"The Book of Mormon" vs. Charlie Hebdo

[Norman]

Thanks. That's nice of you to say.

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

Norman: Ok, let's go for it.

 

[gsa]

You mean this statement?
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!

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.

Yes I've read the LDS website. On most of their doctrine that inspires incredulity, anyway.

The "as Man is God once was, as God is man may yet become" quote is what throws people off, I think, along with the suggestion that the concept was embraced by Jo smith

 

[Katzpur]

The "as Man is God once was, as God is man may yet become" quote is what throws people off, I think, along with the suggestion that the concept was embraced by Jo smith

Oh, please, let's give credit where credit's due. The concept that man has the potential to become godlike hardly originated with Joseph Smith. There is considerable evidence that the doctrine of deification was taught for quite some time after the Savior’s death, and accepted as orthodox. Some of the most well-known and respected of the early Christian Fathers made statements that were remarkably close to the statements LDS leaders have made. For example:

In the second century, Saint Irenaeus said, “If the Word became a man, it was so men may become gods.” He also posed this question: “Do we cast blame on Him (God) because we were not made gods from the beginning, but were at first created merely as men, and then later as Gods?” At about the same period of time, Saint Clement made this statement: “The Word of God became a man so that you might learn from a man how to become a god.” And Saint Justin Martyr agreed, saying that men are “deemed worthy of becoming gods and of having power to become sons of the highest.” Some two centuries later, Athanasius explained that “the Word was made flesh in order that we might be enabled to be made gods. He became man that we might be made divine.” And, finally, Augustine, said, “But He that justifies also deifies, for by justifying he makes sons of God. For he has given them power to become the sons of God. If then we have been made sons of God, we have also been made gods.”

In much more recent times, even the noted Christian theologian, C.S. Lewis, said much the same thing in his book "Mere Christianity."

“The command Be ye perfect is not idealistic gas. Nor is it a command to do the impossible. He is going to make us into creatures that can obey that command. He said (in the Bible) that we were “gods” and He is going to make good His words. If we let Him – for we can prevent Him, if we choose – He will make the feeblest and filthiest of us into a god or goddess, dazzling, radiant, immortal creature, pulsating all through with such energy and joy and wisdom and love as we cannot now imagine, a bright stainless mirror which reflects back to God perfectly (though, of course, on a smaller scale) His own boundless power and delight and goodness. The process will be long and in parts very painful; but that is what we are in for. Nothing less. He meant what He said."

 

[Katzpur]

On most of their doctrine that inspires incredulity, anyway.

Was there a typo in this sentence somewhere? It didn't make any sense to me at all.

 

[fantome profane]

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).

Please lets not play games here. Paul may have used the words "sun, moon, stars" but the is absolutely no indication that he really knew what these things were. He gives no indication that he knows the size of the sun, distance, the fact that the earth orbits around it, gives no indication that he knows that the sun is just like the stars. To him the sun was just a big bright circle in the sky. "Glory to God", ok but he has no idea what it is. And he gives no indication that he knew what the moon or stars were either.

But my comment was about planets, and Paul never uses the word planet, gives no indication that he knows that the earth is a planet, or that some of those lights in the night are not stars but planets. This is a knowledge that he lacked, as did every other author included in the Bible (OT or NT). But by the 18th century these concepts were known by the general population and was part of the popular imagination.

 

[Norman]

Please lets not play games here. Paul may have used the words "sun, moon, stars" but the is absolutely no indication that he really knew what these things were. He gives no indication that he knows the size of the sun, distance, the fact that the earth orbits around it, gives no indication that he knows that the sun is just like the stars. To him the sun was just a big bright circle in the sky. "Glory to God", ok but he has no idea what it is. And he gives no indication that he knew what the moon or stars were either.

But my comment was about planets, and Paul never uses the word planet, gives no indication that he knows that the earth is a planet, or that some of those lights in the night are not stars but planets. This is a knowledge that he lacked, as did every other author included in the Bible (OT or NT). But by the 18th century these concepts were known by the general population and was part of the popular imagination.

