon Church or from the Jehovah’s Witnesses **must be rebaptized** when entering into communion with the Catholic Church.
>
> [**What the Early Church Believed: Trinitarian Baptism**](https://www.catholic.com/tract/trinitarian-baptism)
>
>
> For a sacrament to be valid, three things have to be present: the correct form, the correct matter, and the correct intention. With baptism, the correct intention is to do what the Church does, the correct matter is water, and the correct form is the baptizing “in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit” (Matt. 28:19).
>
>
> Unfortunately, not all religious organizations use this form. In fact, Jehovah’s Witnesses sometimes use no formula at all in their baptisms, and an even larger group, the “Jesus Only” Pentecostals, baptize “in the name of Jesus.” As a result, the baptisms of these groups are invalid; thus, they are not Christian, but pseudo-Christian.
>
>
> Both groups also reject the Trinity. Jehovah’s Witnesses claim that Jesus is not God, a heresy known as Arianism (after its fourth-century founder), and the “Jesus Only” Pentecostals claim that there is only a single person, Jesus, in the Godhead, a heresy known as Sabellianism (after its inventor in the third century; see the Catholic Answers tract, God in Three Persons).
>
>
> The early Church Fathers, of course, agreed. As the following quotes illustrate, Christians have from the beginning recognized that the correct form of baptism requires one to baptize “in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit.”
>
>
> **The Didache**
>
>
> “After the foregoing instructions, baptize in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, in living [running] water. If you have no living water, then baptize in other water, and if you are not able in cold, then in warm. If you have neither, pour water three times on the head, in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit. Before baptism, let the one baptizing and the one to be baptized fast, as also any others who are able” (Didache 7:1 [A.D. 70]).
>
>
>
In 2001, deemed that baptisms of the Church of Jesus Christ of the Latter-Day Saints were invalid, through a ***dubium*** posed by several American bishops.
>
> [**The Question of the Validity Conferred in the Church of Jesus Christ of the Latter-Saints**](https://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20010605_battesimo_mormoni-ladaria_en.html)
>
>
> The Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith has given a negative response to a ***"Dubium"*** regarding the validity of Baptism conferred in the **Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints**, more commonly known as the **Mormons**. Given that this decision changes the past practice of not questioning the validity of such Baptism, it seems appropriate to explain the reasons that have led to this decision and to the resulting change of practice.
>
>
> **Doctrinal errors usually do not invalidate baptism**
>
>
> This explanation becomes even more necessary if one considers that errors of a doctrinal nature have never been considered sufficient to question the validity of the sacrament of Baptism. In fact, already in the middle of the third century Pope Stephen I, opposing the decisions of an African synod in 256 A.D., reaffirmed that the ancient practice of the imposition of hands as a sign of repentance should be maintained, but not the rebaptism of a heretic who enters the Catholic Church. In this way, the name of Christ attains great honour for faith and sanctification because whoever is baptized in the name of Christ, wherever that has taken place, has received the grace of Christ (cf. Denzinger-Hünermann [DH] 110-111). The same principle was upheld by the Synod of Arles in 314 (cf. DH 123). Well known also is the struggle of St Augustine against the Donatists. The Bishop of Hippo affirms that the validity of the sacrament depends neither on the personal sanctity of the minister nor on his belonging to the Church.
>
>
> **Right intention is the intention to do what the Church wants, what Christ wants**
>
>
> Even non-Catholics can validly administer Baptism. In every case, however, it is the Baptism of the Catholic Church, which does not belong to those who separate themselves from her but to the Church from which they have separated themselves (cf. Augustine, On Baptism 1, 12,9). This validity is possible because Christ is the true minister of the sacrament: Christ is the one who truly baptizes, whether it is Peter or Paul or Judas who baptizes (cf. Augustine, Treatise on the Gospel of John VI, 1,7; cf. CCC n. 1127). The Council of Trent, confirming this tradition, defined that Baptism administered by heretics in the name of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit, with the intention of doing what the Catholic Church does is true Baptism (cf. DH 1617).
>
>
> The validity of doubtful baptism is presumed especially in the case of marriage, as in the case of the Christians of Nagasaki
>
>
> The most recent documents of the Catholic Church maintain the same teaching. The Code of Canon Law prescribes that those who have been baptized in non-Catholic ecclesial communities (as long as there is no doubt regarding the matter or the form or the intention of the minister or of the person being baptized) should not be baptized again (cf. Code of Canon Law, can. 869 §2), Intrinsically connected to this problem is that of who can be the minister of Baptism in the Catholic Church. According to the Code, in cases of necessity anyone can baptize, provided the intention is correct (cf. can. 861 §2). The Code of Canon Law confirms the fundamental elements of Tridentine teaching and makes more explicit what is the required correct intention: "The intention required is to will to do what the Church does when she baptizes. The Church finds the reason for this possibility in the universal saving will of God and the necessity of Baptism for salvation" (CCC, n. 1256. Evidently, the necessity of Baptism spoken of here is not to be understood in an absolute sense; cf. ibid., nn. 1257-1261). Precisely because of the necessity of Baptism for salvation the Catholic Church has had the tendency of broadly recognizing this right intention in the conferring of this sacrament, even in the case of a false understanding of Trinitarian faith, as for example in the case of the Arians.
>
>
> Taking into account this deeply-rooted practice of the Church, applied without any doubt as to the multiplicity of non-Catholic Christian communities emerging from the so-called Reform of the 16th century, it is easily understood that when there appeared in the United States the religious movement of Joseph Smith around 1830, in which the matter and the words of the form of Baptism were correctly utilized, this Baptism was considered valid, analogously to the Baptism of so many other non-Catholic ecclesial communities. Joseph Smith and Oliver Cowdery, according to their teaching, received the priesthood of Aaron in 1829. Given the circumstances of the Church in the United States in the 19th century and the means of social communication at that time, even though the new religious movement gained a considerable number of followers, the knowledge that ecclesiastical authorities could have had of the doctrinal errors that were professed in this new group was necessarily very limited throughout the entire century. For the practical cases that emerged there was applied the response of the Holy Office of 9 September 1868 given for the Christian communities of Japan which had remained isolated and without priests from the time of the persecution at the beginning of the 17th century. According to this response: 1) those persons about whom there was doubt whether they were validly baptized should be considered Christians; 2) this Baptism should be considered valid with regard to the validity of marriage (Gasparri, Fontes, IV, n. 1007).
>
>
> **Current doubts about the validity of Mormon baptism**
>
>
> In the 20th century, the Catholic Church became more aware of the Trinitarian errors which the teaching proposed by Smith contained, though he used the traditional terms, and therefore more and more doubts spread about the validity of the Baptism conferred by the Mormons, in spite of the fact that the form, as far as the substance of the terminology goes, coincided with that used by the Church. As a result, almost imperceptibly there developed difference of practice, insofar as those who had a certain personal knowledge of the teaching of the Mormons considered their Baptism invalid, while the common practice continued of applying the traditional principle of the presumption in favour of the validity of such Baptism, since there was no official norm in this regard. In recent years, as a result of a request from the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, the Bishops' Conference of the United States undertook a detailed study of this delicate issue with the hope of coming to a definitive conclusion. On its part the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith undertook a new examination of the material that came from the United States and thus was able to resolve the proposed question.
>
>
> What are the reasons which now led to this negative position regarding the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, which seems different from the position of the Catholic Church throughout the centuries?
>
>
> ***Huge divergence on Trinity and baptism invalidates the intention of the Mormon minister of baptism and of the one to be baptized.***
>
>
> According to the traditional doctrine of the Catholic Church there are four requirements for the valid administration of the sacrament of Baptism: the matter, the form, the intention of the minister, and the right disposition of the recipient. Let us examine briefly each of these four elements in the teaching and practice of the Mormons.
>
>
> I. The Matter. On this point there is no problem. Water is used. The Mormons practice Baptism by immersion (cf. Doctrine and Covenants [D&C] 20:74), which is one of the ways of celebrating Baptism (application of the matter) which is accepted by the Catholic Church.
>
>
> II. The Form. We have seen that in the texts of the Magisterium on Baptism there is a reference to the invocation of the Trinity (to the sources already mentioned, the Fourth Lateran Council could be added here [DH 8021). The formula used by the Mormons might seem at first sight to be a Trinitarian formula. The text states: "Being commissioned by Jesus Christ, I baptize you in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit" (cf. D&C 20:73). The similarities with the formula used by the Catholic Church are at first sight obvious, but in reality they are only apparent. There is not in fact a fundamental doctrinal agreement. There is not a true invocation of the Trinity because the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit, according to the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, are not the three persons in which subsists the one Godhead, but three gods who form one divinity. One is different from the other, even though they exist in perfect harmony (Joseph F. Smith, ed., Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith [TPJSI, Salt Lake City: Desert Book, 1976, p. 372). The very word divinity has only a functional, not a substantial content, because the divinity originates when the three gods decided to unite and form the divinity to bring about human salvation (Encyclopaedia of Mormonism [EM], New York: Macmillan, 1992, cf. Vol. 2, p. 552). This divinity and man share the same nature and they are substantially equal. God the Father is an exalted man, native of another planet, who has acquired his divine status through a death similar to that of human beings, the necessary way to divinization (cf. TPJS, pp. 345-346). God the Father has relatives and this is explained by the doctrine of infinite regression of the gods who initially were mortal (cf. TPJS, p. 373). God the Father has a wife, the Heavenly Mother, with whom he shares the responsibility of creation. They procreate sons in the spiritual world. Their firstborn is Jesus Christ, equal to all men, who has acquired his divinity in a pre-mortal existence. Even the Holy Spirit is the son of heavenly parents. The Son and the Holy Spirit were procreated after the beginning of the creation of the world known to us (cf. EM, Vol. 2, p. 961). Four gods are directly responsible for the universe, three of whom have established a covenant and thus form the divinity.
>
>
> As is easily seen, to the similarity of titles there does not correspond in any way a doctrinal content which can lead to the Christian doctrine of the Trinity. The words Father, Son and Holy Spirit, have for the Mormons a meaning totally different from the Christian meaning. The differences are so great that one cannot even consider that this doctrine is a heresy which emerged out of a false understanding of the Christian doctrine. The teaching of the Mormons has a completely different matrix. We do not find ourselves, therefore, before the case of the validity of Baptism administered by heretics, affirmed already from the first Christian centuries, nor of Baptism conferred in non-Catholic ecclesial communities, as noted in Canon 869 §2.
>
>
> III. The Intention of the Celebrating Minister. Such doctrinal diversity, regarding the very notion of God, prevents the minister of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints from having the intention of doing what the Catholic Church does when she confers Baptism, that is, doing what Christ willed her to do when he instituted and mandated the sacrament of Baptism. This becomes even more evident when we consider that in their understanding Baptism was not instituted by Christ but by God and began with Adam (cf. Book of Moses 6:64). Christ simply commanded the practice of this rite; but this was not an innovation. It is clear that the intention of the Church in conferring Baptism is certainly to follow the mandate of Christ (cf. Mt 28,19) but at the same time to confer the sacrament that Christ had instituted. According to the New Testament, there is an essential difference between the Baptism of John and Christian Baptism. The Baptism of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, which originated not in Christ but already at the beginning of creation (James E. Talmage, Articles of Faith [AF], Salt Lake City: Desert Book, 1990, cf. pp. 110-111), is not Christian Baptism; indeed, it denies its newness. The Mormon minister, who must necessarily be the "priest" (cf. D&C 20:38-58.107:13.14.20), therefore radically formed in their own doctrine, cannot have any other intention than that of doing what the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints does, which is quite different in respect to what the Catholic Church intends to do when it baptizes, that is, the conferral of the sacrament of Baptism instituted by Christ, which means participation in his death and resurrection (cf. Rom 6,3-11; Col 2,12-13).
>
>
> We can note two other differences, not as fundamental as the preceding one, but which also have their importance:
>
>
> A) According to the Catholic Church, Baptism cancels not only personal sins but also original sin, and therefore even infants are baptized for the remission of sins (cf. the essential texts of the Council of Trent, DH 1513-1515). This remission of original sin is not accepted by the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, which denies the existence of this sin and therefore baptizes only persons who have the use of reason and are at least eight years old, excluding the mentally handicapped (cf. AF, pp. 113-116). In fact, the practice of the Catholic Church in conferring Baptism on infants is one of the main reasons for which the Mormons say that the Catholic Church apostatized in the first centuries, so that the sacraments celebrated by it are all invalid.
>
>
> B) If a believer baptized in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, after renouncing his or her faith or having been excommunicated, wants to return, he or she must be rebaptized (cf. AF, pp. 129-131).
>
>
> Even in regard to these last elements it is clear that the Baptism of Mormons cannot be considered valid; since it is not Christian Baptism, the minister cannot have the intention of doing what the Catholic does.
>
>
> IV. The Disposition of the Recipient. The person to be baptized, who already has the use of reason, has been instructed according to the very strict norms of the teaching and faith of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. It must be maintained therefore that one cannot think that the Baptism received by that person is anything different from what he was taught. It does not seem possible that the person would have the same disposition that the Catholic Church requires for the Baptism of adults.
>
>
> Difference of views: Mormons hold that there is no real Trinity, no original sin, that Christ did not institute baptism.
>
>
> Summing up, we can say: The Baptism of the Catholic Church and that of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints differ essentially, both for what concerns faith in the Father, Son and Holy Spirit, in whose name Baptism is conferred, and for what concerns the relationship to Christ who instituted it. As a result of all this, it is understood that the Catholic Church has to consider invalid, that is to say, cannot consider true Baptism, the rite given that name by the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.
>
>
> It is equally necessary to underline that the decision of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith is a response to a particular question regarding the Baptism of Mormons and obviously does not indicate a judgment on those who are members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Furthermore, Catholics and Mormons often find themselves working together on a range of problems regarding the common good of the entire human race. It can be hoped therefore that through further studies, dialogue and good will, there can be progress in reciprocal understanding and mutual respect.
>
>
> | I'm new here but for more than 45 yrs I have done extensive research on the Bible and related matters.
**I. MAINSTREAM BASIS AGAINST LDS & JWs**
-----------------------------------------
Mainstream churches generally [very general usage here] believe that they are Bible based. The major reasons given are:
1. a. Most Mainstream churches believe in 1 God with 3 co-equal "heads".
b. LDS believes there are many Gods.
c. JWs believe that God & Jesus are separate Gods.
2. a. Most Mainstream churches beleves all believers go to Heaven.
b. LDS believes believers become Gods & some get their own planets.
c. JWs think only 144,000 go to Heaven, the rest stay on earth.
3. a. Most Mainstream churches believes Jesus is the Son of God.
b. LDS believes Satan is Jesus' brother.
c. JWs believe Jesus is a created being & is now Archangel Michael.
4. a. Most Mainstream churches hold that the Bible is from God (although some add the Apocrypha &/or oral traditions).
b. LDS's main book is the Book of Mormon along with other extra-biblical books.
c. JWs have their own Bible, the New World Translation in which verses have been altered or stressed to support their own beliefs.
5. a. Many Mainstream churches hold that Jesus is the only mediator between man and God.
b. LDS believes that Joseph Smith is a modern day "prophet" who restored the "church" back to its proper place with **the** truth restored.
c. JWs have their "Watchtower" Society \*\*Governing Body" providing their scriptural interpretation. They made several wrong prophecies in the 20th century, which they explain away in one way or another.
