"The Book of Mormon" vs. Charlie Hebdo

Deadtroopers · Apr 24, 2015

gsa said:
One possible correction: Not so sure that you are guaranteed similar real estate (i.e., your own planet to implement your own plan of salvation). That doctrine , should it exist, appears about as shielded as the gnostic teachings of the Alawites, and perhaps as esoteric. The doctrine of exaltation is downplayed and presented as a rough analog of Orthodox Christianity's "theosis" doctrine. Given the missionary zeal of the LDS and their desire to be considered actual Christians, the avoidance is understandable, if that is what it is. It also helps explain the relative unwillingness to discuss "heavenly mother" and her role as a god(dess).

The rich irony of course is that the Book of Mormon accounts are about as historical as, say, the Book of Joshua, and just as morally abhorrent. Yet that book is cherished by the very people who classify the LDS as heretics and scoundrels. Who was it who said that history may not repeat, but it rhymes? And I can't help but notice the similar cultic origins of Islam and Mormonism, given their respective prophets' encounters with divine writings, angels and of course their...tastes. Of course, L. Ron seemed to be a little more transparent about all of this, perhaps explaining the dismal state of Scientology. It may also be that timing is everything.

The rhyme quote is Samuel Clemens aka 'Mark Twain'.

Curious (or maybe not) that you mention gnostic teaching. I was for giggling helplessly about getting your own planet (Which I have heard and read of; and from; Mormons.) when I came across something very similar in a 2nd - 3rd century 'gnostic' context. I am not sure what, if anything, of that might have been available in the 'Burnt Over District'.

I go with L. Ron setting up Dianetics and Scientology to get rich. He seems to have ben quite vocal about it to at least half a dozen people in several different places in the later half of the nineteen forties.

amorphous_constellation · Apr 24, 2015

Deadtroopers said:
If you bother to actually look, most of those 'babarians' actually wanted in on the benefits of Roman 'civilisation'. Oadacer, and Theodoric after him, actually maintained the Late Roman state, complete with Senate and Consuls.

Yeah Deadtroopers, but what they 'maintained' was a quickly sinking ship with so much unrest within it. I have bothered to actually look. Odoacer did some usurping, doing off with Orestes and his son for example, because they wouldn't allow barbarians in the roman army retirement property. Zeno wanted him out so he sent another Goth, Theodoric, to make war on him. On top of that, both Theodoric and Odoacer were Arians, which was a much more tolerant form of Christianity at the time which would tolerate pagans even, but they didn't interfere with the powerful Catholic church at the time, which was quickly buying up property.

At any rate those two may have been educated, what with their Arianism and probable ability to read and talk in more than one language. But the populaces encroaching on the doorstep of imperial properties may have had differing ideas about what life should be about. The romans didn't build huge stone walls for no reason. The burgundian code and the other new law codes that would come to be for example really illustrate this pretty lucidly, and obviously something discordant was happening if new people coming in thought they needed to alter and compromise old law. As for Britain, that region was in great disarray for hundreds of years surrounding the time you're talking about, the Celtic Britons invited the Angles, Jutes and Saxons to help fight the Scots and Picts, but they later turned on them creating great civil chaos, all this very shortly after the time of Constantius III in the middle of the 5th century.

Katzpur · Apr 24, 2015

Deadtroopers said:
God was an ordinary man on another world who became a God. You are all going to become Gods and get your own planets. Bonkers but no more bonkers than any other religion. There is a Mrs God and Joe made the leap that Jesus couldn't just do half a dozen gigs in Jerusalem and Galilee; he had to tour in other times and places. Those are steps up from other most other Churches identifying as Christian. Just as the later Jesus myth of the Christians crops up almost fully formed in Philo of Alexandria's work, Smith's oeuvre is presaged in "View of the Hebrews", published seven years earlier and known to have been available just down the road. A lot of the place names in his Other Testament are very similar to and can be mapped onto the surrounding geography with little difficulty. The thing is written in cod KJV-speak.

I don't even know what to say to all of this nonsense. Everything you have said about Mormonism is a half-truth, an exaggeration, a parody or a caricature of what Mormonism really teaches. It's like you're getting all of your information from a source that's about as reliable as the National Enquirer.

I am not attacking you by the way; you seem like a nice person and from what I have read before quite cogent and reasonable.

Actually, I'm as capable of being a ***** as the next person. You just need to push me a little further and you'll see that.