Norman: Hi fantome, I was not trying to play any games, I don't know what Paul knew or did not know, however, I do not believe men were ignorant of the universe in the bible. In another book of my Church that I presume you will not pay any attention to, the great prophet Abraham in the old testament was shown and taught about the universe by God. However, that may or may not be another conversation. That is up to you.

 

[Katzpur]

Please lets not play games here. Paul may have used the words "sun, moon, stars" but the is absolutely no indication that he really knew what these things were. He gives no indication that he knows the size of the sun, distance, the fact that the earth orbits around it, gives no indication that he knows that the sun is just like the stars. To him the sun was just a big bright circle in the sky. "Glory to God", ok but he has no idea what it is. And he gives no indication that he knew what the moon or stars were either.

Actually, the Bible doesn't really makes any claims as to Paul's understanding of what the sun, moon and stars really are, except to describe the amount of light they appear to give off. Even though the moon gives off absolutely no light of its own and the sun is merely an average-sized star, it would have made perfect sense for Paul to have described the glory of heavenly bodies from the greatest to the least to the sun, moon and stars respectively. To him and to his audience, his usage would have made perfect sense. The fact that we now know far more about these heavenly bodies than was known 2000 years ago is really immaterial in understanding this passage.

 

[Norman]

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: Why don't you list those relationships for us?

 

[Norman]

Are you sure you want to use Mormons as the foil for Islamic reasonableness? Don't you think you should use something a bit more reasonable?



It's a joke! It's a joke! Dear G-d its a JOKE!! Don't shoot me!!! Heeeellll...

Norman: What? Like an orthodox Jew?

 

[Norman]

I think this is very relevant: WARNING NSFW:
No One Murdered Because Of This Image | The Onion - America's Finest News Source

All jokes aside, the article does ask a serious question: why has there been no potentially lethal backlash against said image - especially considering it offends four religions as opposed to just one?

Norman: Why would you even post that picture? It is blasphemy and disgusting, is that what Jesus Christ means to you? Do you know what He did for mankind? Whether you accept him or not, I do and He is my Redeemer, my Savior, my King, he suffered and bled from every pore for me and took all my sins upon himself so that I could repent and come unto him. I don't know what it is like to have nails driven thru my palms, wrists and feet. I do not know what it is like to go thru a kangaroo court, being spit on, being antagonized, being lashed on the back and my flesh come off, his own family and home town thought he was crazy because he claimed to be the son of God, the only begotten son of God in the flesh. One day I hope to meet him and wet his feet with my tears and hope that I will receive mercy for the mistakes that I made in life. I know that he lives and will return to the earth and every knee shall bow and every tongue confess that he is the risen Christ, the spotless lamb, the advocate with the Father. I know and believe in this man, he is my God and my best friend. He listens to me when no one else will, I have his shoulder to cry on when no one else will give me there shoulder, he suffered so that he could succor his people. I know he knows me and understands me. I love him, I wish I was half the man that he is.

 

[Norman]

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.

Norman: I am not even going to pay attention to the rest of your garbage about my Church. I suggest you go to www.mormon.org and order a Book of Mormon, sit down and read the book, then come back and tell me what a wonderful book it is.

Norman: You must talking about this.

The Family
A Proclamation to the World
The First Presidency and Council of the Twelve Apostles of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints

We, the First Presidency and the Council of the Twelve Apostles of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, solemnly proclaim that marriage between a man and a woman is ordained of God and that the family is central to the Creator’s plan for the eternal destiny of His children.

All human beings—male and female—are created in the image of God. Each is a beloved spirit son or daughter of heavenly parents, and, as such, each has a divine nature and destiny. Gender is an essential characteristic of individual premortal, mortal, and eternal identity and purpose.

In the premortal realm, spirit sons and daughters knew and worshipped God as their Eternal Father and accepted His plan by which His children could obtain a physical body and gain earthly experience to progress toward perfection and ultimately realize their divine destiny as heirs of eternal life. The divine plan of happiness enables family relationships to be perpetuated beyond the grave. Sacred ordinances and covenants available in holy temples make it possible for individuals to return to the presence of God and for families to be united eternally.