6. a. The Catholic church (& some related churches) holds that other books and traditions are just as important or even more important to their worship, such as the Apocrypha or lost books and doctrines (i.e. Popes, Infallibility on the throne, Catechism, Assumption of Mary, Immaculate Conception, Veneration of Saints, Rosary, Creeds, etc.) that are beyond the reach of the 66 legitimate Bible books.
b. LDS beleifs also include books that go beyond the reach of the genuine 66 Bible books. Many of their beliefs have dependancy on the Book of Mormon, Pearls of Great Price and Documents & Covenants, in which it is claimed that gold plates were found in upstate New York, Jesus came to America, Adam & Eve and the Garden of Eden were in Missouri, etc.
c. JW's have their own Bible in which at least some verses have been altered to support their beliefs. A good deal of their beliefs are dependant on what is written in their Watchtower magazine.
**II. REAL BASIS AGAINST LDS & JWs**
------------------------------------
Actually, the **"basis"** for what is non Christian is clearly defined in the Bible. The problem is it takes a lot of work to find and lay out a proper, well-defined basis for determining what is and is not rightly Bible based. While many "mainstream" [general broad use here] have determined that neither Mormons (LDS) nor Jehovah Witnesses (JWs) are Christian, a number of them lack true understanding even of their own misinterpretation(s) of what is real Christian teaching (i.e. Trinity Doctrine error -See below under Comment 2).
I believe that to fully answer the posed question requires one to establish a basic set of facts, the Bible foudation & purpose and common sense rules for reasoning out what should be accepted as the truth. Our approach, coming from our human condition, experience from surrounding environmental events and our actions/reactions (cause & effect), our human imperfections (seen and unseen), etc., may make all the difference for drawing a "right" conclusion or failure thereof (we may have to set aside some preconceived ideas, notions, prejudices and/or assumptions). The following might help point us in the right direction:
Since the Bible is the primary reason and basis for Christianity's existence I believe we ought to turn to the Bible to see what it says:
### **1.** BIBLE PROOF
Most important: Is the Bible true?
>
> **(ESV) Prov. 30:5 Every word of God proves true**; he is a shield to those who take refuge in him.
>
>
> **6 Do not add to his words**, lest he rebuke you and **you be found a liar.**
>
>
>
(most Christian [broad label usage here] and several other religions have stated (or implied) their claims/beliefs are based on, come from the Bible and/or they are associated with the Bible and/or the Bible can be used along with their beliefs/claims and practices but are they wrong? We need to go to the Bible to determine what is true.)
### **2.** JESUS, THE SON of GOD?
The second most important question is: Is Jesus the Son of God or not? Jesus' statement:
>
> **John 14:6** Jesus said to him, “I am **the way**, and **the truth**, and **the life**. No one comes to the Father **except through me** (see Acts 4:12; Jn 5:39).
>
>
>
Either this statement is true or there is no God (He either knows all or He can't be God). In this statement Jesus is making it quite clear that He is much more than just another great teacher. Since Jesus made this statement I thought it is more important to first find out if what He said is true rather than trying to sift through piles of information, books and statements made about Jesus and the Bible.
### **3.** FALSE TEACHERS & PROPHETS
The Bible mentions false prophets (to be a false prophet you must also be a false teacher).
>
> **Acts 13:6** When they had gone through the whole island as far as Paphos, they came upon a certain magician, a Jewish **false prophet** named Bar-Jesus.
>
>
> **2 Peter 2:1** But **false prophets** also arose among the people, just as there will be **false teachers** among you, who will secretly bring in destructive heresies, even denying the Master who bought them, bringing upon themselves swift destruction.
>
>
> **Gal 1:8 But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach to you a gospel contrary to the one we preached to you, let him be accursed.**
>
>
>
### **4.** JUDGMENT
A proper approach for establishing which is which requires one to find right teaching starting from no. 1 above and also by process of elimination to expose wrong Bible teaching as we find them (if we intend not to be mislead - false teaching has great consequences).
>
> **John 7:24 Do not judge by appearances, but judge with right judgment.”**
>
>
>
Many believe the Bible says don't judge at all but when carefully read you will find the Bible message actually warns against making wrong or false judgments. Every time you go to cross a street you must judge where and when to cross. All day long we make many judgments as to what we should do.
### **5.** DO NOT ADD OR OMIT THINGS
I found that many do not carefully read what is actually written in the Bible. For instance, many missed the fact that plants were created before the sun and stars. The reason is explained in other Bible text. For every claim made the whole Bible must be taken into context.
>
> **1 Cor 4:6** I have applied all these things to myself and Apollos for your benefit, brothers, **that you may learn by us not to go beyond what is written**, that none of you may be puffed up in favor of one against another.
>
>
> **Gal 3:15** To give a human example, brothers: even with a man-made covenant, **no one annuls it or adds to it once it has been ratified.**
>
>
> **Deut 4:2 You shall not add to the word** that I command you, **nor take from it**, that you may keep the commandments of the Lord your God that I command you.
>
>
>
### **6.** MAN'S WAYS & IDEAS
I also observed that many make the mistake of believing what others claim is true especially if they have a position perceived as having authority to make such claims.
>
> **Jer 10:23** I know, O Lord, that **the way of man is not in himself, that it is not in man who walks to direct his steps**.;
>
>
> **Prov 14:12** There is a way that **SEEMS** right to a man, but its end is the way to death.;
>
>
> **Hosea 4:6 My people are destroyed for lack of knowledge**; because you have rejected knowledge, I reject you from being a priest to me. And since you have forgotten the law of your God, I also will forget your children.;
>
>
> **Micah 7:5** Put no trust in a neighbor; have no confidence in a friend; guard the doors of your mouth from her who lies in your arms;
>
>
> **Matt 7:21 “Not everyone** who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but the one who does the will of my Father who is in heaven.
>
>
> **22** On that day many will say to me, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and cast out demons in your name, and do many mighty works in your name?’
>
>
> **23** And then will I declare to them, **‘I never knew you; depart from me**, you workers of lawlessness.’
>
>
>
There is a number of other factors, etc. to add to the above but it would take many pages to go into exhaustive detail. I could have spent all my spare time studying all religions to the last detail but filling my head with volumes of useless information, I most likely would never have found out who our God actually is nor who His Son is. There is a verse (I can't remember where it is) that states something like: They gather much knowledge but they'll never find the truth.
Back to the original question: Mormons, JWs and other saw that there was to be a reformation but misunderstood that it was not the New Testament that was at fault (nor the Old Testament either). Mormons, JWs and others did not understand we cannot make up a new "covenant" and that God should honor it. They did not understand that the NT covenant is the final and eternal covenant, superseding all other covenants. Jesus is perfect and so is His new covenant, needing no changes - Both God and Jesus never change. God deliberately set up the old covenant with one major flaw, one that only sending His Son to earth could remedy.
While many "mainstream" churches can readily see the more blatant reasons, "a basis" for why something is wrong with the beliefs of Mormons and Jehovah Witnesses, many do not have a full understanding of why they and others have been and are wrong in many of their beliefs. Perhaps this is a subject for another discussion.
If any claimed "Christian" (again broad usage here) is coloring outside the Bible text and its parameters they are acting outside God's and Jesus' definition and instructions for how to be a genuine Christian in Their eyes. The Bible is all about right and wrong. The wise will keep making it their goal to better comply with its instruction while others will keep looking for justification for whatever suits them, what tickles their ear.
**-Edits:**
-----------
(For comments - Thanks Caleb -I hope this is OK. I added answers because I have a lot to say and some sites do not give one a lot of space to write, more being allowed in an answer.)
Being new here, I can't post a comment so I'm posting more answers (in addition to my original answer) with regard to comments (disreqard -adding it to my original answer).
### **@ Nelson (1st comment):**
I'm not new to LDS beliefs (also, I have even been to the Salt Lake City temple). Before you read my comments please take the time to carefully reread my previous list of Bible references.
Actually, most "standard" Bibles (some are better at doing it) have been mostly properly translated (for the most part, most discrepancies are relatively minor to very minor). Once you become somewhat familiar with the Bible you can compare verses from other versions. However, God is smarter than us and knew some would try to twist the meaning and/or the word itself so He protected His word. He used an unchangeable system (in redundancy) that forever binds the OT&NT truth that never changes.
Other than some mutilation of scripture text (which would make it too obvious that something was done to it at least to the wise), as long as properly translated Bible text exists to be compared to, the truth can't be obscured to those genuinely looking for it.
Whether Joseph Smith was well-meaning or not he added things that were never in the Bible (Jesus was never in America nor were Adam & Eve in Missouri). Any new "vision" must line up exactly with what was written in the Old & New Testament. It cannot vary even one degree. Apparently, Smith was unaware of this.
>
> **Jer 23:28** Let the prophet who has a dream tell the dream, but **let him who has my word speak my word faithfully**. What has straw in common with wheat? declares the Lord.
>
>
>
The fact that the Book of Mormon exists indicates to those who are wise and have even just a good knowledge of the Bible text that it does not conform to what is written in the Bible, that is it is non-Biblical by its very existence. There is no such thing as a God authorized "another testament" nor will there ever be.
**The truth is complete, fully contained within the Bible itself.** It is why we are warned and instructed to not go beyond what is already written in the Bible itself. Clearly, Smith proves by his writings, whether he intended to or not, that he went far beyond what he thought he perceived as misinterpretation of the Bible text.
The problem is that the more Smith got off in his own direction and misinterpretation the more he compounded the false claims he started with. Whereas, a true reformation would have come by starting with and staying with what was instructed in the Bible. In other words, misinterpretation was because of human error and by their relaxing their guard and/or becoming lazy instead of staying the course, making sure what they taught and did was securely in line with Biblical teaching.
It was not due to the Bible being wrongly translated or just being misinterpreted, which Smith did not understand. Just because you can confess with your lips that Jesus is our Redeemer it does not mean that your heart is not far away from the truth of who Jesus is nor how to follow Him (truly, from within your heart not by more of an outward or mechanical motion or what you think Jesus wants from you or wants you to do).
>
> **Isaiah 29:13** And the Lord said: “Because this people draw near with their mouth and honor me with their lips, while their hearts are far from me, and their fear of me is a commandment taught by men,
>
>
>
These verses also apply to **Isaiah 29:13**:
>
> **Matt 7:21** “Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but the one who does the will of my Father who is in heaven.
>
>
> **22** On that day many will say to me, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and cast out demons in your name, and do many mighty works in your name?’
>
>
> **23** And then will I declare to them, ‘**I never knew you; depart from me**, you workers of lawlessness.’
>
>
> **James 2:19** You believe that God is one; you do well. **Even the demons believe—and shudder!**
>
>
>
The point is that lots of people think that Jesus is the Son of God. It does not mean that they really know Him. Rather, they know of Him, that He probably existed or even that He did exist, not much else, especially on the proper personal level.
### **@ Nelson (2nd comment):**
III. **TRINITY DOCTRINE**
-------------------------
At this point I think its best to put forth the actual God, Jesus and the Holy Spirit's correct relationship as the Trinitarian concept is in fact incorrect as are other concepts concerning this matter. Perhaps we can then more easily see whats wrong with other beliefs. These things are hard to understand. The correct relationship is as follows:
Jesus is the Son of God, Lamb of God and King of kings=He has Deity as His Father has =we are to also worship Him but Jesus isn't His Father: The Trinity Doctrine (TD) is wrong (NOTE [for those told otherwise]: the word Bible doesn't affect interpretation-the TD does). Unfortunately, **people CONFUSE TRUTH (this offends many)/HATE.**
The TD claims there are 3 CO-EQUAL heads=1 God. However, if the 3 are not equal the TD does not and cannot apply - its null and void. Sadly, people use only a few verses and/or are not careful to read verses in whole Bible context. **1 Cor 4:6** =don't add or omit things from the Bible text:
The TD (as are other concepts) is a roadblock to true Bible interpretation (In part the Catholic church got the TD idea from Pagans. Others [ie. JWs, lds, islam, moonies and others] figured out the TD is in error but they did not know our true God, Son and Holy Spirit relationship)=they didn't know Jesus (as their claims indicate). They never rightly went to nor learned to trust and rightly follow Jesus. **Who knows more about a house, the Builder or people whom moved in later?**
### **1. JESUS:**
Jesus is God's Son [**His Word not God's Body** {Christ's Spiritual Body =believers in Him} **=John 1:1**], equals the pure essence of God [He was and is not an angel as JWs claim **-Heb 1:2-6**] neitehr when in flesh nor in Heaven. Jesus was not replacing nor was He ever equal to His Father (see **John 5:30; Phlp 2:6-7; Col 2:9**). Jesus (His Spirit existed with God from before the universe existed) is the closest we get to know infinite God in flesh (only a vessel =God's 1st creation part -something like being God's voice-box -not just some created being as LDS and JWs believe) to deliver eternal truth in person **-John 14:7** (stoops to our level so to speak).
Born of human woman (for His earthly mission), Jesus is a separate person-entity (He has His own soul [what makes a person an individual] and given a human body -and **Mary ISN'T God's mother**) but God gave Jesus authority to be treated as His Father (conceived of God's Holy Spirit **=fullness of DEITY** [He deserves worship **-Matt 14:33; 28:9**] **-SIR-NAME God** =Jesus' birthright, reward as God's Son and to sit at God's right hand). In conception, God and Mary gave part of each to Jesus' life.
To rightly know Jesus starts at **John 1:1**. W/o a language God couldn't reason, know His thoughts, create a universe, life nor talk to others. So Jn 1:1 names Jesus as God's language. Created in God's image, man has the same limits. Despite how primitive most organisms need language to function and live with others.
Your language (always part of you) can't usurp your authority, act on its own and never tells you what to do. Therefore, Jesus' claims are true **(Jn 5:19,30; 8:28)** -a student is never greater than his teacher. Your words pass understanding of you to your son. If your son learns all you teach him, he in effect becomes like/is you for all intents and purposes. For obeying you, you can reward him the highest position, your authority.
A father owns a business and teaches his son to run his business. He goes away and puts his son in charge, trusting he'll run it just as he would. If the son obeys and runs the business as the father did, in effect he's his father and can claim to be his father =like father, like son -while exactly like his father he's never equal to him even thoegh he has his father's authority. The same is true for God and His Son, whom fully did God's will not His own so His Father gave Him right to also be worshiped:
>
> **Rom 5:19** Adam's sin made many sinners but **by Jesus' obedience** many are to be righteous.
>
>
>
**REF: Jn 12:49; 14:28-29; Lk 6:40; Col 1:15** -Jesus is in God's image by rightly obeying God; **Heb 5:7-8; Lk 2:52 -Mk 13:32; 20:23; Phil 2:6; Jn 17; 15:1 =God NEVER BECAME His Son.**
### **2. GOD:**
Only one GOD can occupy infinity **=God of Israel =no other legit gods exist (HE CAN'T DIE EVER and doesn't fit into an earthly body).** God has ULTIMATE AUTHORITY Jesus and the Holy Spirit do not have. Only God knows the day and hour for the end **-Mt 24:36** and appoints who sits with Him. God has a soul like us (makes Him an individual -ie. a cell nucleus only Spiritual). All 3 are 1 in Spirit [of God] but **Jesus and the Holy Spirit submit fully to God.** Being 1 doesn't apply to difference in authority =the TD does not apply.
