NationStates Jolt Archive

Seriously.

Not a joke.

Thread's at here (http://166.70.46.216/2004/May/05012004/Saturday/Saturday.asp), discussion on Fark.com (www.fark.com) [url=.

I know I've been accused of mormon bashing before, and the people at fark aren't the friendliest towards religion, period. But the only similarity between Buffy and Mormons is they both use stakes (have to know about mormonism to get that one :))

Comments?

Man I laughed my ass off litarely. Seriously what dumbasses.

Yes, they both suck.

dare I bump?

No. But I've got to rid myself of this palindromic post count. 8)

And I find this funny.

I'd be a Mormon if all Mormon females looked like Buffy :wink:

There's wackos in every religion. This guy is just one of over 10 million members, of whom only Gordon B. Hinkley speaks for the whole church.

Until this gets adopted as official church policy, it's not a big deal. It seems like you guys are just grasping at straws to bash on Mormons, something that I've seen before.

:lol:

I'd be a Mormon if all Mormon females looked like Buffy :wink:

Me to man, me to.

Hey there is nothing wrong with Mormons at all.

:shock:

....What can I say... east-coast mormons are wacky...

But some of that stuff makes sense... I guess...

BTW, careful on your word choice... "Leader" implies someone high up in salt lake... but oh well

Well, there are some parallels. Like Buffy, the Mormon church did have a spin off, called the Reorganized Church of Latter Day Saints, although I think they have another name now. Also like Buffy, they're primarily a money making enterprise with perhaps a little art and entertainment thrown in by accident. And, finally, like Buffy, they deal with the supernatural. In Buffy's case, she kills demons and such. Mormons baptise their dead relatives so someday they can rule their own planet like God rules this one.

As metaphor, I buy it.

Well, there are some parallels. Like Buffy, the Mormon church did have a spin off, called the Reorganized Church of Latter Day Saints, although I think they have another name now. Also like Buffy, they're primarily a money making enterprise with perhaps a little art and entertainment thrown in by accident. And, finally, like Buffy, they deal with the supernatural. In Buffy's case, she kills demons and such. Mormons baptise their dead relatives so someday they can rule their own planet like God rules this one.

As metaphor, I buy it.yeah, I guess in some weird ways, pointed out in the article, a chosen girl's quest to survive in a world of demons has it's parallels...

But as for the RLDS church, now known as the Community of Christ IIRC... calling it a spin-off would be incorrect... it's more like a group of people who ran off and tried to recreate our religion with a few major changes... so, spin-off is incorrect... more like a poor remake ;)

Hey, if they go out and stake vampires how bad can Mormans be?

Well, there are some parallels. Like Buffy, the Mormon church did have a spin off, called the Reorganized Church of Latter Day Saints, although I think they have another name now. Also like Buffy, they're primarily a money making enterprise with perhaps a little art and entertainment thrown in by accident. And, finally, like Buffy, they deal with the supernatural. In Buffy's case, she kills demons and such. Mormons baptise their dead relatives so someday they can rule their own planet like God rules this one.

As metaphor, I buy it.yeah, I guess in some weird ways, pointed out in the article, a chosen girl's quest to survive in a world of demons has it's parallels...

But as for the RLDS church, now known as the Community of Christ IIRC... calling it a spin-off would be incorrect... it's more like a group of people who ran off and tried to recreate our religion with a few major changes... so, spin-off is incorrect... more like a poor remake ;)

The more accurate term for the break would be "schism". The new Church is probably a sect, but I can't say for certain without knowing more about their beliefs. However, since the LDS is itself a sect, I'm guessing the RLDS is, too.

Hey, if they go out and stake vampires how bad can Mormans be?*sigh*
"Mormons"... where do you guys get this "a" thrown in there?!

Well, there are some parallels. Like Buffy, the Mormon church did have a spin off, called the Reorganized Church of Latter Day Saints, although I think they have another name now. Also like Buffy, they're primarily a money making enterprise with perhaps a little art and entertainment thrown in by accident. And, finally, like Buffy, they deal with the supernatural. In Buffy's case, she kills demons and such. Mormons baptise their dead relatives so someday they can rule their own planet like God rules this one.

As metaphor, I buy it.yeah, I guess in some weird ways, pointed out in the article, a chosen girl's quest to survive in a world of demons has it's parallels...