The first commandment that God gave to Adam and Eve pertained to their potential for parenthood as husband and wife. We declare that God’s commandment for His children to multiply and replenish the earth remains in force. We further declare that God has commanded that the sacred powers of procreation are to be employed only between man and woman, lawfully wedded as husband and wife.

We declare the means by which mortal life is created to be divinely appointed. We affirm the sanctity of life and of its importance in God’s eternal plan.

Husband and wife have a solemn responsibility to love and care for each other and for their children. “Children are an heritage of the Lord” (Psalm 127:3). Parents have a sacred duty to rear their children in love and righteousness, to provide for their physical and spiritual needs, and to teach them to love and serve one another, observe the commandments of God, and be law-abiding citizens wherever they live. Husbands and wives—mothers and fathers—will be held accountable before God for the discharge of these obligations.

The family is ordained of God. Marriage between man and woman is essential to His eternal plan. Children are entitled to birth within the bonds of matrimony, and to be reared by a father and a mother who honor marital vows with complete fidelity. Happiness in family life is most likely to be achieved when founded upon the teachings of the Lord Jesus Christ. Successful marriages and families are established and maintained on principles of faith, prayer, repentance, forgiveness, respect, love, compassion, work, and wholesome recreational activities. By divine design, fathers are to preside over their families in love and righteousness and are responsible to provide the necessities of life and protection for their families. Mothers are primarily responsible for the nurture of their children. In these sacred responsibilities, fathers and mothers are obligated to help one another as equal partners. Disability, death, or other circumstances may necessitate individual adaptation. Extended families should lend support when needed.

We warn that individuals who violate covenants of chastity, who abuse spouse or offspring, or who fail to fulfill family responsibilities will one day stand accountable before God. Further, we warn that the disintegration of the family will bring upon individuals, communities, and nations the calamities foretold by ancient and modern prophets.

We call upon responsible citizens and officers of government everywhere to promote those measures designed to maintain and strengthen the family as the fundamental unit of society.

This proclamation was read by President Gordon B. Hinckley as part of his message at the General Relief Society Meeting held September 23, 1995, in Salt Lake City, Utah.

Source:

The Family: A Proclamation to the World

 

[McBell]

Norman: Why would you even post that picture? It is blasphemy and disgusting, is that what Jesus Christ means to you? Do you know what He did for mankind? Whether you accept him or not, I do and He is my Redeemer, my Savior, my King, he suffered and bled from every pore for me and took all my sins upon himself so that I could repent and come unto him. I don't know what it is like to have nails driven thru my palms, wrists and feet. I do not know what it is like to go thru a kangaroo court, being spit on, being antagonized, being lashed on the back and my flesh come off, his own family and home town thought he was crazy because he claimed to be the son of God, the only begotten son of God in the flesh. One day I hope to meet him and wet his feet with my tears and hope that I will receive mercy for the mistakes that I made in life. I know that he lives and will return to the earth and every knee shall bow and every tongue confess that he is the risen Christ, the spotless lamb, the advocate with the Father. I know and believe in this man, he is my God and my best friend. He listens to me when no one else will, I have his shoulder to cry on when no one else will give me there shoulder, he suffered so that he could succor his people. I know he knows me and understands me. I love him, I wish I was half the man that he is.

What does your above sermon have to do with the thread topic?

 

[fantome profane]

Norman: Hi fantome, I was not trying to play any games, I don't know what Paul knew or did not know, however, I do not believe men were ignorant of the universe in the bible. In another book of my Church that I presume you will not pay any attention to, the great prophet Abraham in the old testament was shown and taught about the universe by God. However, that may or may not be another conversation. That is up to you.

Exactly the point I was making. Someone writing a book in the 18th century would have access to a greater understanding then anyone from the 1st century or earlier. Thank you.

 

[fantome profane]

Actually, the Bible doesn't really makes any claims as to Paul's understanding of what the sun, moon and stars really are, except to describe the amount of light they appear to give off. Even though the moon gives off absolutely no light of its own and the sun is merely an average-sized star, it would have made perfect sense for Paul to have described the glory of heavenly bodies from the greatest to the least to the sun, moon and stars respectively. To him and to his audience, his usage would have made perfect sense. The fact that we now know far more about these heavenly bodies than was known 2000 years ago is really immaterial in understanding this passage.