As long as 1 true full 360 degrees (in all directions) infinity exists (which the Bible proves it exists) two or more full infinities cannot exist nor can two Gods occupy the same infinity. Only a Spirit can occupy true full infinity. Everything having physical properties is measurable. Infinity cannot be measured.
### **3. the HOLY SPIRIT:**
The Holy Spirit is God's "Spiritual body" (God is Spirit -to be 100% pure the Holy Spirit **[no form] MUST** occupy true infinity (360 deg. in all directions) =no flaws, =always existed -you can move over or make a space within Yourself to create a univeerse separate from yourself and create borders & rules where you want them). The Holy Spirit acts on God's command:
>
> **Jn 16:13** When the Spirit of truth comes, he will guide you into all the truth, for **he will not speak on his own authority**, but whatever **he hears** he will speak, and he will declare to you the things that are to come.
>
>
>
God's body, voice & ears act on God's will -same for our body). The Holy Spirit can be called "He" **(generic)** as you can be called he(even if your ID is known). The Holy Spirit is more than deliverer of God's power, works and the word through Jesus **(Jn 1:1-5; 4:23).** Only the eternal truth, forever unchanged keeps God perfect **=SEAMLESS** Garment.
The point is many religious people started off with wrong beliefs, trusted in misinterpretations told to them along the way. Some started religions, often never double or triple checking what they thought was true or they allowed their desires and agendas or other influences to rule their decisions, some intentionally. Many well-meaning people were taken in along the way. Over many centuries many followed suit. Many zeroed in on few wrong things and made the mistake of not making the Bible an every day guide for correction of things overlooked by those around them. Will we do the same or will we check everything even if we thought some things were right up to now?
Many a religious organization will continue down wrong paths no matter what is told or shown to them. Some stay their course and perhaps patch a few things or even claim they have received new light or revelations but the wise will find the real path to Jesus. The point is the truth is complete within the Bible. Anything extra-Biblical regarding changing God's and Jesus' actual Biblical teaching is wrong by its very existence.
### **@ Nelson (3rd comment):**
Again, because the Trinity Doctrine is wrong, it does not follow nor justify one making a whole new or different non-Biblical concept nor does it make them legitimate. Unfortunately for LDS, there are so many things that they believe and do that have nothing to do with actual Bible concepts, it makes LDS, in its entirety, false and fully beyond actual Biblical teaching.
The only way out of such a mess requires that those who want to follow our real God and Jesus get out of false religion and seek our real Jesus with all their heart and soul. Sadly, many will never do that, deciding not to step out of what has become a security and comfort zone for them (false though it is).
**Jesus said, "Do not judge by appearances but judge with right judgment." (Jn 7:24).** He did not say not to judge at all. The real Bible message is: Don't judge for wrong reasons nor judge to make yourself look better than another or for the purpose of lording it over others or for the sake of judging. There are those who will not make judgments simply because they do not want to upset the apple cart or buck the "status quo" but the wise want to learn the true purpose for what Jesus taught.
### **@ Daniel (4th comment):**
Because someone's beliefs and claims are in part or in whole wrong does not mean they cannot see "holes" in another's beliefs or claims (and yes sometimes they may have their judgment wrong in whole or in part). It would be better if they would carefully examine their own beliefs to weed out what they got wrong from various sources but many won't. If one is wise, they won't allow themselves to get caught up in wrong teaching as they do not want to be mislead. Sadly, both the LDS and the JWs (and others) got so far away from what the Bible actually says I doubt that either would be willing to dump their entire teaching and start over. The same goes for many mainstream churches. Thanks for looking that verse up for me. |
24,217 | If there is no clear definition stemming from the Bible of what makes one a Christian, how does mainstream Christianity justify labeling groups like the Mormons and Jehovah Witnesses as Non Christians?
Members from both groups seem to take a more active role in spreading Christ's message of salvation than do the most rooted mainstream Christian church members, based off of their missionary efforts even though some of their doctrines do not conform to the norms as held by most Christians. There is evidence enough to come to their doctrinal conclusions, even if we disagree with them.
So is non normative theology enough for mainstream Christianity to label others as non-Christian? | 2013/12/29 | [
"https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/24217",
"https://christianity.stackexchange.com",
"https://christianity.stackexchange.com/users/9200/"
] | A fundamental issue here is that the term "Christian" admits different meanings. In a broad sense, a Christian is anyone who self-identifies as a follower of Jesus Christ (cf. [Acts 11:26](http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Acts11.26)), which would include all bodies such as Catholics, Orthodox, Anglicans, Protestants, and Restorationists (including JWs and Mormons).
To use "Christian" in a narrower sense where some self-identified Christians are excluded, one needs to choose some criterion of orthodoxy by which to judge among groups. One common standard is the set of ecumenical creeds, which JWs and Mormons reject. Conversely, JWs reject trinitarians as genuine Christians for the opposite reason -- because they adhere to the ecumenical creeds, which JWs consider to be a blasphemous tradition, or because they reject the authority of the Governing Body of Jehovah's Witnesses. (Similar things could be said about Protestants and Catholics and the authority of the Pope and Tradition, though things have mellowed since Vatican II.)
As a specific example, in a [debate](https://www.beliefnet.com/columnists/blogalogue/2007/06) from a few years back, evangelical Albert Mohler and Mormon Orson Scott Card went back and forth about whether Mormons are Christians. (The debate is hard to navigate, but it's all there; use the "previous" button at the bottom to get back to the beginning.) Mohler [argues](https://www.beliefnet.com/columnists/blogalogue/2007/06/mormonism-is-not-christianity.html), in short, that Mormons don't hold to the ecumenical creeds about the nature of God and Christ, which the wide majority of Christians share, and are therefore not Christians, and Card [responds](https://www.beliefnet.com/columnists/blogalogue/2007/06/who-gets-to-define-christian.html) by saying that Mormons are "non-traditional Christians," followers of Christ who reject the tradition embodied in the creeds. | **Mainstream Christian groups limit the term 'Christian' to those who believe Jesus is *the Christ* and agree with them about what that means.** The term 'Christian' isn't used for anyone who simply likes Jesus or believes he was special in some way. We can see this because Islam teaches that Jesus was a prophet, but Muslims aren't called 'Christian'! Similarly an atheist who thought Jesus was a good teacher wouldn't be called a Christian. Clearly it's more than just thinking highly of Jesus.
At the barest minimum, the term 'Christian' is used for people who believe that *Jesus is the Christ*, the Greek word for the Hebrew concept of the *Messiah*. The Messiah is a character prophesied about in the Old Testament, though there is much debate in and outside of Christianity as to what exactly it means to be the Messiah. Both mainstream Christian and restorationist groups such as the Mormons and Jehovah's Witnesses agree this far; they disagree, and limit how the term is used, because of what they believe the Messiah means.
What you call 'mainstream Christianity' is Trinitarian Christianity: they believe that the Messiah is God himself, who came incarnate to the earth. They call the other groups non-Christian because they believe the Jesus they proclaim actually has a very different identity. To Trinitarians saying that Jesus is a created being, is a 'mode' of God, or that he only became divine at his baptism is just as wrong as saying that God doesn't exist and Jesus was nothing more than a human teacher.
Trinitarian Christians believe their views are supported by the historical creeds, such as the Apostles' and Nicene creeds. When those creeds were first constructed there were many who disagreed with them, but by the time the first restorationist groups were founded the creeds were accepted by almost everyone; before the restorationist groups were founded 'Christian' and 'Trinitarian' were effectively synonymous.
Lastly, note that sometimes a group likes to reserve the label 'Christian' only for those who hold very similar beliefs to their own. You will find many protestants who will call the Roman Catholic Church a non-Christian organisation. They refuse to call the other side 'Christian' because they believe they have distorted the gospel or replaced it with a completely different gospel. |
24,217 | If there is no clear definition stemming from the Bible of what makes one a Christian, how does mainstream Christianity justify labeling groups like the Mormons and Jehovah Witnesses as Non Christians?
Members from both groups seem to take a more active role in spreading Christ's message of salvation than do the most rooted mainstream Christian church members, based off of their missionary efforts even though some of their doctrines do not conform to the norms as held by most Christians. There is evidence enough to come to their doctrinal conclusions, even if we disagree with them.
So is non normative theology enough for mainstream Christianity to label others as non-Christian? | 2013/12/29 | [
"https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/24217",
"https://christianity.stackexchange.com",
"https://christianity.stackexchange.com/users/9200/"
] | Before we start to answer this, a little history is needed. Both the Latter-Day Saints and Jehovah's Witnesses are *Restorationist* churches. That means that they were founded on the belief that all the other churches in the world had ceased to hold to the whole correct Christian doctrine, and that a direct revelation from God to the founders caused them to start an entirely new church, and to separate themselves from the 'corrupt' churches that were then in existence (yes, 'corrupt' was the word they used at the time. I'm aware it has a technical meaning that isn't the same as 'dishonest', but it's not very polite even in its technical meaning, which is essentially of a church that has stopped following God). Today both will attempt to convert members of other denominations to their own faith, and insist that people baptized in other Christian denominations are rebaptized to become members of their sects. Cooperation of any kind between Mormons and mainstream churches is extremely rare (compared with cooperation between other denominations), and the non-mainstream sects are at least as assiduous in rejecting it as the mainstream churches.
So in short, both Mormons and JWs stated for themselves that they are a completely different faith from the mainstream church, and continue to act in that way towards others.
Mormons hold to an additional revelation and additional scriptures, belief in which they consider essential to their own faith, and which are not accepted by other churches and in many cases contradict the tenets of other churches. JWs use a unique Bible translation which they hold to be authoritative and which disagrees in many places with all other translations. Both hold to unique doctrines, particularly about the person of Jesus, which differ fundamentally from what mainstream churches believe and which they consider to be a non-negotiable part of their faith.
Given this, it is perhaps unsurprising that mainstream churches find it hard to accept churches which do not accept them as valid Christians. However this is by no means a fixed rule. Some denominations do accept Mormons and JWs as a valid form of Christianity. | A fundamental issue here is that the term "Christian" admits different meanings. In a broad sense, a Christian is anyone who self-identifies as a follower of Jesus Christ (cf. [Acts 11:26](http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Acts11.26)), which would include all bodies such as Catholics, Orthodox, Anglicans, Protestants, and Restorationists (including JWs and Mormons).
To use "Christian" in a narrower sense where some self-identified Christians are excluded, one needs to choose some criterion of orthodoxy by which to judge among groups. One common standard is the set of ecumenical creeds, which JWs and Mormons reject. Conversely, JWs reject trinitarians as genuine Christians for the opposite reason -- because they adhere to the ecumenical creeds, which JWs consider to be a blasphemous tradition, or because they reject the authority of the Governing Body of Jehovah's Witnesses. (Similar things could be said about Protestants and Catholics and the authority of the Pope and Tradition, though things have mellowed since Vatican II.)
As a specific example, in a [debate](https://www.beliefnet.com/columnists/blogalogue/2007/06) from a few years back, evangelical Albert Mohler and Mormon Orson Scott Card went back and forth about whether Mormons are Christians. (The debate is hard to navigate, but it's all there; use the "previous" button at the bottom to get back to the beginning.) Mohler [argues](https://www.beliefnet.com/columnists/blogalogue/2007/06/mormonism-is-not-christianity.html), in short, that Mormons don't hold to the ecumenical creeds about the nature of God and Christ, which the wide majority of Christians share, and are therefore not Christians, and Card [responds](https://www.beliefnet.com/columnists/blogalogue/2007/06/who-gets-to-define-christian.html) by saying that Mormons are "non-traditional Christians," followers of Christ who reject the tradition embodied in the creeds. |
24,217 | If there is no clear definition stemming from the Bible of what makes one a Christian, how does mainstream Christianity justify labeling groups like the Mormons and Jehovah Witnesses as Non Christians?
Members from both groups seem to take a more active role in spreading Christ's message of salvation than do the most rooted mainstream Christian church members, based off of their missionary efforts even though some of their doctrines do not conform to the norms as held by most Christians. There is evidence enough to come to their doctrinal conclusions, even if we disagree with them.
So is non normative theology enough for mainstream Christianity to label others as non-Christian? | 2013/12/29 | [
"https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/24217",
"https://christianity.stackexchange.com",
"https://christianity.stackexchange.com/users/9200/"
] | I want to preface the rest of this with the statement that I am merely answering the question. I am not saying whether mainstream Christians are right or wrong in their position. But I am going to answer exactly the question by showing why they classify these two groups as non-Christians and backing it up with references.
---
**The Basis:**
I'm going to start out with a quote from Ray Comfort, addressing something completely different and then tying it in to this answer.
During his Hell's Best Kept Secret teaching, he speaks of people that say things like "I don't believe that a loving God would send me to hell. My God is a God of love, not wrath and judgment." Ray says "If they ever tell you that, say, 'you're right. Your god would never send you to Hell because he can't. He doesn't exist. he's a figment of your imagination. You created a god in your mind in your own image. That's called idolatry, it's the oldest sin in the book, and all idolators are condemned to Hell.'".
The reason that "mainstream Christians" don't classify Jehovah's Witnesses and Mormons as "Christians" is that "mainstream Christians" say that these groups are not worshiping the same God. "Mainstream Christians" would say they use the same name, but the "god" is very different.
The LDS view of God is very different from the view of mainstream Christianity. In the LDS view, Jesus is a created being, the brother of Satan, as opposed to being God Himself.
The Jehovah's Witnesses also affirm Jesus as a created being, distinct from God.
"Mainstream Christians" would claim that both of these groups deny key portions of the Bible.
The two denominations mentioned also claim that the mainstream Christians are deceived, coming from an Apostate Church, or just outright wrong. That's part and parcel with being "The One True Church". You can't be "The One True Church" unless the others are wrong. Since both of these denominations make that claim, they are denying the validity of all denominations other than their own ***by definition***.
So the key thing to keep in mind here is that it's not a one-sided "You're wrong, I'm right" with the "Mainstream" on one side and the other two groups on the other side. It's a multiple-pointed figure, where ***all*** sides believe that the other is wrong.
Even within "Mainstream Christianity", there's division. Some Protestants (I'm not among them) claim that the Catholic Church teaches demonic heresies. That praying to saints is idolatry, etc.
So the basis is simple: It's that the core beliefs about the nature of God is so wildly different that it's completely irrational to try to claim that they worship the ***same*** God. Once you get past the name, the fact that they are wildly different is undeniable. So "Mainstream Christians" would make this claim because they see the worship of what thy see as a made-up "God" is idolatry, pure and simple.
---
**And as promised, references to back up the fact that this is he basis:**
Example of a mainstream protestant explanation of why the LDS Church is not a "Christian" Church:
from [CARM](http://carm.org/is-mormonism-christian)
>
> "Is Mormonism Christian?" The answer is simple. No. Mormonism is not
> Christian.
>
>
> If you are a Mormon, please realize that CARM is not trying to attack
> you, your character, or the sincerity of your belief. If you are a
> non-Mormon looking into Mormonism, or if you are a Christian who is
> simply researching Mormonism, then this article should be of help.
>
>
> The reason Mormonism is not Christian is because it denies one or more
> of the essential doctrines of Christianity. Here is a basic list of
> what true Christianity teaches as essential doctrine according to the
> Bible.