But as for the RLDS church, now known as the Community of Christ IIRC... calling it a spin-off would be incorrect... it's more like a group of people who ran off and tried to recreate our religion with a few major changes... so, spin-off is incorrect... more like a poor remake ;)

The more accurate term for the break would be "schism". The new Church is probably a sect, but I can't say for certain without knowing more about their beliefs. However, since the LDS is itself a sect, I'm guessing the RLDS is, too.RLDS is to LDS as Protestant is to Catholic.

:shock:

....What can I say... east-coast mormons are wacky...

But some of that stuff makes sense... I guess...

BTW, careful on your word choice... "Leader" implies someone high up in salt lake... but oh well

:lol:
No it ALL makes sense

Whatever. I'm both a Mormon and a Buffy and Angel fan and I can tell there are similarities but they are purely coincidental. Don't judge the whole church on the ravings of one obsessed guy.

i agree with Lakarian. Now with the whole comparing how Buffy uses the word stake and how the The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints uses the word stake is different. And to Berylvania, why don' t you open up your King James version of your Bible and goto 1 Corinthians 15:29 if we are going to be resurrected one day, and have not been baptized then how can we be resurrected. Jesus Christ was baptized to fulfill all of the comandments, and he was resurrected so then that would mean we need to be baptized to be resurrected. All of the Mormon beliefs can be backed up by scripture out of your King James version Bible.

Whatever. I'm both a Mormon and a Buffy and Angel fan and I can tell there are similarities but they are purely coincidental. Don't judge the whole church on the ravings of one obsessed guy.

That's right, there are plenty of other obsessed, raving lunatics to judge them off of. Cultisit and pop-culture, sounds like a good B movie. Hey, how about that talking salamander business?

Here's a legit questions for anyone who knows; "is the RLDS and the Temple Synod the same?" And how come no one has ever heard of this "modern Egyptian language before joe smith?" Seems a little funny that such a decisive language is still virtually unknown.

Whatever. I'm both a Mormon and a Buffy and Angel fan and I can tell there are similarities but they are purely coincidental. Don't judge the whole church on the ravings of one obsessed guy.

That's right, there are plenty of other obsessed, raving lunatics to judge them off of. Cultisit and pop-culture, sounds like a good B movie. Hey, how about that talking salamander business?

Here's a legit questions for anyone who knows; "is the RLDS and the Temple Synod the same?" And how come no one has ever heard of this "modern Egyptian language before joe smith?" Seems a little funny that such a decisive language is still virtually unknown.

its not "joe smith", its Joseph Smith

And how come no one has ever heard of this "modern Egyptian language before joe smith?" Seems a little funny that such a decisive language is still virtually unknown.

It would not have been unusual for noone to have heard of that specific dialect of Egyptian, Archeotechus. If you ask any semi-qualified expert on Egyptian history you will learn that when a ruler didn't like the way things went, they would simply change the event as recorded, or in some cases, obliterate all traces of it from their history.
For example, if Egypt lost a war they may mention the bravery of their soldiers in battle. They didn't say they won, but they didn't say they lost either. In Exodus 1:8 it mentions a new king of Egypt coming to power who knew not Joseph (or his relations, since Joseph had died by this point). Then the whole Isrealite people in thing occured, Moses saved them, and in the process killed lots of Egyptians through plagues and such.
These events wouldn't have made the king very happy. He probably obliterated all traces of those Hebrewic peoples that had caused so much trouble. This is the most likely explanation as to why there are no mentions of Moses & Co. in Egyptian history. One of the cultural traces wiped out would have been anything dealing with the Hebrew language. Interestingly enough, this would have included the Hebrew-Egyptian mix that Joseph Smith translated.
The Isrealite prophets would have continued to write in that dialect for hundreds of years of years until the Hebrew language changed enough as to be a different one from the Hebrew-Egyptian mix (Hebrew including other languages that the Hebrews may have picked up, such as Chaldiac). Before that change occured, however, we believe that Lehi took his family and journeyed to the Americas. This language apparently developed differently from its Hebrew cousin because some of it was still recognizable as Egyptian.
The Rosetta Stone was discovered in 1799, but Jean-Francois Champollion did not decipher the demotic or heiroglyphs on the stone until 1822. Joseph Smith had translated part of the Gold Plates (Book of Mormon) by 1825.
Martin Harris presented the translation to a Professor Charles Anthon, who had some knowledge when it came to the translation of Egyptian. Anthon said the translation was the most correct of any he had seen (goes to show ya what divine help can do :D ). He signed a certificate stating that the translation was genuine. When Anthon asked how Joseph Smith knew where to find the plates, Harris responded that an angel had told him. Charles Anthon promptly took back the certificate and ripped it up, while saying there was no such thing as a ministering of Angels in this day and age. Also, the plates with the egyptian-Hebrewic inscriptions were later taken back up by the earlier mentioned angel.