I am merely astonished that you are drawn to such laugh-out-loud wibble. I would riposte St Anselm and you with "ratiō quaerens intellectum"; Reason seeking Understanding. As with Serenity7855, you have me scratching my head. Apologies if I have misunderstood LDS in anyway or it's entirety. I am open to correction.

Well, truth be told, I'm not drawn to any of what you said because what you have said Mormonism teaches is not what we really teach. You see, I don't mind (I actually quite enjoy) debating the legitimacy of LDS doctrine, particularly as it ties to the Bible (since we see the two books as being entirely complementary). What I can't be bothered with is debating a bunch of inaccurate claims about our beliefs (aka "laugh-out-loud wibble").

If you are genuinely interested in getting your facts straight and learning (solely to become better informed and for no other reason) about Mormonism, you'll go to the LDS DIR and pose each of your statements on Mormonism as a respectful question (each one in a different thread), you will have my full and undivided attention and my promise that I will respond with accurate and complete information to each of them.

Norman · Apr 24, 2015

fantome profane said:
But what is true is that when the Bible was written people really didn't know what "planets" were, but when the book of Mormon was written science and science fiction had developed to a state where the idea of other planets had entered the general imagination.

Norman: Hi fantome, there are roughly 50 passages of scripture in the bible about the universe. Paul evidently knew about the universe when he used the sun, moon and stars in relation to
the resurrection. "There is one glory of the sun, and another glory of the moon, and another glory of the stars: for one star differeth from another star in glory" (I Corinthians 15:41).

gsa · Apr 24, 2015

Katzpur said:
I don't even know what to say to all of this nonsense. Everything you have said about Mormonism is a half-truth, an exaggeration, a parody or a caricature of what Mormonism really teaches. It's like you're getting all of your information from a source that's about as reliable as the National Enquirer.

Actually, I'm as capable of being a ***** as the next person. You just need to push me a little further and you'll see that.

Well, truth be told, I'm not drawn to any of what you said because what you have said Mormonism teaches is not what we really teach. You see, I don't mind (I actually quite enjoy) debating the legitimacy of LDS doctrine, particularly as it ties to the Bible (since we see the two books as being entirely complementary). What I can't be bothered with is debating a bunch of inaccurate claims about our beliefs (aka "laugh-out-loud wibble").

If you are genuinely interested in getting your facts straight and learning (solely to become better informed and for no other reason) about Mormonism, you'll go to the LDS DIR and pose each of your statements on Mormonism as a respectful question (each one in a different thread), you will have my full and undivided attention and my promise that I will respond with accurate and complete information to each of them.

Well to be fair, most non-theists suspicious of Abrahamic religions are not really inclined to interpret their doctrines in ways that respect their sectarian sensibilities. A claim that Catholics eat the blood and flesh of their god-man each Sunday, while crude, is not inaccurate. It is just not respectful of the belief. That is, of course, the great big bad of something like the DIR sections, and the corresponding ethos of balkanization that pervades so many of these traditions represented within them.

It is also fittingly the subject of this thread in "religious debates," the most liberal real estate of RF. Many Mormons want their little enclave and some modicum of respect, and many more Muslims want, nay, demand, the whole enchilada. Respect, deference, and payment of homage. This perhaps explains why dissidents, liberals and nonbelievers avoid the DIR like the plague. You only want to discuss your beliefs in a "safe zone," free from inquiry and debate on the part of the non-initiated. No one interested in actual dialogue insists on those preconditions, in my opinion.

Katzpur · Apr 24, 2015

gsa said:
You only want to discuss your beliefs in a "safe zone," free from inquiry and debate on the part of the non-initiated. No one interested in actual dialogue insists on those preconditions, in my opinion.

So far, nobody has even mentioned any of my beliefs. I am perfectly willing to discuss my beliefs, not some parody of what somebody else says are my beliefs. If you haven't figured out by now that I am open to debate concerning what I actually do believe, nothing I could possibly say at this point is going to change that.

gsa · Apr 24, 2015

Katzpur said:
So far, nobody has even mentioned any of my beliefs. I am perfectly willing to discuss my beliefs, not some parody of what somebody else says are my beliefs. If you haven't figured out by now that I am open to debate concerning what I actually do believe, nothing I could possibly say at this point is going to change that.