>
>
> * There is only one God in all existence (Exodus 20:1-4; Isaiah 43:10; 44:6,8; 45:5).
> * Jesus is divine (John 1:1;14; 8:24; Col. 2:9)
> * Forgiveness of sins is by grace alone without works (Eph. 2:8-9; Rom. 3:28; 4:1-5)
> * Jesus rose from the dead physically (John 2:19-21; Luke 24:39)
> * The gospel is the death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus (1 Cor. 15:1-4)
>
>
> Mormonism denies that there is only one God in all existence and also
> denies the forgiveness of sins alone in Christ alone. Therefore, it
> is outside Christianity. It is not a Christian religion.
>
>
>
And [their statement on Jehovah's Witnesses](http://carm.org/is-the-jehovahs-witness-religion-christian)
>
> The answer to the question is, "No. It is not Christian." Like all
> non-Christian cults, the Jehovah's Witness organization distorts the
> essential doctrines of Christianity. It denies the deity of Christ,
> His physical resurrection, and salvation by grace. This alone makes
> it non-Christian. To support its erring doctrines, the Watchtower
> organization (which is the author and teacher of all official
> Jehovah's Witness theology), has even altered the Bible to make it
> agree with its changing and non-Christian teachings.
>
>
> Typical with cults that use the Bible to support its position is a
> host of interpretive errors:
>
>
> * Taking verses out of their immediate context.
> * Refusing to read verses in the entire biblical context.
> * Inserting their theological presuppositions into the text.
> * Altering the Biblical text to suit their needs.
> * Latching onto one verse to interpret a host of others.
> * Changing the meanings of words.
> * Proclaiming some passages to be figurative when they contradict their doctrines.
> * Adding to the Word of God.
>
>
>
And to be fair, a reference backing up that the LDS Church teaches that Mainstream Christians are wrong, and that only the Church established through Joseph Smith is "right".
From the [Joseph Smith story](http://www.josephsmith.net/article/the-first-vision?lang=eng):
>
> Wondering which of the many churches to join, Joseph had followed the
> counsel in the Bible's book of James: "If any of you lack wisdom, let
> him ask of God." The Lord told Joseph "that all the religious
> denominations were believing in incorrect doctrines" and that he was
> to await further instructions from on high.2 "In a state of calmness
> and peace indescribable," Joseph left that sacred grove knowing the
> reality of our Father in Heaven and His resurrected Son, Jesus Christ.
> 3
>
>
> Joseph Smith's first vision stands today as the greatest event in
> world history since the birth, ministry, and resurrection of Jesus
> Christ. After centuries of darkness, the Lord opened the heavens to
> reveal His word and restore His Church through His chosen prophet.
>
>
> | **Mainstream Christian groups limit the term 'Christian' to those who believe Jesus is *the Christ* and agree with them about what that means.** The term 'Christian' isn't used for anyone who simply likes Jesus or believes he was special in some way. We can see this because Islam teaches that Jesus was a prophet, but Muslims aren't called 'Christian'! Similarly an atheist who thought Jesus was a good teacher wouldn't be called a Christian. Clearly it's more than just thinking highly of Jesus.
At the barest minimum, the term 'Christian' is used for people who believe that *Jesus is the Christ*, the Greek word for the Hebrew concept of the *Messiah*. The Messiah is a character prophesied about in the Old Testament, though there is much debate in and outside of Christianity as to what exactly it means to be the Messiah. Both mainstream Christian and restorationist groups such as the Mormons and Jehovah's Witnesses agree this far; they disagree, and limit how the term is used, because of what they believe the Messiah means.
What you call 'mainstream Christianity' is Trinitarian Christianity: they believe that the Messiah is God himself, who came incarnate to the earth. They call the other groups non-Christian because they believe the Jesus they proclaim actually has a very different identity. To Trinitarians saying that Jesus is a created being, is a 'mode' of God, or that he only became divine at his baptism is just as wrong as saying that God doesn't exist and Jesus was nothing more than a human teacher.
Trinitarian Christians believe their views are supported by the historical creeds, such as the Apostles' and Nicene creeds. When those creeds were first constructed there were many who disagreed with them, but by the time the first restorationist groups were founded the creeds were accepted by almost everyone; before the restorationist groups were founded 'Christian' and 'Trinitarian' were effectively synonymous.
Lastly, note that sometimes a group likes to reserve the label 'Christian' only for those who hold very similar beliefs to their own. You will find many protestants who will call the Roman Catholic Church a non-Christian organisation. They refuse to call the other side 'Christian' because they believe they have distorted the gospel or replaced it with a completely different gospel. |
24,217 | If there is no clear definition stemming from the Bible of what makes one a Christian, how does mainstream Christianity justify labeling groups like the Mormons and Jehovah Witnesses as Non Christians?
Members from both groups seem to take a more active role in spreading Christ's message of salvation than do the most rooted mainstream Christian church members, based off of their missionary efforts even though some of their doctrines do not conform to the norms as held by most Christians. There is evidence enough to come to their doctrinal conclusions, even if we disagree with them.
So is non normative theology enough for mainstream Christianity to label others as non-Christian? | 2013/12/29 | [
"https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/24217",
"https://christianity.stackexchange.com",
"https://christianity.stackexchange.com/users/9200/"
] | A fundamental issue here is that the term "Christian" admits different meanings. In a broad sense, a Christian is anyone who self-identifies as a follower of Jesus Christ (cf. [Acts 11:26](http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Acts11.26)), which would include all bodies such as Catholics, Orthodox, Anglicans, Protestants, and Restorationists (including JWs and Mormons).
To use "Christian" in a narrower sense where some self-identified Christians are excluded, one needs to choose some criterion of orthodoxy by which to judge among groups. One common standard is the set of ecumenical creeds, which JWs and Mormons reject. Conversely, JWs reject trinitarians as genuine Christians for the opposite reason -- because they adhere to the ecumenical creeds, which JWs consider to be a blasphemous tradition, or because they reject the authority of the Governing Body of Jehovah's Witnesses. (Similar things could be said about Protestants and Catholics and the authority of the Pope and Tradition, though things have mellowed since Vatican II.)
As a specific example, in a [debate](https://www.beliefnet.com/columnists/blogalogue/2007/06) from a few years back, evangelical Albert Mohler and Mormon Orson Scott Card went back and forth about whether Mormons are Christians. (The debate is hard to navigate, but it's all there; use the "previous" button at the bottom to get back to the beginning.) Mohler [argues](https://www.beliefnet.com/columnists/blogalogue/2007/06/mormonism-is-not-christianity.html), in short, that Mormons don't hold to the ecumenical creeds about the nature of God and Christ, which the wide majority of Christians share, and are therefore not Christians, and Card [responds](https://www.beliefnet.com/columnists/blogalogue/2007/06/who-gets-to-define-christian.html) by saying that Mormons are "non-traditional Christians," followers of Christ who reject the tradition embodied in the creeds. | This is most definitely not the only reason that Jehovah's Witnesses and Mormons are often viewed as "non-Christian" but it is a major one. @metal had the right idea but it wouldn't let me comment on his post, so I am writing another answer instead. What some refer to as "Mainstream Christians" or "Mainstream Christianity" are usually inclusive of Catholic, Orthodox, Protestant, and Reformationist sects of Christianity (such as Baptist, Evangelical, Lutheran, Episcopalian, and others). These sects of Christianity are all tied together in their belief in the Ecumenical Christian Creeds, sometimes earning them the title "Creedal Christians". Restorationist Churches, such as the Jehovah's Witness and The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints do not believe in these Creeds and since the creeds are such an integral part of the doctrinal tenets of "Mainstream Christianity", they are rejected as "Christians". Again, it is not the only reason, as everybody seems to have their own beliefs concerning the beliefs of these two churches, for good or bad (evidenced by the number of posts and comments of varying levels of contention and condemnation on this page). From a core doctrinal standpoint, however, the difference of belief in the Ecuminical Creeds is a very large point of conflict in their trying to claim their place within "Mainstream Christianity".
As a side note: I am a member of the LDS Church. |
24,217 | If there is no clear definition stemming from the Bible of what makes one a Christian, how does mainstream Christianity justify labeling groups like the Mormons and Jehovah Witnesses as Non Christians?
Members from both groups seem to take a more active role in spreading Christ's message of salvation than do the most rooted mainstream Christian church members, based off of their missionary efforts even though some of their doctrines do not conform to the norms as held by most Christians. There is evidence enough to come to their doctrinal conclusions, even if we disagree with them.
So is non normative theology enough for mainstream Christianity to label others as non-Christian? | 2013/12/29 | [
"https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/24217",
"https://christianity.stackexchange.com",
"https://christianity.stackexchange.com/users/9200/"
] | Before we start to answer this, a little history is needed. Both the Latter-Day Saints and Jehovah's Witnesses are *Restorationist* churches. That means that they were founded on the belief that all the other churches in the world had ceased to hold to the whole correct Christian doctrine, and that a direct revelation from God to the founders caused them to start an entirely new church, and to separate themselves from the 'corrupt' churches that were then in existence (yes, 'corrupt' was the word they used at the time. I'm aware it has a technical meaning that isn't the same as 'dishonest', but it's not very polite even in its technical meaning, which is essentially of a church that has stopped following God). Today both will attempt to convert members of other denominations to their own faith, and insist that people baptized in other Christian denominations are rebaptized to become members of their sects. Cooperation of any kind between Mormons and mainstream churches is extremely rare (compared with cooperation between other denominations), and the non-mainstream sects are at least as assiduous in rejecting it as the mainstream churches.
So in short, both Mormons and JWs stated for themselves that they are a completely different faith from the mainstream church, and continue to act in that way towards others.
Mormons hold to an additional revelation and additional scriptures, belief in which they consider essential to their own faith, and which are not accepted by other churches and in many cases contradict the tenets of other churches. JWs use a unique Bible translation which they hold to be authoritative and which disagrees in many places with all other translations. Both hold to unique doctrines, particularly about the person of Jesus, which differ fundamentally from what mainstream churches believe and which they consider to be a non-negotiable part of their faith.
Given this, it is perhaps unsurprising that mainstream churches find it hard to accept churches which do not accept them as valid Christians. However this is by no means a fixed rule. Some denominations do accept Mormons and JWs as a valid form of Christianity. | **What is the basis that many mainstream Christian groups justify labeling groups like the Mormons and Jehovah’s Witnesses as Non Christians?**
As far as Catholicism is concerned and possible some other denominations may be concerned neither the Mormons and Jehovah’s Witnesses is because the Church has declared their baptisms [invalid](https://www.dosp.org/wp-content/uploads/9_3.-Valid-and-Invalid-Baptisms.pdf) and they do not believe in the Trinity as most mainstream Christian Churches understand this terminology.
Baptism makes us members of the Church! It is also [**the one sacrament that all true Christian denominations share in common**](https://www.dummies.com/religion/christianity/catholicism/the-catholic-sacrament-of-baptism/): Catholics, Orthodox, Anglicans, Lutherans, and so on.
>
> 1213 Holy Baptism is the basis of the whole Christian life, the gateway to life in the Spirit (vitae spiritualis ianua),4 and the door which gives access to the other sacraments. Through Baptism we are freed from sin and reborn as sons of God; we become members of Christ, are incorporated into the Church and made sharers in her mission: "Baptism is the sacrament of regeneration through water in the word." - [Catechism of the Catholic Church](http://www.scborromeo.org/ccc/p2s2c1a1.htm)
>
>
>
In the eyes of the Catholic Church, any Baptism that uses water and the invocation of the Holy Trinity, as in **“I baptize you in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit,”** is a valid sacrament. So if a follower of a Christian church that performs Baptism to these standards wants to become Catholic, he doesn’t have to be re-baptized. Also, the minister must intend to do what the Church does when baptizing.
Converts from the Mormon Church or from the Jehovah’s Witnesses **must be rebaptized** when entering into communion with the Catholic Church.
>
> [**What the Early Church Believed: Trinitarian Baptism**](https://www.catholic.com/tract/trinitarian-baptism)
>
>
> For a sacrament to be valid, three things have to be present: the correct form, the correct matter, and the correct intention. With baptism, the correct intention is to do what the Church does, the correct matter is water, and the correct form is the baptizing “in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit” (Matt. 28:19).
>
>
> Unfortunately, not all religious organizations use this form. In fact, Jehovah’s Witnesses sometimes use no formula at all in their baptisms, and an even larger group, the “Jesus Only” Pentecostals, baptize “in the name of Jesus.” As a result, the baptisms of these groups are invalid; thus, they are not Christian, but pseudo-Christian.
>
>
> Both groups also reject the Trinity. Jehovah’s Witnesses claim that Jesus is not God, a heresy known as Arianism (after its fourth-century founder), and the “Jesus Only” Pentecostals claim that there is only a single person, Jesus, in the Godhead, a heresy known as Sabellianism (after its inventor in the third century; see the Catholic Answers tract, God in Three Persons).
>
>
> The early Church Fathers, of course, agreed. As the following quotes illustrate, Christians have from the beginning recognized that the correct form of baptism requires one to baptize “in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit.”
>
>
> **The Didache**
>
>
> “After the foregoing instructions, baptize in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, in living [running] water. If you have no living water, then baptize in other water, and if you are not able in cold, then in warm. If you have neither, pour water three times on the head, in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit. Before baptism, let the one baptizing and the one to be baptized fast, as also any others who are able” (Didache 7:1 [A.D. 70]).
>
>
>
In 2001, deemed that baptisms of the Church of Jesus Christ of the Latter-Day Saints were invalid, through a ***dubium*** posed by several American bishops.
>
> [**The Question of the Validity Conferred in the Church of Jesus Christ of the Latter-Saints**](https://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20010605_battesimo_mormoni-ladaria_en.html)
>
>
> The Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith has given a negative response to a ***"Dubium"*** regarding the validity of Baptism conferred in the **Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints**, more commonly known as the **Mormons**. Given that this decision changes the past practice of not questioning the validity of such Baptism, it seems appropriate to explain the reasons that have led to this decision and to the resulting change of practice.
>
>
> **Doctrinal errors usually do not invalidate baptism**
>
>
> This explanation becomes even more necessary if one considers that errors of a doctrinal nature have never been considered sufficient to question the validity of the sacrament of Baptism. In fact, already in the middle of the third century Pope Stephen I, opposing the decisions of an African synod in 256 A.D., reaffirmed that the ancient practice of the imposition of hands as a sign of repentance should be maintained, but not the rebaptism of a heretic who enters the Catholic Church. In this way, the name of Christ attains great honour for faith and sanctification because whoever is baptized in the name of Christ, wherever that has taken place, has received the grace of Christ (cf. Denzinger-Hünermann [DH] 110-111). The same principle was upheld by the Synod of Arles in 314 (cf. DH 123). Well known also is the struggle of St Augustine against the Donatists. The Bishop of Hippo affirms that the validity of the sacrament depends neither on the personal sanctity of the minister nor on his belonging to the Church.
