Problem with Christianity

[Roark]

Sigurd, I personally didn't respond because you obviously plagiarised an essay by Hugh Nibley. This guy is a Mormon "scholar" who has also postulated that there were elephants in North America (as the Book of Mormon dubiously states) in Biblical times. I have no respect for his academic work, and I don't really dig the fact that you cut, pasted, and presented his work as your own.

Mmkay?

[Sigurd]

Sigurd, I personally didn't respond because you obviously plagiarised an essay by Hugh Nibley. This guy is a Mormon "scholar" who has also postulated that there were elephants in North America (as the Book of Mormon dubiously states) in Biblical times. I have no respect for his academic work, and I don't really dig the fact that you cut, pasted, and presented his work as your own.

Mmkay?

It is true I am guilty of not properly quoting my work here in this thread, but this is hardly a hand in assignment. As you duly demonstrated there is a reason why I not always give exact references: that is, the response would be directed against the author and not at his ideas.
Truth to tell: I have many opinions on the subject of religion and have studied it for quite some time now. And it was my ideas to certain subjects that resulted in me getting a book called: When the Lights Went Out, by a friend that happens to be a Mormon. It was quite a surprise in the first place that my friend agreed to many of my views. So far I only have this one book which consists of three studies on the ancient church.

Personally I was a little suspect over his work since he obviously is biased against Mormonism. When I found out that his work agrees with prominent scholars of other faiths and the fact that his work is well referenced and nearly all quoted from sources itself, he wrote himself into my good book. The elephant thing you mention have I not come across myself but sounds more like a real bias against his faith and should not discredit all his work.

[edit]: made corrections to my post #17 in this thread...

[Al Khalifah]

Ah... another slag off the Christians thread.

[Pindar]

Sigurd, I personally didn't respond because you obviously plagiarised an essay by Hugh Nibley. This guy is a Mormon "scholar" who has also postulated that there were elephants in North America (as the Book of Mormon dubiously states) in Biblical times. I have no respect for his academic work, and I don't really dig the fact that you cut, pasted, and presented his work as your own.

Mmkay?

Hello,

I think it is a flaw to discount one conclusion because you disagree with another. Regarding Nibley and elephants, this is an example of his work:


"What happened to the elephants? The Jaredites used them, we are told, but there is no mention of the Nephites having them. They disappear in between the two cultures. When? The Book of Mormon does not say, and the guesses of scientists range all the way from hundreds of thousands to mere hundreds of years ago. Elephants have strange ways of disappearing. If it were not for the written accounts of unquestionable authenticity, no one would ever have guessed that the Pharaohs of the XVIII Dynasty hunted elephants in Syria - where are their remains? Prof. Mallowan says that the wonderful Birs Nimrud ivories which he discovered were made from the tusks of a now-extinct breed of elephant that was being hunted in Mesopotamia as recently as the eighth century B.C. Who would have guessed that ten years ago?" - Since Cumorah, p. 255:

Here is a site that shows some interest in the subject: Elephants

I know in my home state of California there have been found several remains of pygmy mammoths on the Channel Islands that are dated to around 2000 B.C. Even so...

[Roark]

Hello,

I think it is a flaw to discount one conclusion because you disagree with another. Regarding Nibley and elephants, this is an example of his work:


"What happened to the elephants? The Jaredites used them, we are told, but there is no mention of the Nephites having them. They disappear in between the two cultures. When? The Book of Mormon does not say, and the guesses of scientists range all the way from hundreds of thousands to mere hundreds of years ago. Elephants have strange ways of disappearing. If it were not for the written accounts of unquestionable authenticity, no one would ever have guessed that the Pharaohs of the XVIII Dynasty hunted elephants in Syria - where are their remains? Prof. Mallowan says that the wonderful Birs Nimrud ivories which he discovered were made from the tusks of a now-extinct breed of elephant that was being hunted in Mesopotamia as recently as the eighth century B.C. Who would have guessed that ten years ago?" - Since Cumorah, p. 255:

Here is a site that shows some interest in the subject: Elephants

I know in my home state of California there have been found several remains of pygmy mammoths on the Channel Islands that are dated to around 2000 B.C. Even so...

You think it's a flaw? Under other cirumcstances I would agree... The elephants example is a drop in the ocean. Prehistoric pygmy mammoth remains are a far cry from domesticated Loxodontas anyway. Nibley's career has been dedicated to writing apologetics for the scriptural farrago that is the Book of Mormon. I understand, and have studied, the proofs that he has painstakingly accumulated and presented over his long career. His writing contains some measure of truth and scholarship, but he is insincere in his methodology and his claims have been lambasted multiple times by worthier scholars. I don't want to get into a prolonged debate about the Book of Mormon. I can't believe that the cult associated with this "scripture" still operates in such huge numbers.

Thanks for the link, though.

[Pindar]

You think it's a flaw?

Yes, your issues with Nibley, the Book of Mormon and/or Mormonism in general do not make for any rebuttal as to whether original Christianity survived its infancy.

I can't believe that the cult associated with this "scripture" still operates in such huge numbers.

Cult? Sounds like a pejorative use. What's the definition of cult you are appealing to?

[Roark]

Yes, your issues with Nibley, the Book of Mormon and/or Mormonism in general do not make for any rebuttal as to whether original Christianity survived its infancy.

I wasn't making a rebuttal. I was explaining why I didn't respond to his original post when he asked if he was on everyone's ignore list.

Cult? Sounds like a pejorative use. What's the definition of cult you are appealing to?