Exactly the point I was making.

 

[Katzpur]

Exactly the point I was making.

Okay. Then what is it we're arguing about?

 

[Mycroft]

Norman: Why don't you list those relationships for us?

I would, but it would poke the ban fairy.

 

[Norman]

What does your above sermon have to do with the thread topic?

Norman: Instead of responding to my post, why don't you respond to the picture. The original OP mentioned the Mormons. After about five post's by other's
the topic fell away from the OP, it turned into a bashing session about The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints. If you have a problem with that, then it
lies with you, not me.

 

[Norman]

I would, but it would poke the ban fairy.

Norman: In the future if you want to debate and you make statements, make sure that you can back up your statements. Be quick to give support
for your opinion instead of making comments and then running from them. It would be common courtesy the person (s) that you are asking an
audience with.

 

[Norman]

Yes I've read the LDS website. On most of their doctrine that inspires incredulity, anyway.

The "as Man is God once was, as God is man may yet become" quote is what throws people off, I think, along with the suggestion that the concept was embraced by Jo smith

Norman: So what is your problem with this? Are you an atheist gsa? What exactly is your position in life about God? So far in your post's you make blanket statements about
The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints that are not what we teach today. Get your mind out of our past and get into the 21st century in our present. You have used this
thread in a manner to satisfy your own personal agenda, way off from the OP. Are you seeking disciples after yourself?

 

[Norman]

Well, there a few things that are working into this. Number one is the liberal perception, the liberal stance on how to deal with this. 2nd is the history of Christianity and how we reflect upon that, and along with that some Western foibles - all this goes in-between the eye and the lens when it comes to viewing the Islamic world.

Now part of the liberal's view is that time might do it, I think. That and the injection of modernity, an immersion in things like the internet and freedom of expression, all of this coming to them more and more for them to either clash against or accept. Liberals believe that once the door is open the light will be so blinding that they too will soon be voting for all those freedoms we've been long planting. After all, that's kind of the way it's went down for us as it relates to Christianity.

And so moving on to my 2nd point, Christianity is seen as having been obliterated. What medieval pope would tolerate pagan hippies, gay marriage, and freedom of speech? None. But how exactly did the bite get taken out of Christianity? Well, people got educated about it - over time they understood that it wasn't a religion that was good for war, that the OT doesn't really mix with the NT, that you can't really combine the warring of the OT with the gospel of NT - because once they could read they understood that the NT says things more along the line of 'turn the other cheek.'

So what they were doing was taking the gospel and promoting the Old Testament rules as something to preach with. Little did they know that even by the time of Christ, Jews didn't take all of that literally and evangelize or make wars with it, they had a far more intricate way of understanding those old stories with their oral tradition and debate so as to make it something you're supposed to give a lot more thought. Christianity was the breakaway thing that showed irreverence to that, but that's another thread.

So now turning back to the Islamic world, we see it more through how we now understand our historical interaction with the Christian world, the crux of which I tried to elucidate above. Another example might be the one between the Romans and the Northern tribal peoples like the Goths or the Celts. Now, the Barbarians did contribute to the fall of Rome, but study what Rome tried to do in that long struggle. They tried to make them into Romans - archeology shows the layout of Roman style cities, money was introduced as well as customs. Well, the Pagan/nominally Christian Barbarians had more war in them, and they won out and sacked Rome and we entered the dark ages.

So now when modern Rome sees an adversary in peoples whose way of life they disagree with, what is going to happen? Well, if history teaches us anything, the force with more of a will wins out. I doesn't matter if Rome has the phalanx or extreme discipline and uniformity, time and time again that strategy failed against a little bit of cunning. The more liberal a society (and ancient Rome even for its sins had more of liberal tinge than the others) the less prepared to truly defend itself it appears to be. So after the fall of ancient Rome, the Barbarians had their 1000 year dark age. Well, they came out of that crucible a great and wonderful liberal people who loves science and freedom. So the only way out is within. That is the conclusion - that time will do it, but it may be yet a very long time - for it took this long for us, and we can't have greater expectations for anyone else.

Norman: And your point is?