>
>
> **Right intention is the intention to do what the Church wants, what Christ wants**
>
>
> Even non-Catholics can validly administer Baptism. In every case, however, it is the Baptism of the Catholic Church, which does not belong to those who separate themselves from her but to the Church from which they have separated themselves (cf. Augustine, On Baptism 1, 12,9). This validity is possible because Christ is the true minister of the sacrament: Christ is the one who truly baptizes, whether it is Peter or Paul or Judas who baptizes (cf. Augustine, Treatise on the Gospel of John VI, 1,7; cf. CCC n. 1127). The Council of Trent, confirming this tradition, defined that Baptism administered by heretics in the name of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit, with the intention of doing what the Catholic Church does is true Baptism (cf. DH 1617).
>
>
> The validity of doubtful baptism is presumed especially in the case of marriage, as in the case of the Christians of Nagasaki
>
>
> The most recent documents of the Catholic Church maintain the same teaching. The Code of Canon Law prescribes that those who have been baptized in non-Catholic ecclesial communities (as long as there is no doubt regarding the matter or the form or the intention of the minister or of the person being baptized) should not be baptized again (cf. Code of Canon Law, can. 869 §2), Intrinsically connected to this problem is that of who can be the minister of Baptism in the Catholic Church. According to the Code, in cases of necessity anyone can baptize, provided the intention is correct (cf. can. 861 §2). The Code of Canon Law confirms the fundamental elements of Tridentine teaching and makes more explicit what is the required correct intention: "The intention required is to will to do what the Church does when she baptizes. The Church finds the reason for this possibility in the universal saving will of God and the necessity of Baptism for salvation" (CCC, n. 1256. Evidently, the necessity of Baptism spoken of here is not to be understood in an absolute sense; cf. ibid., nn. 1257-1261). Precisely because of the necessity of Baptism for salvation the Catholic Church has had the tendency of broadly recognizing this right intention in the conferring of this sacrament, even in the case of a false understanding of Trinitarian faith, as for example in the case of the Arians.
>
>
> Taking into account this deeply-rooted practice of the Church, applied without any doubt as to the multiplicity of non-Catholic Christian communities emerging from the so-called Reform of the 16th century, it is easily understood that when there appeared in the United States the religious movement of Joseph Smith around 1830, in which the matter and the words of the form of Baptism were correctly utilized, this Baptism was considered valid, analogously to the Baptism of so many other non-Catholic ecclesial communities. Joseph Smith and Oliver Cowdery, according to their teaching, received the priesthood of Aaron in 1829. Given the circumstances of the Church in the United States in the 19th century and the means of social communication at that time, even though the new religious movement gained a considerable number of followers, the knowledge that ecclesiastical authorities could have had of the doctrinal errors that were professed in this new group was necessarily very limited throughout the entire century. For the practical cases that emerged there was applied the response of the Holy Office of 9 September 1868 given for the Christian communities of Japan which had remained isolated and without priests from the time of the persecution at the beginning of the 17th century. According to this response: 1) those persons about whom there was doubt whether they were validly baptized should be considered Christians; 2) this Baptism should be considered valid with regard to the validity of marriage (Gasparri, Fontes, IV, n. 1007).
>
>
> **Current doubts about the validity of Mormon baptism**
>
>
> In the 20th century, the Catholic Church became more aware of the Trinitarian errors which the teaching proposed by Smith contained, though he used the traditional terms, and therefore more and more doubts spread about the validity of the Baptism conferred by the Mormons, in spite of the fact that the form, as far as the substance of the terminology goes, coincided with that used by the Church. As a result, almost imperceptibly there developed difference of practice, insofar as those who had a certain personal knowledge of the teaching of the Mormons considered their Baptism invalid, while the common practice continued of applying the traditional principle of the presumption in favour of the validity of such Baptism, since there was no official norm in this regard. In recent years, as a result of a request from the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, the Bishops' Conference of the United States undertook a detailed study of this delicate issue with the hope of coming to a definitive conclusion. On its part the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith undertook a new examination of the material that came from the United States and thus was able to resolve the proposed question.
>
>
> What are the reasons which now led to this negative position regarding the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, which seems different from the position of the Catholic Church throughout the centuries?
>
>
> ***Huge divergence on Trinity and baptism invalidates the intention of the Mormon minister of baptism and of the one to be baptized.***
>
>
> According to the traditional doctrine of the Catholic Church there are four requirements for the valid administration of the sacrament of Baptism: the matter, the form, the intention of the minister, and the right disposition of the recipient. Let us examine briefly each of these four elements in the teaching and practice of the Mormons.
>
>
> I. The Matter. On this point there is no problem. Water is used. The Mormons practice Baptism by immersion (cf. Doctrine and Covenants [D&C] 20:74), which is one of the ways of celebrating Baptism (application of the matter) which is accepted by the Catholic Church.
>
>
> II. The Form. We have seen that in the texts of the Magisterium on Baptism there is a reference to the invocation of the Trinity (to the sources already mentioned, the Fourth Lateran Council could be added here [DH 8021). The formula used by the Mormons might seem at first sight to be a Trinitarian formula. The text states: "Being commissioned by Jesus Christ, I baptize you in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit" (cf. D&C 20:73). The similarities with the formula used by the Catholic Church are at first sight obvious, but in reality they are only apparent. There is not in fact a fundamental doctrinal agreement. There is not a true invocation of the Trinity because the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit, according to the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, are not the three persons in which subsists the one Godhead, but three gods who form one divinity. One is different from the other, even though they exist in perfect harmony (Joseph F. Smith, ed., Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith [TPJSI, Salt Lake City: Desert Book, 1976, p. 372). The very word divinity has only a functional, not a substantial content, because the divinity originates when the three gods decided to unite and form the divinity to bring about human salvation (Encyclopaedia of Mormonism [EM], New York: Macmillan, 1992, cf. Vol. 2, p. 552). This divinity and man share the same nature and they are substantially equal. God the Father is an exalted man, native of another planet, who has acquired his divine status through a death similar to that of human beings, the necessary way to divinization (cf. TPJS, pp. 345-346). God the Father has relatives and this is explained by the doctrine of infinite regression of the gods who initially were mortal (cf. TPJS, p. 373). God the Father has a wife, the Heavenly Mother, with whom he shares the responsibility of creation. They procreate sons in the spiritual world. Their firstborn is Jesus Christ, equal to all men, who has acquired his divinity in a pre-mortal existence. Even the Holy Spirit is the son of heavenly parents. The Son and the Holy Spirit were procreated after the beginning of the creation of the world known to us (cf. EM, Vol. 2, p. 961). Four gods are directly responsible for the universe, three of whom have established a covenant and thus form the divinity.
>
>
> As is easily seen, to the similarity of titles there does not correspond in any way a doctrinal content which can lead to the Christian doctrine of the Trinity. The words Father, Son and Holy Spirit, have for the Mormons a meaning totally different from the Christian meaning. The differences are so great that one cannot even consider that this doctrine is a heresy which emerged out of a false understanding of the Christian doctrine. The teaching of the Mormons has a completely different matrix. We do not find ourselves, therefore, before the case of the validity of Baptism administered by heretics, affirmed already from the first Christian centuries, nor of Baptism conferred in non-Catholic ecclesial communities, as noted in Canon 869 §2.
>
>
> III. The Intention of the Celebrating Minister. Such doctrinal diversity, regarding the very notion of God, prevents the minister of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints from having the intention of doing what the Catholic Church does when she confers Baptism, that is, doing what Christ willed her to do when he instituted and mandated the sacrament of Baptism. This becomes even more evident when we consider that in their understanding Baptism was not instituted by Christ but by God and began with Adam (cf. Book of Moses 6:64). Christ simply commanded the practice of this rite; but this was not an innovation. It is clear that the intention of the Church in conferring Baptism is certainly to follow the mandate of Christ (cf. Mt 28,19) but at the same time to confer the sacrament that Christ had instituted. According to the New Testament, there is an essential difference between the Baptism of John and Christian Baptism. The Baptism of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, which originated not in Christ but already at the beginning of creation (James E. Talmage, Articles of Faith [AF], Salt Lake City: Desert Book, 1990, cf. pp. 110-111), is not Christian Baptism; indeed, it denies its newness. The Mormon minister, who must necessarily be the "priest" (cf. D&C 20:38-58.107:13.14.20), therefore radically formed in their own doctrine, cannot have any other intention than that of doing what the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints does, which is quite different in respect to what the Catholic Church intends to do when it baptizes, that is, the conferral of the sacrament of Baptism instituted by Christ, which means participation in his death and resurrection (cf. Rom 6,3-11; Col 2,12-13).
>
>
> We can note two other differences, not as fundamental as the preceding one, but which also have their importance:
>
>
> A) According to the Catholic Church, Baptism cancels not only personal sins but also original sin, and therefore even infants are baptized for the remission of sins (cf. the essential texts of the Council of Trent, DH 1513-1515). This remission of original sin is not accepted by the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, which denies the existence of this sin and therefore baptizes only persons who have the use of reason and are at least eight years old, excluding the mentally handicapped (cf. AF, pp. 113-116). In fact, the practice of the Catholic Church in conferring Baptism on infants is one of the main reasons for which the Mormons say that the Catholic Church apostatized in the first centuries, so that the sacraments celebrated by it are all invalid.
>
>
> B) If a believer baptized in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, after renouncing his or her faith or having been excommunicated, wants to return, he or she must be rebaptized (cf. AF, pp. 129-131).
>
>
> Even in regard to these last elements it is clear that the Baptism of Mormons cannot be considered valid; since it is not Christian Baptism, the minister cannot have the intention of doing what the Catholic does.
>
>
> IV. The Disposition of the Recipient. The person to be baptized, who already has the use of reason, has been instructed according to the very strict norms of the teaching and faith of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. It must be maintained therefore that one cannot think that the Baptism received by that person is anything different from what he was taught. It does not seem possible that the person would have the same disposition that the Catholic Church requires for the Baptism of adults.
>
>
> Difference of views: Mormons hold that there is no real Trinity, no original sin, that Christ did not institute baptism.
>
>
> Summing up, we can say: The Baptism of the Catholic Church and that of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints differ essentially, both for what concerns faith in the Father, Son and Holy Spirit, in whose name Baptism is conferred, and for what concerns the relationship to Christ who instituted it. As a result of all this, it is understood that the Catholic Church has to consider invalid, that is to say, cannot consider true Baptism, the rite given that name by the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.
>
>
> It is equally necessary to underline that the decision of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith is a response to a particular question regarding the Baptism of Mormons and obviously does not indicate a judgment on those who are members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Furthermore, Catholics and Mormons often find themselves working together on a range of problems regarding the common good of the entire human race. It can be hoped therefore that through further studies, dialogue and good will, there can be progress in reciprocal understanding and mutual respect.
>
>
> |
24,217 | If there is no clear definition stemming from the Bible of what makes one a Christian, how does mainstream Christianity justify labeling groups like the Mormons and Jehovah Witnesses as Non Christians?
Members from both groups seem to take a more active role in spreading Christ's message of salvation than do the most rooted mainstream Christian church members, based off of their missionary efforts even though some of their doctrines do not conform to the norms as held by most Christians. There is evidence enough to come to their doctrinal conclusions, even if we disagree with them.
So is non normative theology enough for mainstream Christianity to label others as non-Christian? | 2013/12/29 | [
"https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/24217",
"https://christianity.stackexchange.com",
"https://christianity.stackexchange.com/users/9200/"
] | Before we start to answer this, a little history is needed. Both the Latter-Day Saints and Jehovah's Witnesses are *Restorationist* churches. That means that they were founded on the belief that all the other churches in the world had ceased to hold to the whole correct Christian doctrine, and that a direct revelation from God to the founders caused them to start an entirely new church, and to separate themselves from the 'corrupt' churches that were then in existence (yes, 'corrupt' was the word they used at the time. I'm aware it has a technical meaning that isn't the same as 'dishonest', but it's not very polite even in its technical meaning, which is essentially of a church that has stopped following God). Today both will attempt to convert members of other denominations to their own faith, and insist that people baptized in other Christian denominations are rebaptized to become members of their sects. Cooperation of any kind between Mormons and mainstream churches is extremely rare (compared with cooperation between other denominations), and the non-mainstream sects are at least as assiduous in rejecting it as the mainstream churches.
So in short, both Mormons and JWs stated for themselves that they are a completely different faith from the mainstream church, and continue to act in that way towards others.
Mormons hold to an additional revelation and additional scriptures, belief in which they consider essential to their own faith, and which are not accepted by other churches and in many cases contradict the tenets of other churches. JWs use a unique Bible translation which they hold to be authoritative and which disagrees in many places with all other translations. Both hold to unique doctrines, particularly about the person of Jesus, which differ fundamentally from what mainstream churches believe and which they consider to be a non-negotiable part of their faith.
Given this, it is perhaps unsurprising that mainstream churches find it hard to accept churches which do not accept them as valid Christians. However this is by no means a fixed rule. Some denominations do accept Mormons and JWs as a valid form of Christianity. | **Mainstream Christian groups limit the term 'Christian' to those who believe Jesus is *the Christ* and agree with them about what that means.** The term 'Christian' isn't used for anyone who simply likes Jesus or believes he was special in some way. We can see this because Islam teaches that Jesus was a prophet, but Muslims aren't called 'Christian'! Similarly an atheist who thought Jesus was a good teacher wouldn't be called a Christian. Clearly it's more than just thinking highly of Jesus.
At the barest minimum, the term 'Christian' is used for people who believe that *Jesus is the Christ*, the Greek word for the Hebrew concept of the *Messiah*. The Messiah is a character prophesied about in the Old Testament, though there is much debate in and outside of Christianity as to what exactly it means to be the Messiah. Both mainstream Christian and restorationist groups such as the Mormons and Jehovah's Witnesses agree this far; they disagree, and limit how the term is used, because of what they believe the Messiah means.
What you call 'mainstream Christianity' is Trinitarian Christianity: they believe that the Messiah is God himself, who came incarnate to the earth. They call the other groups non-Christian because they believe the Jesus they proclaim actually has a very different identity. To Trinitarians saying that Jesus is a created being, is a 'mode' of God, or that he only became divine at his baptism is just as wrong as saying that God doesn't exist and Jesus was nothing more than a human teacher.
Trinitarian Christians believe their views are supported by the historical creeds, such as the Apostles' and Nicene creeds. When those creeds were first constructed there were many who disagreed with them, but by the time the first restorationist groups were founded the creeds were accepted by almost everyone; before the restorationist groups were founded 'Christian' and 'Trinitarian' were effectively synonymous.
Lastly, note that sometimes a group likes to reserve the label 'Christian' only for those who hold very similar beliefs to their own. You will find many protestants who will call the Roman Catholic Church a non-Christian organisation. They refuse to call the other side 'Christian' because they believe they have distorted the gospel or replaced it with a completely different gospel. |
24,217 | If there is no clear definition stemming from the Bible of what makes one a Christian, how does mainstream Christianity justify labeling groups like the Mormons and Jehovah Witnesses as Non Christians?
Members from both groups seem to take a more active role in spreading Christ's message of salvation than do the most rooted mainstream Christian church members, based off of their missionary efforts even though some of their doctrines do not conform to the norms as held by most Christians. There is evidence enough to come to their doctrinal conclusions, even if we disagree with them.