I don't think it's pejorative (do you ever get just... exhausted talking like that all the time?). From the American Heritage Dictionary:

Cult:
(1) A system of religious worship and ritual;
(2) A religion or sect considered extremist or false;
(3a) Obsessive devotion to a person or principle;
(3b) the object of such devotion. (Derived from the Latin word "cultus" meaning "to worship".

There is no question that Mormonism fits definition (1). There is also no question that it fits definition (3a)--although the members may quibble over the applicability of "obsessive" most outsiders would say that the devotion to Joseph Smith et al is a bit obsessive. Likewise the devotion to the odd temple rituals, the Word of Wisdom, and the Church generally. And as for definition (3b), it also can be said that Mormonism or the Mormon Church is the object of devotion. (Even though Elders will tell you that it is the "Saviour" they are devoted to, I don't buy it. As a practical matter it is the Church organization that is regarded as the saviour and redeemer by most Mormons.)

Definition (2) above is the one that we most often think about when we use the word "cult" in modern times. The word conjures up an image of a group of lunatics chanting zombie-like and blindly following a charismatic leader. We think of cult members as people who are incapable of thinking for themselves and who are prepared to commit any act, no matter how bizarre or destructive, that they are commanded to do by their leader or cult organization. I believe that this definition of cult can encompass a range of organizations - from the somewhat extreme to the very extreme. I believe that Mormonism can be called a cult under this definition, but that it is a the mildest end of the range. Compared to the really screwy cults that many people think of, the Mormon Church is pretty mild. It screws with people's minds a bit, but you can get out of it if you really want to and they won't hunt you down to kill you or kidnap you. The really extreme cults will demand that you fork over everything you own and then become completely dependent on the cult. They demand 10% of gross plus a lot of time and other donations, but they'll let you keep your day job and the punishment for not complying is just occasional dirty looks from the Bishop and being barred from the secret handshake learning center.

So Mormonism is a bit bizarre and can be called a cult. But it should be distinguished from the violent, really extreme cults that most people think of when the word "cult" is used in conversation. Now, if you're talking about the Mormon Church under Brigham Young, that's another story. That was about as extreme as they get. Polygamy, blood atonement, Brigham Young as virtual king...

A quote from a former Mormon who I have had email contact with:

- They psychologically, if not physically, isolate the followers from the rest of society.
- They use min control to make members believe the world is divided between absolute good (the group and its ideology) and absolute evil(all else).
- The group is the "elite"; outsiders are "of the world", "evil", "unenlightened," etc.

So, I've just done what I said I didn't want to do, haha... Are we done?

[bmolsson]

Mormons are pretty convincing and always so correct. The of course they allow polygamy....

[Pindar]

I wasn't making a rebuttal. I was explaining why I didn't respond to his original post when he asked if he was on everyone's ignore list.

I see.

I don't think it's pejorative. From the American Heritage Dictionary:

Cult:
(1) A system of religious worship and ritual;
(2) A religion or sect considered extremist or false;
(3a) Obsessive devotion to a person or principle;
(3b) the object of such devotion. (Derived from the Latin word "cultus" meaning "to worship".

So you believe all uses of the above apply and you don't consider (2) or (3a) as pejorative. That's interesting.

Now I noted you refer to Mormonism as: a mild extremism, a bit bizarre and it screws with people's minds a bit. You then quote a former Mormon who says they isolate followers, use mind control and see outsiders as evil.

(I don't think Mormonsim has ever renounced the principle of polygamy or blood atonement so this would fall into the really extreme camp of cults I take it)

You appear pretty hostile.

Are we done?

It's up to you. Do you feel Mormonism has been properly labeled and marginalized?

[Papewaio]

Cult:
(1) A system of religious worship and ritual;
(2) A religion or sect considered extremist or false;
(3a) Obsessive devotion to a person or principle;
(3b) the object of such devotion. (Derived from the Latin word "cultus" meaning "to worship".

Oh crap my DnD group is a cult. Well maybe only the Chaotic characters.

[Roark]

I'm not hostile, Pindar. Sorry if it seemed that way. I was having a laugh that you got me talking about it with such minimal effort, despite my original protestations.

Their semi-worship of Joseph Smith, Brigham Young et al means that, yes, I consider (3a) to be accurate.

Joseph Smith's falsified "translation" of a rubric from the "Egyptian Book of the Dead" into the "Book of Abraham", and several other doctrinal farces mean that, yes, I also consider (2) to be true. I did try to qualify this with the fact that I don't consider them to be as bad as some of the other groups out there, but you seem bent on making some point here (I just can't ascertain what it is...)

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints has recanted physical polygamy and blood atonement, but they can have multiple "spiritual" wives...

Labelled and marginalised? OK, if that's how you see it. Feel free to challenge what I've said, though. I think that you yourself might be gettin' a little snarky here...

[Bartix]

Yes, your issues with Nibley, the Book of Mormon and/or Mormonism in general do not make for any rebuttal as to whether original Christianity survived its infancy.

Good point!
It is often good to set a thief to catch a thief.

[Roark]

Good point!
It is often good to set a thief to catch a thief.

Again... my postix was not intendedix to rebuttix the pointix...

[Bartix]

Again... my postix was not intendedix to rebuttix the pointix...

I was not thinking you as a thief.
The one crackpot religion being good at revealing the cracks of other was my thougt. Main Stream Churches of today probably far from original Jesus cult in many many fashion!!!! Organization, of course, and messages also!! ~:eeg:
If we truly believe in the Jesus, we must find True Core of Jesus, and not self serving things of Paul and mediaeval inventions of different things!!!


PS...:

adsolute