The whole point of my longwinded story above is to show that there is a plausible reason as to why this language has not been found elsewhere, and that it is indeed a valid language. However, because no other records are present today that bear the language, not much is known about it. I hope you didn't strain your eyes too much while reading this. I know I did while writing it! May the fuzzy bunny be with you all
(\ _ /)
(='.'=)
(")_(")

Actually, the most plausible explanation why Moses is not mentioned outside the Bible is because he either didn't exist or didn't do what the Bible says he did, the latter being the most likely. Anyone with even the faintest grasp of reality would see immediately that the demographic statistics of the Jewish population given in Numbers is obsenely ridiculous. There is not a chance in hell millions of people could survive in the desert for a few weeks, let alone 40 years. As such, the most probable historical Moses is a man who got harrassed and finally thrown out of Egypt, then wandered around in the desert until he stumbled upon a settlement, where he lived out the rest of his days talking trash about those damn dirty Egyptians who kicked him out. Time and the need for a Jewish hero did the rest.

As for the talk about a Pharoah's ability to obliterate any remnant of past failures: malarkey. After all, we know quite clearly that the Egyptians lost to 1) The people upriver 2) The Assyrians, 3) The Babylonians, 4) The Romans, and that's just off the top of my head. Additionally, you don't just change the culture overnight and its impossible to completely obliterate any remnant of past events just because the leader says so (If it could have been done, the Soviet Union would have found a way, but they didn't, so. . .). The only real time such a massive cultural shift happened in Egyptian history is when Akhenaton (sp?) changed the theology of Egypt to monotheism, and then the guy who murdered his son Tutankhamen shifted it back. Incidentally, most people think that the historical Moses was a rogue priest from this Akhenaton sect who fled rather than be killed. But you know what? Even such a massive cultural shift still has evidence for it.

Hey, Xenophobialand, We know about many losses of the Egyptians from other historical records. Also, I'm not saying that Pharaohs always erased everything they didn't like, just certain things they really didn't like. Was there a relative you didn't like for some reason or another? Bam, gone from the royal records. As it is, the record of Egyptian rulers contains quite a few sporadic holes, and the rulers had to exist at some point, so they were either not recorded or deleted. Most likely deleted, since the Egyptians seemed to do a wonderful job keeping track of kings for the other thousands of years of their history.
As I stated in my earlier post, often times the events would be edited to show the Egyptians in a favorable light. In other words, things weren't always deleted. Here is a fictional example as to how Historians would have to piece together Egyptian history: Archaeologists discover an Assyrian record saying they fought the Egyptians and won. They later uncover an Egyptian record saying they fought against the Assyrians, but it never mentions who won. Historians can conclude from this that they did indeed fight, and the Assyrians probably won because the Egyptians always make a big deal of winning. Since the Egyptians weren't jubilant at their victory, they probably lost. So, a loss to the Assyrians goes down in the history books.
As to the "Soviet Union would have changed their history" arguement, they could have, but nobody would have believed it. The whole world was watching what they did, but in a world connected by advanced communications the Soviet citizens would have found out what really happened.
The Egyptians did not have the whole world watching when a bunch of Jews decided to leave Egypt, nor did they have other people telling them by radio what really happened in a battle years ago. The Egyptians would have bought into almost anything the Pharaoh said, even if other people told them it was false. The Pharaoh was revered as a living god, for crying out loud!
I would say you have a point about the whole "millions-of-people living in the desert is impossible" thing except for one little fact. If you believe that god gave them food and water in the desert, then they'd be fine. This would have allowed them to survive for quite a long time. As mentioned in my earlier post, divine help is quite nice! Gotta go, I'll be back for more later.

lol, that's like when one of my Preists tried to brighten up his sermon with break-dancing. Break-dancing-Preists, could Church be any sweeter?