So is non normative theology enough for mainstream Christianity to label others as non-Christian? | 2013/12/29 | [
"https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/24217",
"https://christianity.stackexchange.com",
"https://christianity.stackexchange.com/users/9200/"
] | This is most definitely not the only reason that Jehovah's Witnesses and Mormons are often viewed as "non-Christian" but it is a major one. @metal had the right idea but it wouldn't let me comment on his post, so I am writing another answer instead. What some refer to as "Mainstream Christians" or "Mainstream Christianity" are usually inclusive of Catholic, Orthodox, Protestant, and Reformationist sects of Christianity (such as Baptist, Evangelical, Lutheran, Episcopalian, and others). These sects of Christianity are all tied together in their belief in the Ecumenical Christian Creeds, sometimes earning them the title "Creedal Christians". Restorationist Churches, such as the Jehovah's Witness and The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints do not believe in these Creeds and since the creeds are such an integral part of the doctrinal tenets of "Mainstream Christianity", they are rejected as "Christians". Again, it is not the only reason, as everybody seems to have their own beliefs concerning the beliefs of these two churches, for good or bad (evidenced by the number of posts and comments of varying levels of contention and condemnation on this page). From a core doctrinal standpoint, however, the difference of belief in the Ecuminical Creeds is a very large point of conflict in their trying to claim their place within "Mainstream Christianity".
As a side note: I am a member of the LDS Church. | I'm new here but for more than 45 yrs I have done extensive research on the Bible and related matters.
**I. MAINSTREAM BASIS AGAINST LDS & JWs**
-----------------------------------------
Mainstream churches generally [very general usage here] believe that they are Bible based. The major reasons given are:
1. a. Most Mainstream churches believe in 1 God with 3 co-equal "heads".
b. LDS believes there are many Gods.
c. JWs believe that God & Jesus are separate Gods.
2. a. Most Mainstream churches beleves all believers go to Heaven.
b. LDS believes believers become Gods & some get their own planets.
c. JWs think only 144,000 go to Heaven, the rest stay on earth.
3. a. Most Mainstream churches believes Jesus is the Son of God.
b. LDS believes Satan is Jesus' brother.
c. JWs believe Jesus is a created being & is now Archangel Michael.
4. a. Most Mainstream churches hold that the Bible is from God (although some add the Apocrypha &/or oral traditions).
b. LDS's main book is the Book of Mormon along with other extra-biblical books.
c. JWs have their own Bible, the New World Translation in which verses have been altered or stressed to support their own beliefs.
5. a. Many Mainstream churches hold that Jesus is the only mediator between man and God.
b. LDS believes that Joseph Smith is a modern day "prophet" who restored the "church" back to its proper place with **the** truth restored.
c. JWs have their "Watchtower" Society \*\*Governing Body" providing their scriptural interpretation. They made several wrong prophecies in the 20th century, which they explain away in one way or another.
6. a. The Catholic church (& some related churches) holds that other books and traditions are just as important or even more important to their worship, such as the Apocrypha or lost books and doctrines (i.e. Popes, Infallibility on the throne, Catechism, Assumption of Mary, Immaculate Conception, Veneration of Saints, Rosary, Creeds, etc.) that are beyond the reach of the 66 legitimate Bible books.
b. LDS beleifs also include books that go beyond the reach of the genuine 66 Bible books. Many of their beliefs have dependancy on the Book of Mormon, Pearls of Great Price and Documents & Covenants, in which it is claimed that gold plates were found in upstate New York, Jesus came to America, Adam & Eve and the Garden of Eden were in Missouri, etc.
c. JW's have their own Bible in which at least some verses have been altered to support their beliefs. A good deal of their beliefs are dependant on what is written in their Watchtower magazine.
**II. REAL BASIS AGAINST LDS & JWs**
------------------------------------
Actually, the **"basis"** for what is non Christian is clearly defined in the Bible. The problem is it takes a lot of work to find and lay out a proper, well-defined basis for determining what is and is not rightly Bible based. While many "mainstream" [general broad use here] have determined that neither Mormons (LDS) nor Jehovah Witnesses (JWs) are Christian, a number of them lack true understanding even of their own misinterpretation(s) of what is real Christian teaching (i.e. Trinity Doctrine error -See below under Comment 2).
I believe that to fully answer the posed question requires one to establish a basic set of facts, the Bible foudation & purpose and common sense rules for reasoning out what should be accepted as the truth. Our approach, coming from our human condition, experience from surrounding environmental events and our actions/reactions (cause & effect), our human imperfections (seen and unseen), etc., may make all the difference for drawing a "right" conclusion or failure thereof (we may have to set aside some preconceived ideas, notions, prejudices and/or assumptions). The following might help point us in the right direction:
Since the Bible is the primary reason and basis for Christianity's existence I believe we ought to turn to the Bible to see what it says:
### **1.** BIBLE PROOF
Most important: Is the Bible true?
>
> **(ESV) Prov. 30:5 Every word of God proves true**; he is a shield to those who take refuge in him.
>
>
> **6 Do not add to his words**, lest he rebuke you and **you be found a liar.**
>
>
>
(most Christian [broad label usage here] and several other religions have stated (or implied) their claims/beliefs are based on, come from the Bible and/or they are associated with the Bible and/or the Bible can be used along with their beliefs/claims and practices but are they wrong? We need to go to the Bible to determine what is true.)
### **2.** JESUS, THE SON of GOD?
The second most important question is: Is Jesus the Son of God or not? Jesus' statement:
>
> **John 14:6** Jesus said to him, “I am **the way**, and **the truth**, and **the life**. No one comes to the Father **except through me** (see Acts 4:12; Jn 5:39).
>
>
>
Either this statement is true or there is no God (He either knows all or He can't be God). In this statement Jesus is making it quite clear that He is much more than just another great teacher. Since Jesus made this statement I thought it is more important to first find out if what He said is true rather than trying to sift through piles of information, books and statements made about Jesus and the Bible.
### **3.** FALSE TEACHERS & PROPHETS
The Bible mentions false prophets (to be a false prophet you must also be a false teacher).
>
> **Acts 13:6** When they had gone through the whole island as far as Paphos, they came upon a certain magician, a Jewish **false prophet** named Bar-Jesus.
>
>
> **2 Peter 2:1** But **false prophets** also arose among the people, just as there will be **false teachers** among you, who will secretly bring in destructive heresies, even denying the Master who bought them, bringing upon themselves swift destruction.
>
>
> **Gal 1:8 But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach to you a gospel contrary to the one we preached to you, let him be accursed.**
>
>
>
### **4.** JUDGMENT
A proper approach for establishing which is which requires one to find right teaching starting from no. 1 above and also by process of elimination to expose wrong Bible teaching as we find them (if we intend not to be mislead - false teaching has great consequences).
>
> **John 7:24 Do not judge by appearances, but judge with right judgment.”**
>
>
>
Many believe the Bible says don't judge at all but when carefully read you will find the Bible message actually warns against making wrong or false judgments. Every time you go to cross a street you must judge where and when to cross. All day long we make many judgments as to what we should do.
### **5.** DO NOT ADD OR OMIT THINGS
I found that many do not carefully read what is actually written in the Bible. For instance, many missed the fact that plants were created before the sun and stars. The reason is explained in other Bible text. For every claim made the whole Bible must be taken into context.
>
> **1 Cor 4:6** I have applied all these things to myself and Apollos for your benefit, brothers, **that you may learn by us not to go beyond what is written**, that none of you may be puffed up in favor of one against another.
>
>
> **Gal 3:15** To give a human example, brothers: even with a man-made covenant, **no one annuls it or adds to it once it has been ratified.**
>
>
> **Deut 4:2 You shall not add to the word** that I command you, **nor take from it**, that you may keep the commandments of the Lord your God that I command you.
>
>
>
### **6.** MAN'S WAYS & IDEAS
I also observed that many make the mistake of believing what others claim is true especially if they have a position perceived as having authority to make such claims.
>
> **Jer 10:23** I know, O Lord, that **the way of man is not in himself, that it is not in man who walks to direct his steps**.;
>
>
> **Prov 14:12** There is a way that **SEEMS** right to a man, but its end is the way to death.;
>
>
> **Hosea 4:6 My people are destroyed for lack of knowledge**; because you have rejected knowledge, I reject you from being a priest to me. And since you have forgotten the law of your God, I also will forget your children.;
>
>
> **Micah 7:5** Put no trust in a neighbor; have no confidence in a friend; guard the doors of your mouth from her who lies in your arms;
>
>
> **Matt 7:21 “Not everyone** who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but the one who does the will of my Father who is in heaven.
>
>
> **22** On that day many will say to me, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and cast out demons in your name, and do many mighty works in your name?’
>
>
> **23** And then will I declare to them, **‘I never knew you; depart from me**, you workers of lawlessness.’
>
>
>
There is a number of other factors, etc. to add to the above but it would take many pages to go into exhaustive detail. I could have spent all my spare time studying all religions to the last detail but filling my head with volumes of useless information, I most likely would never have found out who our God actually is nor who His Son is. There is a verse (I can't remember where it is) that states something like: They gather much knowledge but they'll never find the truth.
Back to the original question: Mormons, JWs and other saw that there was to be a reformation but misunderstood that it was not the New Testament that was at fault (nor the Old Testament either). Mormons, JWs and others did not understand we cannot make up a new "covenant" and that God should honor it. They did not understand that the NT covenant is the final and eternal covenant, superseding all other covenants. Jesus is perfect and so is His new covenant, needing no changes - Both God and Jesus never change. God deliberately set up the old covenant with one major flaw, one that only sending His Son to earth could remedy.
While many "mainstream" churches can readily see the more blatant reasons, "a basis" for why something is wrong with the beliefs of Mormons and Jehovah Witnesses, many do not have a full understanding of why they and others have been and are wrong in many of their beliefs. Perhaps this is a subject for another discussion.
If any claimed "Christian" (again broad usage here) is coloring outside the Bible text and its parameters they are acting outside God's and Jesus' definition and instructions for how to be a genuine Christian in Their eyes. The Bible is all about right and wrong. The wise will keep making it their goal to better comply with its instruction while others will keep looking for justification for whatever suits them, what tickles their ear.
**-Edits:**
-----------
(For comments - Thanks Caleb -I hope this is OK. I added answers because I have a lot to say and some sites do not give one a lot of space to write, more being allowed in an answer.)
Being new here, I can't post a comment so I'm posting more answers (in addition to my original answer) with regard to comments (disreqard -adding it to my original answer).
### **@ Nelson (1st comment):**
I'm not new to LDS beliefs (also, I have even been to the Salt Lake City temple). Before you read my comments please take the time to carefully reread my previous list of Bible references.
Actually, most "standard" Bibles (some are better at doing it) have been mostly properly translated (for the most part, most discrepancies are relatively minor to very minor). Once you become somewhat familiar with the Bible you can compare verses from other versions. However, God is smarter than us and knew some would try to twist the meaning and/or the word itself so He protected His word. He used an unchangeable system (in redundancy) that forever binds the OT&NT truth that never changes.
Other than some mutilation of scripture text (which would make it too obvious that something was done to it at least to the wise), as long as properly translated Bible text exists to be compared to, the truth can't be obscured to those genuinely looking for it.
Whether Joseph Smith was well-meaning or not he added things that were never in the Bible (Jesus was never in America nor were Adam & Eve in Missouri). Any new "vision" must line up exactly with what was written in the Old & New Testament. It cannot vary even one degree. Apparently, Smith was unaware of this.
>
> **Jer 23:28** Let the prophet who has a dream tell the dream, but **let him who has my word speak my word faithfully**. What has straw in common with wheat? declares the Lord.
>
>
>
The fact that the Book of Mormon exists indicates to those who are wise and have even just a good knowledge of the Bible text that it does not conform to what is written in the Bible, that is it is non-Biblical by its very existence. There is no such thing as a God authorized "another testament" nor will there ever be.
**The truth is complete, fully contained within the Bible itself.** It is why we are warned and instructed to not go beyond what is already written in the Bible itself. Clearly, Smith proves by his writings, whether he intended to or not, that he went far beyond what he thought he perceived as misinterpretation of the Bible text.
The problem is that the more Smith got off in his own direction and misinterpretation the more he compounded the false claims he started with. Whereas, a true reformation would have come by starting with and staying with what was instructed in the Bible. In other words, misinterpretation was because of human error and by their relaxing their guard and/or becoming lazy instead of staying the course, making sure what they taught and did was securely in line with Biblical teaching.
It was not due to the Bible being wrongly translated or just being misinterpreted, which Smith did not understand. Just because you can confess with your lips that Jesus is our Redeemer it does not mean that your heart is not far away from the truth of who Jesus is nor how to follow Him (truly, from within your heart not by more of an outward or mechanical motion or what you think Jesus wants from you or wants you to do).
>
> **Isaiah 29:13** And the Lord said: “Because this people draw near with their mouth and honor me with their lips, while their hearts are far from me, and their fear of me is a commandment taught by men,
>
>
>
These verses also apply to **Isaiah 29:13**:
>
> **Matt 7:21** “Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but the one who does the will of my Father who is in heaven.
>
>
> **22** On that day many will say to me, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and cast out demons in your name, and do many mighty works in your name?’
>
>
> **23** And then will I declare to them, ‘**I never knew you; depart from me**, you workers of lawlessness.’
>
>
> **James 2:19** You believe that God is one; you do well. **Even the demons believe—and shudder!**
>
>
>
The point is that lots of people think that Jesus is the Son of God. It does not mean that they really know Him. Rather, they know of Him, that He probably existed or even that He did exist, not much else, especially on the proper personal level.
### **@ Nelson (2nd comment):**
III. **TRINITY DOCTRINE**
-------------------------
At this point I think its best to put forth the actual God, Jesus and the Holy Spirit's correct relationship as the Trinitarian concept is in fact incorrect as are other concepts concerning this matter. Perhaps we can then more easily see whats wrong with other beliefs. These things are hard to understand. The correct relationship is as follows:
Jesus is the Son of God, Lamb of God and King of kings=He has Deity as His Father has =we are to also worship Him but Jesus isn't His Father: The Trinity Doctrine (TD) is wrong (NOTE [for those told otherwise]: the word Bible doesn't affect interpretation-the TD does). Unfortunately, **people CONFUSE TRUTH (this offends many)/HATE.**
The TD claims there are 3 CO-EQUAL heads=1 God. However, if the 3 are not equal the TD does not and cannot apply - its null and void. Sadly, people use only a few verses and/or are not careful to read verses in whole Bible context. **1 Cor 4:6** =don't add or omit things from the Bible text:
The TD (as are other concepts) is a roadblock to true Bible interpretation (In part the Catholic church got the TD idea from Pagans. Others [ie. JWs, lds, islam, moonies and others] figured out the TD is in error but they did not know our true God, Son and Holy Spirit relationship)=they didn't know Jesus (as their claims indicate). They never rightly went to nor learned to trust and rightly follow Jesus. **Who knows more about a house, the Builder or people whom moved in later?**
### **1. JESUS:**
Jesus is God's Son [**His Word not God's Body** {Christ's Spiritual Body =believers in Him} **=John 1:1**], equals the pure essence of God [He was and is not an angel as JWs claim **-Heb 1:2-6**] neitehr when in flesh nor in Heaven. Jesus was not replacing nor was He ever equal to His Father (see **John 5:30; Phlp 2:6-7; Col 2:9**). Jesus (His Spirit existed with God from before the universe existed) is the closest we get to know infinite God in flesh (only a vessel =God's 1st creation part -something like being God's voice-box -not just some created being as LDS and JWs believe) to deliver eternal truth in person **-John 14:7** (stoops to our level so to speak).
