Mormons = Aliens

[Sigurd]

I came over this site when searching for info on the word Kolob.
I thought... Man, I gotta share this with the orgas. I bet this will result in some interesting discussion.

The topic is religion related with the added spice of Extra terrestrial worlds and people.

Sooo, what do you all think? Is this the reason Judeo-Christians hate Mormons? They think they are aliens?

[rory_20_uk]

Judging the gusto that Christians until extremely recently would kill each other, Jews, Muslims and basically everyone that didn't follow the Good Book in the right way I'm not surprised Mormons are villified.

Unlike most ofther groups there is no large country that examplifies them, so they are still fair game for everyone.

But aliens? How many soldiers would need to go back to win a defensive engagement against pre-medieval japan? 50? Even in shifts the amount of firepower that could be brought to bear would mean that even human wave tactics would fail. And yet ET didn't win.

[macsen rufus]

Meh! Yet more proof that the World (ie the Internet) has been invaded by Aliens (ie escapees from a less than secure mental health institution).

[naut]

Bah! What a laugh.

[GeneralHankerchief]

I bet you anything that they are secretly allied with our future octosquid overlords.

This is much more serious than we thought.

[Crazed Rabbit]

Judging the gusto that Christians until extremely recently would kill each other, Jews, Muslims and basically everyone that didn't follow the Good Book in the right way I'm not surprised Mormons are villified.

That's a despicable smear.

Crazed Rabbit

[HoreTore]

That's a despicable smear.

Crazed Rabbit

No? The inquisition lasted until the 19th century... And sjia's and sunni's do have a religious element in their war against each other in Iraq.

[Mikeus Caesar]

As you read that article the black helicopters are coming for you, and numerous black unmarked SUV's are pulling up outside your house.

[Bijo]

At first sight that article looks so terribly disorganized and written in an ugly way I find it difficult to raise the interest in seriously reading it.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

As you read that article the black helicopters are coming for you, and numerous black unmarked SUV's are pulling up outside your house.

Yeah, but at least the SUV's are hybrids now. Things are looking up!

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

No? The inquisition lasted until the 19th century... And sjia's and sunni's do have a religious element in their war against each other in Iraq.

You might want to look up the function of the Inquisition, it wasn't like MTW. In any case, reffering to people who massacred other peoples as "Christian" is possibly offensive in itself. A little restraint costs you nothing.

OT: The sight is nuts, I actually couldn't bring myself to read more than five lines.

[Bijo]

I followed some links on the site and read part of an article. Its writing style is terrible. I even detected misplaced or redundant commas and other faulty phrase constructs that prevent facilitation of clarity. After only a few phrases I ceased reading it and skimmed quickly.

Is there any link on that site that deserves more attention than some?

[HoreTore]

You might want to look up the function of the Inquisition, it wasn't like MTW. In any case, reffering to people who massacred other peoples as "Christian" is possibly offensive in itself. A little restraint costs you nothing.

OT: The sight is nuts, I actually couldn't bring myself to read more than five lines.

Uhm... rory stated that christians happily killed those who "did not follow the book correctly". Crazed rabbit said that it was a smear. But, during the inquisition, christians killed other christians who did not follow the book as they did. I never said anything at all about the scale of the killings, the point was that they killed each other off, right up until the 1850's(ish).

And if someone who kills other people calls himself christian, I'll certainly call him christian too. I'm a commie, but I don't say that Stalin wasn't a commie, just because he massacred x number of people. He saw things one way, I see things very differently. However, we're still both socialists.

I followed some links on the site and read part of an article. Its writing style is terrible. I even detected misplaced or redundant commas and other faulty phrase constructs that prevent facilitation of clarity. After only a few phrases I ceased reading it and skimmed quickly.

Is there any link on that site that deserves more attention than some?

I found the articles on alien origins particularly funny. And the idiotic writing style just adds to the fun IMO.

[Navaros]

this the reason Judeo-Christians hate Mormons? They think they are aliens?

No, it's because Mormonism was "founded" by an indisputable polygamist who thought that polygamy was the will of God. That right there was enough to throw all credibility out the window. That said polygamist went on to attribute other things to Jesus and God that in actuality have nothing to do with Jesus and God, just added to the absurdity.

[Sigurd]

No, it's because Mormonism was "founded" by an indisputable polygamist who thought that polygamy was the will of God. That right there was enough to throw all credibility out the window. That said polygamist went on to attribute other things to Jesus and God that in actuality have nothing to do with Jesus and God, just added to the absurdity.

I personally can’t see teaching that Polygamy was the will of God is a damning offence or a clear point of false teaching.
Didn’t the prophets of old practise polygamy? Was this not God’s will?