That's fine, start a debate (or discussion) in an area where nonbelievers can fully participate. That's not the LDS dir.

Apex · Apr 24, 2015

gsa said:
That's fine, start a debate (or discussion) in an area where nonbelievers can fully participate. That's not the LDS dir.

Would it not be more appropriate for a non-LDS person to start such a thread on a particular belief they wish to discuss or debate? Although this would have to be about an actual LDS belief/doctrine, and not some parody that masquerades as LDS belief.

Katzpur · Apr 24, 2015

gsa said:
That's fine, start a debate (or discussion) in an area where nonbelievers can fully participate. That's not the LDS dir.

I don't even know what it is you want to debate! You start a debate if you want to challenge one of my beliefs, but at least know what those beliefs are before demanding that I defend myself.

I can't defend any "Mormon beliefs" that have been stated thus far, because there haven't been any. That's why I think the LDS DIR is an appropriate place to start. If you or anyone else were to start a thread in the LDS DIR and to ask, "Is it true that Mormons are all going to become Gods and get your own planets?" I could respond with factual information as to what we actually do believe. Then, anyone who wanted to take what we actually believe to a debate forum and challenge me to defend those beliefs in light of what the Bible teaches could do so, having at least a rudimentary understanding of the LDS position. But when someone starts a debate by saying, "You believe such and such and that's really stupid," what can I do but say, "No, that's not what we believe at all"? Then the "debate" (if you want to call it that) just turns into, "Yes you do." "No we don't." "Yes, you do." "No, we don't." If you want a debate, you have to at least start with a legitimate premise. Accusing us of believing something we don't believe is not going to get you anywhere.

gsa · Apr 24, 2015

Katzpur said:
I don't even know what it is you want to debate. I can't defend any "Mormon beliefs" that have been stated thus far, because there haven't been any. That's why I think the LDS DIR is an appropriate place to start. If you or anyone else were to start a thread in the LDS DIR and to ask, "Is it true that Mormons are all going to become Gods and get your own planets?" I could respond with factual information as to what we actually do believe. Then, anyone who wanted to take what we actually believe to a debate forum and challenge me to defend those beliefs in light of what the Bible teaches could do so, having at least a rudimentary understanding of the LDS position. But when someone starts a debate by saying, "You believe such and such and that's really stupid," what can I do but say, "No, that's not what we believe at all"? Then the "debate" (if you want to call it that) just turns into, "Yes you do." "No we don't." "Yes, you do." "No, we don't." If you want a debate, you have to at least start with a legitimate premise. Accusing us of believing something we don't believe is not going to get you anywhere.

Well I disagree. For example, I provided a correction on the planet belief in this thread, but you have no interest in discussing it one way or another. What's the point in engaging Mormons in DIR, when all they want to do outside it is disclaim popular misconceptions without saying anything positive about their beliefs? My example came from a Mormon. I'm not that original when it comes to Mormon apologetics.

It isn't any particular desire to debate you in any case, just a critique of your insistence that discussion and debate take place on your terms.

Norman · Apr 24, 2015

Deadtroopers said:
God was an ordinary man on another world who became a God. You are all going to become Gods and get your own planets. Bonkers but no more bonkers than any other religion. There is a Mrs God and Joe made the leap that Jesus couldn't just do half a dozen gigs in Jerusalem and Galilee; he had to tour in other times and places. Those are steps up from other most other Churches identifying as Christian. Just as the later Jesus myth of the Christians crops up almost fully formed in Philo of Alexandria's work, Smith's oeuvre is presaged in "View of the Hebrews", published seven years earlier and known to have been available just down the road. A lot of the place names in his Other Testament are very similar to and can be mapped onto the surrounding geography with little difficulty. The thing is written in cod KJV-speak. It can all be accounted for more plausibly by a long chalk by the all-to-familiar. All religions that we can investigate in history share a basic similarity in origin. They might have made sense in their time and place and in the ignorance and delusion of the original cultists; but they sure make no sense now in the cold light of reality and human reason. None of the current "thinkers" of the various Abrahamic religions and associated syncreticisms have anything coherent to say as to why there should be a Creation in the first place; why their various interpretations of God should get it so awfully wrong that God should start killing God's kids to put it right; and why there should be such (a)convuluted "Plan(s) of Redemption tm" to tie it all up in a bow. "Fiat Lux!" are almost the first words of this God and then we have 6019 years of "Fiat Cinquecento" (appallingly built Italian car of yesteryear that often fell apart before you had paid for it)? In the words of the song "You're Unbelievable".