Born of human woman (for His earthly mission), Jesus is a separate person-entity (He has His own soul [what makes a person an individual] and given a human body -and **Mary ISN'T God's mother**) but God gave Jesus authority to be treated as His Father (conceived of God's Holy Spirit **=fullness of DEITY** [He deserves worship **-Matt 14:33; 28:9**] **-SIR-NAME God** =Jesus' birthright, reward as God's Son and to sit at God's right hand). In conception, God and Mary gave part of each to Jesus' life.
To rightly know Jesus starts at **John 1:1**. W/o a language God couldn't reason, know His thoughts, create a universe, life nor talk to others. So Jn 1:1 names Jesus as God's language. Created in God's image, man has the same limits. Despite how primitive most organisms need language to function and live with others.
Your language (always part of you) can't usurp your authority, act on its own and never tells you what to do. Therefore, Jesus' claims are true **(Jn 5:19,30; 8:28)** -a student is never greater than his teacher. Your words pass understanding of you to your son. If your son learns all you teach him, he in effect becomes like/is you for all intents and purposes. For obeying you, you can reward him the highest position, your authority.
A father owns a business and teaches his son to run his business. He goes away and puts his son in charge, trusting he'll run it just as he would. If the son obeys and runs the business as the father did, in effect he's his father and can claim to be his father =like father, like son -while exactly like his father he's never equal to him even thoegh he has his father's authority. The same is true for God and His Son, whom fully did God's will not His own so His Father gave Him right to also be worshiped:
>
> **Rom 5:19** Adam's sin made many sinners but **by Jesus' obedience** many are to be righteous.
>
>
>
**REF: Jn 12:49; 14:28-29; Lk 6:40; Col 1:15** -Jesus is in God's image by rightly obeying God; **Heb 5:7-8; Lk 2:52 -Mk 13:32; 20:23; Phil 2:6; Jn 17; 15:1 =God NEVER BECAME His Son.**
### **2. GOD:**
Only one GOD can occupy infinity **=God of Israel =no other legit gods exist (HE CAN'T DIE EVER and doesn't fit into an earthly body).** God has ULTIMATE AUTHORITY Jesus and the Holy Spirit do not have. Only God knows the day and hour for the end **-Mt 24:36** and appoints who sits with Him. God has a soul like us (makes Him an individual -ie. a cell nucleus only Spiritual). All 3 are 1 in Spirit [of God] but **Jesus and the Holy Spirit submit fully to God.** Being 1 doesn't apply to difference in authority =the TD does not apply.
As long as 1 true full 360 degrees (in all directions) infinity exists (which the Bible proves it exists) two or more full infinities cannot exist nor can two Gods occupy the same infinity. Only a Spirit can occupy true full infinity. Everything having physical properties is measurable. Infinity cannot be measured.
### **3. the HOLY SPIRIT:**
The Holy Spirit is God's "Spiritual body" (God is Spirit -to be 100% pure the Holy Spirit **[no form] MUST** occupy true infinity (360 deg. in all directions) =no flaws, =always existed -you can move over or make a space within Yourself to create a univeerse separate from yourself and create borders & rules where you want them). The Holy Spirit acts on God's command:
>
> **Jn 16:13** When the Spirit of truth comes, he will guide you into all the truth, for **he will not speak on his own authority**, but whatever **he hears** he will speak, and he will declare to you the things that are to come.
>
>
>
God's body, voice & ears act on God's will -same for our body). The Holy Spirit can be called "He" **(generic)** as you can be called he(even if your ID is known). The Holy Spirit is more than deliverer of God's power, works and the word through Jesus **(Jn 1:1-5; 4:23).** Only the eternal truth, forever unchanged keeps God perfect **=SEAMLESS** Garment.
The point is many religious people started off with wrong beliefs, trusted in misinterpretations told to them along the way. Some started religions, often never double or triple checking what they thought was true or they allowed their desires and agendas or other influences to rule their decisions, some intentionally. Many well-meaning people were taken in along the way. Over many centuries many followed suit. Many zeroed in on few wrong things and made the mistake of not making the Bible an every day guide for correction of things overlooked by those around them. Will we do the same or will we check everything even if we thought some things were right up to now?
Many a religious organization will continue down wrong paths no matter what is told or shown to them. Some stay their course and perhaps patch a few things or even claim they have received new light or revelations but the wise will find the real path to Jesus. The point is the truth is complete within the Bible. Anything extra-Biblical regarding changing God's and Jesus' actual Biblical teaching is wrong by its very existence.
### **@ Nelson (3rd comment):**
Again, because the Trinity Doctrine is wrong, it does not follow nor justify one making a whole new or different non-Biblical concept nor does it make them legitimate. Unfortunately for LDS, there are so many things that they believe and do that have nothing to do with actual Bible concepts, it makes LDS, in its entirety, false and fully beyond actual Biblical teaching.
The only way out of such a mess requires that those who want to follow our real God and Jesus get out of false religion and seek our real Jesus with all their heart and soul. Sadly, many will never do that, deciding not to step out of what has become a security and comfort zone for them (false though it is).
**Jesus said, "Do not judge by appearances but judge with right judgment." (Jn 7:24).** He did not say not to judge at all. The real Bible message is: Don't judge for wrong reasons nor judge to make yourself look better than another or for the purpose of lording it over others or for the sake of judging. There are those who will not make judgments simply because they do not want to upset the apple cart or buck the "status quo" but the wise want to learn the true purpose for what Jesus taught.
### **@ Daniel (4th comment):**
Because someone's beliefs and claims are in part or in whole wrong does not mean they cannot see "holes" in another's beliefs or claims (and yes sometimes they may have their judgment wrong in whole or in part). It would be better if they would carefully examine their own beliefs to weed out what they got wrong from various sources but many won't. If one is wise, they won't allow themselves to get caught up in wrong teaching as they do not want to be mislead. Sadly, both the LDS and the JWs (and others) got so far away from what the Bible actually says I doubt that either would be willing to dump their entire teaching and start over. The same goes for many mainstream churches. Thanks for looking that verse up for me. |
24,217 | If there is no clear definition stemming from the Bible of what makes one a Christian, how does mainstream Christianity justify labeling groups like the Mormons and Jehovah Witnesses as Non Christians?
Members from both groups seem to take a more active role in spreading Christ's message of salvation than do the most rooted mainstream Christian church members, based off of their missionary efforts even though some of their doctrines do not conform to the norms as held by most Christians. There is evidence enough to come to their doctrinal conclusions, even if we disagree with them.
So is non normative theology enough for mainstream Christianity to label others as non-Christian? | 2013/12/29 | [
"https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/24217",
"https://christianity.stackexchange.com",
"https://christianity.stackexchange.com/users/9200/"
] | **What is the basis that many mainstream Christian groups justify labeling groups like the Mormons and Jehovah’s Witnesses as Non Christians?**
As far as Catholicism is concerned and possible some other denominations may be concerned neither the Mormons and Jehovah’s Witnesses is because the Church has declared their baptisms [invalid](https://www.dosp.org/wp-content/uploads/9_3.-Valid-and-Invalid-Baptisms.pdf) and they do not believe in the Trinity as most mainstream Christian Churches understand this terminology.
Baptism makes us members of the Church! It is also [**the one sacrament that all true Christian denominations share in common**](https://www.dummies.com/religion/christianity/catholicism/the-catholic-sacrament-of-baptism/): Catholics, Orthodox, Anglicans, Lutherans, and so on.
>
> 1213 Holy Baptism is the basis of the whole Christian life, the gateway to life in the Spirit (vitae spiritualis ianua),4 and the door which gives access to the other sacraments. Through Baptism we are freed from sin and reborn as sons of God; we become members of Christ, are incorporated into the Church and made sharers in her mission: "Baptism is the sacrament of regeneration through water in the word." - [Catechism of the Catholic Church](http://www.scborromeo.org/ccc/p2s2c1a1.htm)
>
>
>
In the eyes of the Catholic Church, any Baptism that uses water and the invocation of the Holy Trinity, as in **“I baptize you in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit,”** is a valid sacrament. So if a follower of a Christian church that performs Baptism to these standards wants to become Catholic, he doesn’t have to be re-baptized. Also, the minister must intend to do what the Church does when baptizing.
Converts from the Mormon Church or from the Jehovah’s Witnesses **must be rebaptized** when entering into communion with the Catholic Church.
>
> [**What the Early Church Believed: Trinitarian Baptism**](https://www.catholic.com/tract/trinitarian-baptism)
>
>
> For a sacrament to be valid, three things have to be present: the correct form, the correct matter, and the correct intention. With baptism, the correct intention is to do what the Church does, the correct matter is water, and the correct form is the baptizing “in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit” (Matt. 28:19).
>
>
> Unfortunately, not all religious organizations use this form. In fact, Jehovah’s Witnesses sometimes use no formula at all in their baptisms, and an even larger group, the “Jesus Only” Pentecostals, baptize “in the name of Jesus.” As a result, the baptisms of these groups are invalid; thus, they are not Christian, but pseudo-Christian.
>
>
> Both groups also reject the Trinity. Jehovah’s Witnesses claim that Jesus is not God, a heresy known as Arianism (after its fourth-century founder), and the “Jesus Only” Pentecostals claim that there is only a single person, Jesus, in the Godhead, a heresy known as Sabellianism (after its inventor in the third century; see the Catholic Answers tract, God in Three Persons).
>
>
> The early Church Fathers, of course, agreed. As the following quotes illustrate, Christians have from the beginning recognized that the correct form of baptism requires one to baptize “in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit.”
>
>
> **The Didache**
>
>
> “After the foregoing instructions, baptize in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, in living [running] water. If you have no living water, then baptize in other water, and if you are not able in cold, then in warm. If you have neither, pour water three times on the head, in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit. Before baptism, let the one baptizing and the one to be baptized fast, as also any others who are able” (Didache 7:1 [A.D. 70]).
>
>
>
In 2001, deemed that baptisms of the Church of Jesus Christ of the Latter-Day Saints were invalid, through a ***dubium*** posed by several American bishops.
>
> [**The Question of the Validity Conferred in the Church of Jesus Christ of the Latter-Saints**](https://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20010605_battesimo_mormoni-ladaria_en.html)
>
>
> The Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith has given a negative response to a ***"Dubium"*** regarding the validity of Baptism conferred in the **Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints**, more commonly known as the **Mormons**. Given that this decision changes the past practice of not questioning the validity of such Baptism, it seems appropriate to explain the reasons that have led to this decision and to the resulting change of practice.
>
>
> **Doctrinal errors usually do not invalidate baptism**
>
>
> This explanation becomes even more necessary if one considers that errors of a doctrinal nature have never been considered sufficient to question the validity of the sacrament of Baptism. In fact, already in the middle of the third century Pope Stephen I, opposing the decisions of an African synod in 256 A.D., reaffirmed that the ancient practice of the imposition of hands as a sign of repentance should be maintained, but not the rebaptism of a heretic who enters the Catholic Church. In this way, the name of Christ attains great honour for faith and sanctification because whoever is baptized in the name of Christ, wherever that has taken place, has received the grace of Christ (cf. Denzinger-Hünermann [DH] 110-111). The same principle was upheld by the Synod of Arles in 314 (cf. DH 123). Well known also is the struggle of St Augustine against the Donatists. The Bishop of Hippo affirms that the validity of the sacrament depends neither on the personal sanctity of the minister nor on his belonging to the Church.
>
>
> **Right intention is the intention to do what the Church wants, what Christ wants**
>
>
> Even non-Catholics can validly administer Baptism. In every case, however, it is the Baptism of the Catholic Church, which does not belong to those who separate themselves from her but to the Church from which they have separated themselves (cf. Augustine, On Baptism 1, 12,9). This validity is possible because Christ is the true minister of the sacrament: Christ is the one who truly baptizes, whether it is Peter or Paul or Judas who baptizes (cf. Augustine, Treatise on the Gospel of John VI, 1,7; cf. CCC n. 1127). The Council of Trent, confirming this tradition, defined that Baptism administered by heretics in the name of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit, with the intention of doing what the Catholic Church does is true Baptism (cf. DH 1617).
>
>
> The validity of doubtful baptism is presumed especially in the case of marriage, as in the case of the Christians of Nagasaki
>
>
> The most recent documents of the Catholic Church maintain the same teaching. The Code of Canon Law prescribes that those who have been baptized in non-Catholic ecclesial communities (as long as there is no doubt regarding the matter or the form or the intention of the minister or of the person being baptized) should not be baptized again (cf. Code of Canon Law, can. 869 §2), Intrinsically connected to this problem is that of who can be the minister of Baptism in the Catholic Church. According to the Code, in cases of necessity anyone can baptize, provided the intention is correct (cf. can. 861 §2). The Code of Canon Law confirms the fundamental elements of Tridentine teaching and makes more explicit what is the required correct intention: "The intention required is to will to do what the Church does when she baptizes. The Church finds the reason for this possibility in the universal saving will of God and the necessity of Baptism for salvation" (CCC, n. 1256. Evidently, the necessity of Baptism spoken of here is not to be understood in an absolute sense; cf. ibid., nn. 1257-1261). Precisely because of the necessity of Baptism for salvation the Catholic Church has had the tendency of broadly recognizing this right intention in the conferring of this sacrament, even in the case of a false understanding of Trinitarian faith, as for example in the case of the Arians.
>
>
> Taking into account this deeply-rooted practice of the Church, applied without any doubt as to the multiplicity of non-Catholic Christian communities emerging from the so-called Reform of the 16th century, it is easily understood that when there appeared in the United States the religious movement of Joseph Smith around 1830, in which the matter and the words of the form of Baptism were correctly utilized, this Baptism was considered valid, analogously to the Baptism of so many other non-Catholic ecclesial communities. Joseph Smith and Oliver Cowdery, according to their teaching, received the priesthood of Aaron in 1829. Given the circumstances of the Church in the United States in the 19th century and the means of social communication at that time, even though the new religious movement gained a considerable number of followers, the knowledge that ecclesiastical authorities could have had of the doctrinal errors that were professed in this new group was necessarily very limited throughout the entire century. For the practical cases that emerged there was applied the response of the Holy Office of 9 September 1868 given for the Christian communities of Japan which had remained isolated and without priests from the time of the persecution at the beginning of the 17th century. According to this response: 1) those persons about whom there was doubt whether they were validly baptized should be considered Christians; 2) this Baptism should be considered valid with regard to the validity of marriage (Gasparri, Fontes, IV, n. 1007).
>
>
> **Current doubts about the validity of Mormon baptism**
>
>
> In the 20th century, the Catholic Church became more aware of the Trinitarian errors which the teaching proposed by Smith contained, though he used the traditional terms, and therefore more and more doubts spread about the validity of the Baptism conferred by the Mormons, in spite of the fact that the form, as far as the substance of the terminology goes, coincided with that used by the Church. As a result, almost imperceptibly there developed difference of practice, insofar as those who had a certain personal knowledge of the teaching of the Mormons considered their Baptism invalid, while the common practice continued of applying the traditional principle of the presumption in favour of the validity of such Baptism, since there was no official norm in this regard. In recent years, as a result of a request from the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, the Bishops' Conference of the United States undertook a detailed study of this delicate issue with the hope of coming to a definitive conclusion. On its part the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith undertook a new examination of the material that came from the United States and thus was able to resolve the proposed question.