In fact I can’t see that it was ever abolished in Judaism. Didn’t Abraham, Jacob, Esau, Moses, David and Solomon have multiple wives? Wasn’t there a law of levirate marriage in Jesus’ times; the practice of marrying your brother’s spouse if she became a widow?
The Bible is in fact full of plural marriage consent. Exodus 21:10, Leviticus 18:18 Deut 21:15-17 are examples.

Are these verses not God’s will found in an infallible book?

I could quote Agustin the beloved father of modern Christianity:
“It was lawful among the ancient fathers: whether it be lawful now also, I would not hastily pronounce. For there is not now necessity of begetting children, as there then was, when, even when wives bear children, it was allowed, in order to a more numerous posterity, to marry other wives in addition, which now is certainly not lawful."
So he basically says that if there is a necessity, God will allow it as he has done in the past.

If I am not mistaken there was a serious shortage of Mormon men after the persecutions in the east of US and the war with Mexico. Widows were abundant and there was a need to rise a new generation of faithful followers. It was not illegal in the US until the persecutors trumped through a new law making it a crime living in a polygynyious relationship where upon the Mormon leaders issued a commandment to cease practising polygyny.

I can’t see that Polygamy = Devilish practice.
On the contrary, there is ample evidence that it is a Godly practice.
God created man and woman, where the man if having several partners, quickly can raise progeny.
If we should believe the Creation story of one man and one woman, God allowed far worse things than plural marriage to ensure that man became many.
Every scholar and scripture reader up through the times would have realized this.

[Don Corleone]

If we should believe the Creation story of one man and one woman, God allowed far worse things than plural marriage to ensure that man became many.

Excellent post, Sigurd, through and through, but this line in particular struck me (and the idea behind it always has). It is this right here, the requisite incest, that has been the first (of many) roadblocks to me ever becoming a biblical literalist.

As to Hore Tore's point about who is and is not a Christian... I agree that Rory had a point that Christians did a lot of very un-Christian things, in the name of Christianity. But I dispute your supportive rebuttal of CR's post, employing the Stalin metaphor. You may choose to accept classification with a misbehaving individual that does not act in accordiance with his stated principles, but not all of us should be required to meet such a standard.

I could choose to call myself a farmer. However, if I never grow any crops, I routinely destroy arable land and render it unusable for food production and abolish the practice of animal husbandry, would all farmers have to answer the charges leveled against me, simply because of a linguistic choice I myself made?

[macsen rufus]

However, if I never grow any crops, I routinely destroy arable land and render it unusable for food production and abolish the practice of animal husbandry, would all farmers have to answer the charges leveled against me, simply because of a linguistic choice I myself made?

Errrm, so you HAVE heard of the European Union's "Common Agricultural Policy" then, Don? (Sorry, totally off topic, but I couldn't resist the opportunity.)

More seriously, what criterion other than self-description can we use, especially when dealing with issues of the "correct" interpretation of revealed mystical texts? The inherent problem with these texts is that they offer pretexts for claiming the "moral high ground" and an arsenal of irrational defence against any nay-sayers that might challenge that. I don't see any sound grounds for rejecting the Book of Mormon that can't also be levelled at the New Testamant, the Old Testament, the Quran or the Upanishads for that matter - except of course, partisan adherence to one of the competing texts.

[HoreTore]

would all farmers have to answer the charges leveled against me, simply because of a linguistic choice I myself made?

Of course not. I won't ever answer for Stalin's crimes either. I have little more in common with him than I have with Mussolini(I don't even agree with his economics). And I surely don't expect you(or any other christian) to answer for the crimes of for example Joseph Kony or even Mr. Bush.

But I will still call all three of you christians. And I'll call Bin Laden a muslim, but I won't hold the muslims I know responsible for his actions. That you share the same the same faith does not imply that you hold the same views.

[Don Corleone]

Of course not. I won't ever answer for Stalin's crimes either. I have little more in common with him than I have with Mussolini(I don't even agree with his economics). And I surely don't expect you(or any other christian) to answer for the crimes of for example Joseph Kony or even Mr. Bush.

But I will still call all three of you christians. And I'll call Bin Laden a muslim, but I won't hold the muslims I know responsible for his actions. That you share the same the same faith does not imply that you hold the same views.

Okay, well, interetsing point. You and Mascen seem to use the criteria of self-annointment for membership to a group. I would prefer to establish membership by fulfillment of a pronounced defintion.... An X-ian would have most or all the qualities of X.... But I guess at the end of the day, the point is the same. You can call Jim Baker a Christian just because he calls himself one, but I don't recgonize him as such.