I am not attacking you by the way; you seem like a nice person and from what I have read before quite cogent and reasonable. I am merely astonished that you are drawn to such laugh-out-loud wibble. I would riposte St Anselm and you with "ratiō quaerens intellectum"; Reason seeking Understanding. As with Serenity7855, you have me scratching my head. Apologies if I have misunderstood LDS in anyway or it's entirety. I am open to correction.

Norman: Deadtroopers, you have a loose tongue about things that you do not understand about The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints. You seem to claim (In your own mind) to be a Pedagogue of things that you evidently know nothing about. Let me correct you, we do not teach that God was once a man before he became God. We do not teach that we are going to get our own planets. There are some who see but do not believe. One needs to be only a bystander to see, but to believe, one must accept wholeheartedly and commit himself to his belief.
The theory that Joseph Smith plagiarized View of the Hebrews was never advanced during his lifetime. There are no records which indicate that Joseph Smith came into contact with the View of the Hebrews during the period of time that he was translating the Book of Mormon. The View of the Hebrews theory was in fact first proposed by I. Woodbridge Riley in 1902, 58 years after the death of the prophet. There is no democracy of facts.
Those who turn against the Church do so to play to their own private gallery, but when, one day, the applause has died down and the cheering has stopped, they will face a smaller audience, the judgment bar of God. However, with all this said, I believe that we must endure the contempt of others without reciprocating that contempt. I also believe that God does not begin by asking us about our ability, but only about our availability, and if we then prove our dependability, he will increase our capability. If you have any questions about The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day-Saints then go to the LDS DIR and ask away.

Norman · Apr 24, 2015

gsa said:
Well to be fair, most non-theists suspicious of Abrahamic religions are not really inclined to interpret their doctrines in ways that respect their sectarian sensibilities. A claim that Catholics eat the blood and flesh of their god-man each Sunday, while crude, is not inaccurate. It is just not respectful of the belief. That is, of course, the great big bad of something like the DIR sections, and the corresponding ethos of balkanization that pervades so many of these traditions represented within them.

It is also fittingly the subject of this thread in "religious debates," the most liberal real estate of RF. Many Mormons want their little enclave and some modicum of respect, and many more Muslims want, nay, demand, the whole enchilada. Respect, deference, and payment of homage. This perhaps explains why dissidents, liberals and nonbelievers avoid the DIR like the plague. You only want to discuss your beliefs in a "safe zone," free from inquiry and debate on the part of the non-initiated. No one interested in actual dialogue insists on those preconditions, in my opinion.

Norman: gsa, I have read your uneducated and childish post's and I have come to one conclusion, you have a severe case of diarrhea of the mouth. Why don't you go and play Church with other "Infidels" that want to play with you, child.

Katzpur · Apr 24, 2015

gsa said:
Well I disagree. For example, I provided a correction on the planet belief in this thread, but you have no interest in discussing it one way or another.

You mean this statement?

gsa said:
One possible correction: Not so sure that you are guaranteed similar real estate (i.e., your own planet to implement your own plan of salvation).

That's really pretty funny if you stop to think about it. If God has billions of planets, why should I get just one? Hey, if I'm going to be a goddess, I'll just create my own universe with all the planets I want. So there!

The doctrine of exaltation is downplayed and presented as a rough analog of Orthodox Christianity's "theosis" doctrine. Given the missionary zeal of the LDS and their desire to be considered actual Christians, the avoidance is understandable, if that is what it is.

It's not downplayed in the slightest. It's just not sensationalized like something you might find in a carnival side-show. You can read all about it on the LDS Church's website. If it was being downplayed, the Church sure did a lousy job of trying to hide it. Here's the link: "Becoming Like God".

I'm inserting two paragraphs from that article at this point:

Since human conceptions of reality are necessarily limited in mortality, religions struggle to adequately articulate their visions of eternal glory. As the Apostle Paul wrote, “Eye hath not seen, nor ear heard, neither have entered into the heart of man, the things which God hath prepared for them that love him.” These limitations make it easy for images of salvation to become cartoonish when represented in popular culture. For example, scriptural expressions of the deep peace and overwhelming joy of salvation are often reproduced in the well-known image of humans sitting on their own clouds and playing harps after death. Latter-day Saints’ doctrine of exaltation is often similarly reduced in media to a cartoonish image of people receiving their own planets.