>
>
> What are the reasons which now led to this negative position regarding the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, which seems different from the position of the Catholic Church throughout the centuries?
>
>
> ***Huge divergence on Trinity and baptism invalidates the intention of the Mormon minister of baptism and of the one to be baptized.***
>
>
> According to the traditional doctrine of the Catholic Church there are four requirements for the valid administration of the sacrament of Baptism: the matter, the form, the intention of the minister, and the right disposition of the recipient. Let us examine briefly each of these four elements in the teaching and practice of the Mormons.
>
>
> I. The Matter. On this point there is no problem. Water is used. The Mormons practice Baptism by immersion (cf. Doctrine and Covenants [D&C] 20:74), which is one of the ways of celebrating Baptism (application of the matter) which is accepted by the Catholic Church.
>
>
> II. The Form. We have seen that in the texts of the Magisterium on Baptism there is a reference to the invocation of the Trinity (to the sources already mentioned, the Fourth Lateran Council could be added here [DH 8021). The formula used by the Mormons might seem at first sight to be a Trinitarian formula. The text states: "Being commissioned by Jesus Christ, I baptize you in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit" (cf. D&C 20:73). The similarities with the formula used by the Catholic Church are at first sight obvious, but in reality they are only apparent. There is not in fact a fundamental doctrinal agreement. There is not a true invocation of the Trinity because the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit, according to the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, are not the three persons in which subsists the one Godhead, but three gods who form one divinity. One is different from the other, even though they exist in perfect harmony (Joseph F. Smith, ed., Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith [TPJSI, Salt Lake City: Desert Book, 1976, p. 372). The very word divinity has only a functional, not a substantial content, because the divinity originates when the three gods decided to unite and form the divinity to bring about human salvation (Encyclopaedia of Mormonism [EM], New York: Macmillan, 1992, cf. Vol. 2, p. 552). This divinity and man share the same nature and they are substantially equal. God the Father is an exalted man, native of another planet, who has acquired his divine status through a death similar to that of human beings, the necessary way to divinization (cf. TPJS, pp. 345-346). God the Father has relatives and this is explained by the doctrine of infinite regression of the gods who initially were mortal (cf. TPJS, p. 373). God the Father has a wife, the Heavenly Mother, with whom he shares the responsibility of creation. They procreate sons in the spiritual world. Their firstborn is Jesus Christ, equal to all men, who has acquired his divinity in a pre-mortal existence. Even the Holy Spirit is the son of heavenly parents. The Son and the Holy Spirit were procreated after the beginning of the creation of the world known to us (cf. EM, Vol. 2, p. 961). Four gods are directly responsible for the universe, three of whom have established a covenant and thus form the divinity.
>
>
> As is easily seen, to the similarity of titles there does not correspond in any way a doctrinal content which can lead to the Christian doctrine of the Trinity. The words Father, Son and Holy Spirit, have for the Mormons a meaning totally different from the Christian meaning. The differences are so great that one cannot even consider that this doctrine is a heresy which emerged out of a false understanding of the Christian doctrine. The teaching of the Mormons has a completely different matrix. We do not find ourselves, therefore, before the case of the validity of Baptism administered by heretics, affirmed already from the first Christian centuries, nor of Baptism conferred in non-Catholic ecclesial communities, as noted in Canon 869 §2.
>
>
> III. The Intention of the Celebrating Minister. Such doctrinal diversity, regarding the very notion of God, prevents the minister of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints from having the intention of doing what the Catholic Church does when she confers Baptism, that is, doing what Christ willed her to do when he instituted and mandated the sacrament of Baptism. This becomes even more evident when we consider that in their understanding Baptism was not instituted by Christ but by God and began with Adam (cf. Book of Moses 6:64). Christ simply commanded the practice of this rite; but this was not an innovation. It is clear that the intention of the Church in conferring Baptism is certainly to follow the mandate of Christ (cf. Mt 28,19) but at the same time to confer the sacrament that Christ had instituted. According to the New Testament, there is an essential difference between the Baptism of John and Christian Baptism. The Baptism of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, which originated not in Christ but already at the beginning of creation (James E. Talmage, Articles of Faith [AF], Salt Lake City: Desert Book, 1990, cf. pp. 110-111), is not Christian Baptism; indeed, it denies its newness. The Mormon minister, who must necessarily be the "priest" (cf. D&C 20:38-58.107:13.14.20), therefore radically formed in their own doctrine, cannot have any other intention than that of doing what the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints does, which is quite different in respect to what the Catholic Church intends to do when it baptizes, that is, the conferral of the sacrament of Baptism instituted by Christ, which means participation in his death and resurrection (cf. Rom 6,3-11; Col 2,12-13).
>
>
> We can note two other differences, not as fundamental as the preceding one, but which also have their importance:
>
>
> A) According to the Catholic Church, Baptism cancels not only personal sins but also original sin, and therefore even infants are baptized for the remission of sins (cf. the essential texts of the Council of Trent, DH 1513-1515). This remission of original sin is not accepted by the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, which denies the existence of this sin and therefore baptizes only persons who have the use of reason and are at least eight years old, excluding the mentally handicapped (cf. AF, pp. 113-116). In fact, the practice of the Catholic Church in conferring Baptism on infants is one of the main reasons for which the Mormons say that the Catholic Church apostatized in the first centuries, so that the sacraments celebrated by it are all invalid.
>
>
> B) If a believer baptized in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, after renouncing his or her faith or having been excommunicated, wants to return, he or she must be rebaptized (cf. AF, pp. 129-131).
>
>
> Even in regard to these last elements it is clear that the Baptism of Mormons cannot be considered valid; since it is not Christian Baptism, the minister cannot have the intention of doing what the Catholic does.
>
>
> IV. The Disposition of the Recipient. The person to be baptized, who already has the use of reason, has been instructed according to the very strict norms of the teaching and faith of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. It must be maintained therefore that one cannot think that the Baptism received by that person is anything different from what he was taught. It does not seem possible that the person would have the same disposition that the Catholic Church requires for the Baptism of adults.
>
>
> Difference of views: Mormons hold that there is no real Trinity, no original sin, that Christ did not institute baptism.
>
>
> Summing up, we can say: The Baptism of the Catholic Church and that of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints differ essentially, both for what concerns faith in the Father, Son and Holy Spirit, in whose name Baptism is conferred, and for what concerns the relationship to Christ who instituted it. As a result of all this, it is understood that the Catholic Church has to consider invalid, that is to say, cannot consider true Baptism, the rite given that name by the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.
>
>
> It is equally necessary to underline that the decision of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith is a response to a particular question regarding the Baptism of Mormons and obviously does not indicate a judgment on those who are members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Furthermore, Catholics and Mormons often find themselves working together on a range of problems regarding the common good of the entire human race. It can be hoped therefore that through further studies, dialogue and good will, there can be progress in reciprocal understanding and mutual respect.
>
>
> | This is most definitely not the only reason that Jehovah's Witnesses and Mormons are often viewed as "non-Christian" but it is a major one. @metal had the right idea but it wouldn't let me comment on his post, so I am writing another answer instead. What some refer to as "Mainstream Christians" or "Mainstream Christianity" are usually inclusive of Catholic, Orthodox, Protestant, and Reformationist sects of Christianity (such as Baptist, Evangelical, Lutheran, Episcopalian, and others). These sects of Christianity are all tied together in their belief in the Ecumenical Christian Creeds, sometimes earning them the title "Creedal Christians". Restorationist Churches, such as the Jehovah's Witness and The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints do not believe in these Creeds and since the creeds are such an integral part of the doctrinal tenets of "Mainstream Christianity", they are rejected as "Christians". Again, it is not the only reason, as everybody seems to have their own beliefs concerning the beliefs of these two churches, for good or bad (evidenced by the number of posts and comments of varying levels of contention and condemnation on this page). From a core doctrinal standpoint, however, the difference of belief in the Ecuminical Creeds is a very large point of conflict in their trying to claim their place within "Mainstream Christianity".
As a side note: I am a member of the LDS Church. |
906 | For tribes that inhabited desert areas (e.g. Arabian Peninsula, Sahara, etc...), there seems to have been a problem: a good bow would likely require materials that would be hard to come by in the desert (wood from trees).
1. Is there an evidence that this was indeed a factor influencing the use of bow and arrows as military technology by tribes living in such conditions?
2. If that's not the case, what did they use as far as materials to make the bows? The arrows?
I would prefer an answer that references a generic research that shows analysis across cultures, but would be OK with answer that cover a single tribe/culture. However, it must be one that did NOT have easy access to wood for bows (e.g. Levant area doesn't count, obviously, despite having some desert landscape). | 2011/12/08 | [
"https://history.stackexchange.com/questions/906",
"https://history.stackexchange.com",
"https://history.stackexchange.com/users/332/"
] | Horn would seem the obvious solution to a lack of wood | I have a feeling you're not going to find any studies of this nature. Before synthetics, wood was just the only material with the properties needed to make a bow.
If you lived somewhere without trees and you wanted bows, you'd buy wood from somewhere else. The amount of wood needed to supply a tribe with bows would not be particularly expensive or difficult to transport.
On the other hand, imagine a tribe that lives so deep in the desert that not only do they have no trees, they *never have contact* with people who have trees - how would this tribe come to invent bows on their own? They're not hunting large game, and they don't have the population density to get a war on.
That's my take, anyway. |
906 | For tribes that inhabited desert areas (e.g. Arabian Peninsula, Sahara, etc...), there seems to have been a problem: a good bow would likely require materials that would be hard to come by in the desert (wood from trees).
1. Is there an evidence that this was indeed a factor influencing the use of bow and arrows as military technology by tribes living in such conditions?
2. If that's not the case, what did they use as far as materials to make the bows? The arrows?
I would prefer an answer that references a generic research that shows analysis across cultures, but would be OK with answer that cover a single tribe/culture. However, it must be one that did NOT have easy access to wood for bows (e.g. Levant area doesn't count, obviously, despite having some desert landscape). | 2011/12/08 | [
"https://history.stackexchange.com/questions/906",
"https://history.stackexchange.com",
"https://history.stackexchange.com/users/332/"
] | Horn would seem the obvious solution to a lack of wood | Horn, cartridge, and bone have all been used to make bows, however, usually in laminate form with wood as another layer. Also, nearly every part of the world has some kind of wood growing nearby. |
906 | For tribes that inhabited desert areas (e.g. Arabian Peninsula, Sahara, etc...), there seems to have been a problem: a good bow would likely require materials that would be hard to come by in the desert (wood from trees).
1. Is there an evidence that this was indeed a factor influencing the use of bow and arrows as military technology by tribes living in such conditions?
2. If that's not the case, what did they use as far as materials to make the bows? The arrows?
I would prefer an answer that references a generic research that shows analysis across cultures, but would be OK with answer that cover a single tribe/culture. However, it must be one that did NOT have easy access to wood for bows (e.g. Levant area doesn't count, obviously, despite having some desert landscape). | 2011/12/08 | [
"https://history.stackexchange.com/questions/906",
"https://history.stackexchange.com",
"https://history.stackexchange.com/users/332/"
] | Horn would seem the obvious solution to a lack of wood | Actually, people never live in a pure sand sea. In deserts they live in oasises, where there is food and trees. If you live somewhere where trees cannot grow, then there is no food either. |
906 | For tribes that inhabited desert areas (e.g. Arabian Peninsula, Sahara, etc...), there seems to have been a problem: a good bow would likely require materials that would be hard to come by in the desert (wood from trees).
1. Is there an evidence that this was indeed a factor influencing the use of bow and arrows as military technology by tribes living in such conditions?
2. If that's not the case, what did they use as far as materials to make the bows? The arrows?
I would prefer an answer that references a generic research that shows analysis across cultures, but would be OK with answer that cover a single tribe/culture. However, it must be one that did NOT have easy access to wood for bows (e.g. Levant area doesn't count, obviously, despite having some desert landscape). | 2011/12/08 | [
"https://history.stackexchange.com/questions/906",
"https://history.stackexchange.com",
"https://history.stackexchange.com/users/332/"
] | Actually, people never live in a pure sand sea. In deserts they live in oasises, where there is food and trees. If you live somewhere where trees cannot grow, then there is no food either. | I have a feeling you're not going to find any studies of this nature. Before synthetics, wood was just the only material with the properties needed to make a bow.
If you lived somewhere without trees and you wanted bows, you'd buy wood from somewhere else. The amount of wood needed to supply a tribe with bows would not be particularly expensive or difficult to transport.
On the other hand, imagine a tribe that lives so deep in the desert that not only do they have no trees, they *never have contact* with people who have trees - how would this tribe come to invent bows on their own? They're not hunting large game, and they don't have the population density to get a war on.
That's my take, anyway. |
906 | For tribes that inhabited desert areas (e.g. Arabian Peninsula, Sahara, etc...), there seems to have been a problem: a good bow would likely require materials that would be hard to come by in the desert (wood from trees).
1. Is there an evidence that this was indeed a factor influencing the use of bow and arrows as military technology by tribes living in such conditions?
2. If that's not the case, what did they use as far as materials to make the bows? The arrows?
I would prefer an answer that references a generic research that shows analysis across cultures, but would be OK with answer that cover a single tribe/culture. However, it must be one that did NOT have easy access to wood for bows (e.g. Levant area doesn't count, obviously, despite having some desert landscape). | 2011/12/08 | [
"https://history.stackexchange.com/questions/906",
"https://history.stackexchange.com",
"https://history.stackexchange.com/users/332/"
] | Actually, people never live in a pure sand sea. In deserts they live in oasises, where there is food and trees. If you live somewhere where trees cannot grow, then there is no food either. | Horn, cartridge, and bone have all been used to make bows, however, usually in laminate form with wood as another layer. Also, nearly every part of the world has some kind of wood growing nearby. |
97,659 | I have over 5000 items in my inventory. Dropping them one by one is going to take days. Is there anyway I can drop say all L1 resonators together? | 2012/12/29 | [
"https://gaming.stackexchange.com/questions/97659",
"https://gaming.stackexchange.com",
"https://gaming.stackexchange.com/users/37501/"
] | There is actually no way to drop multiple items, but you shouldn't be just dropping them anyway -- share them with other users! | In a hangout the Niantic devs said that bulk actions are on their todo list. But they are a small team, so it probably won't be soon. |
97,659 | I have over 5000 items in my inventory. Dropping them one by one is going to take days. Is there anyway I can drop say all L1 resonators together? | 2012/12/29 | [
"https://gaming.stackexchange.com/questions/97659",
"https://gaming.stackexchange.com",
"https://gaming.stackexchange.com/users/37501/"
] | There is actually no way to drop multiple items, but you shouldn't be just dropping them anyway -- share them with other users! | Just press `CONTROL` aim the items and press drop button |
97,659 | I have over 5000 items in my inventory. Dropping them one by one is going to take days. Is there anyway I can drop say all L1 resonators together? | 2012/12/29 | [
"https://gaming.stackexchange.com/questions/97659",
"https://gaming.stackexchange.com",
"https://gaming.stackexchange.com/users/37501/"
] | In a hangout the Niantic devs said that bulk actions are on their todo list. But they are a small team, so it probably won't be soon. | Just press `CONTROL` aim the items and press drop button |
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.