A cloud and harp are hardly a satisfying image for eternal joy, although most Christians would agree that inspired music can be a tiny foretaste of the joy of eternal salvation. Likewise, while few Latter-day Saints would identify with caricatures of having their own planet, most would agree that the awe inspired by creation hints at our creative potential in the eternities.

Norman · Apr 24, 2015

Quatermass said:
I think it's largely because Mormonism finds its origins in America and feels, therefore, more relevant. What I'm most curious to know is why people feel Mormonism is any more legitimate as a religion than Scientology since both share similar origins.

Norman: If you have a question about The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints you can go to LDS DIR and ask away. If you wish to comment, then at least know what you are talking about. You are way off the grid.

Norman · Apr 24, 2015

Deadtroopers said:
The Jews had the Shouty Stabby tm killed out of them by the Romans in three near-genocidal wars the Jewish, Khito, and Bar Kokhva Wars. Similarly for the Christians of North-West and Central Europe in the Reformation and Wars of Religion. We, the English that is, were also able to export the more pernicious of our religous bigots to what is now the Eastern Seaboard of the USA, where they continue to cause trouble to this day. The North American Amish and Memnonite communities are what survived and emigrated of the Anabaptist communities that were winnowed by other Protestants less extreme and violent; but with more and bigger guns. Rather than Saved in the Blood of the Lamb, Christendom was bathed and saved in the blood of wolves. The gore was a neccessary precusor to the Enlightenment, the Triumph of Reason in Western Europe and the birth of Modern, that is to say Western European, Civilisation.

If you bother to actually look, most of those 'babarians' actually wanted in on the benefits of Roman 'civilisation'. Oadacer, and Theodoric after him, actually maintained the Late Roman state, complete with Senate and Consuls. Nearly all the successor states maintained Roman law alongside Gothic and Frankish law and it was the Roman law which largely won out. The only place this didn't happen was Britain, the so-called Romanised British kicked the civilian Imperial bureaucrats out in disgust after Constantius 'III' decamped with most of the field army before before the bulk of my 'barbarian' forefathers beached their keels. A minority were already there as foederatii - part of the Roman army.

What Rome abandoned, these defended,
And saved the sum of things for pay.
(With apologies to A.E. Houseman)

It was the Roman aristocracy; military and civilian; having far more war in them than they knew what to do with that did for the Empire. That goes both for East and West. Did you get that? "having far more war in them than they knew what to do with..." Doesn't that bring another "civilised" Western Empire to mind, struggling also with hate-filled "Christians" who want to wag the dog?

Norman: What does all this rhetoric have to do with the OP?

Katzpur · Apr 24, 2015

Norman said:
Norman: What does all this rhetoric have to do with the OP?

After the first six or eight posts, none of the posts in the thread have anything to do with the OP.

Revoltingest · Apr 24, 2015

Katzpur said:
After the first six or eight posts, none of the posts in the thread have anything to do with the OP.

South Park....a Broadway musical few here have seen....& a French magazine no one
here reads....tis a thread designed for derailment. And here I am doing just that!

Katzpur · Apr 24, 2015

Revoltingest said:
South Park....a Broadway musical few here have seen....& a French magazine no one
here reads....tis a thread designed for derailment. And here I am doing just that!

I can always count on you to be there doing what you do best, Revoltingest.

Norman · Apr 24, 2015

Katzpur said:
After the first six or eight posts, none of the posts in the thread have anything to do with the OP.

Norman: Hi Katzpur, you replies were excellent as usual, I personally am done with this thread.

Katzpur · Apr 24, 2015

Norman said:
Norman: Hi Katzpur, you replies were excellent as usual...

Thanks. That's nice of you to say.

I personally am done with this thread.

Why? You and I need some practice working together. This might be as good a time as any.

"The Book of Mormon" vs. Charlie Hebdo

Member

Well-Known Member

Not your average Mormon

Defender of Truth

Well-Known Member

Not your average Mormon

Well-Known Member

Somewhere Around Nothing

Not your average Mormon

Well-Known Member

Defender of Truth

Defender of Truth

Not your average Mormon

Defender of Truth

Defender of Truth

Not your average Mormon

Pragmatic Libertarian

Not your average Mormon

Defender of Truth

Not your average Mormon