NOM

Adam and Eve are claimed as the first Mormons. Not sure how they got to be Mormons. Perhaps it was something in the water, or else appearing in the world in Jackson County Missouri, while the rest of their descendants resided in the Middle East.

Mormonist Hugh Nibley put forth the idea that Mormons came way later than the rest of humankind, which allows them the freedom of not being the result of waves of humanity slowly spreading from the African continent. This lineage shows they were all valiant in the pre-existence and fought on the side of the Lord when they charged up Ensign Peak during the Heaven War. They were not like those tea and coffee plants that stood by on the sidelines without lifting a leaf.

Which are you? A true blue Mormon or a pre-Adamite? Try rubbing the top of your forehead to feel for any horn bud bumps. If absent you might be from the wave out of Africa. Are your deceptiveness skills lacking or vacant? A sure sign of a pre-Adamite. Trusting of Ezra Taft Benson and Donald Trump? You have the believability genes of the true blues.

Anyway, at Christmas time here is a literary analysis of a film that might help us better understand Mormonism:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=opXFR6ab214

moksha wrote: ↑

Fri Dec 22, 2023 5:16 am

Mormonist Hugh Nibley put forth the idea that Mormons came way later than the rest of humankind

Did Nibbles really teach that? It balances so well between truth and parody that I could see it going either way.

moksha wrote: ↑

Fri Dec 22, 2023 5:16 am

Adam and Eve are claimed as the first Mormons. Not sure how they got to be Mormons.

I think I know that one. Adam (and presumably Eve) got baptized by flying through the air. Though I guess you could interpret that in a more boring way, that they were possessed by the Spirit and shambled down into the water like zombies.

Moses 6:64 wrote: 64 And it came to pass, when the Lord had spoken with Adam, our father, that Adam cried unto the Lord, and he was caught away by the Spirit of the Lord, and was carried down into the water, and was laid under the water, and was brought forth out of the water.

Now, what's really mysterious is how the Flintstones learned about Christmas.

Hagoth wrote: ↑

Sun Dec 24, 2023 11:15 am

moksha wrote: ↑

Fri Dec 22, 2023 5:16 am

Mormonist Hugh Nibley put forth the idea that Mormons came way later than the rest of humankind

Did Nibbles really teach that? It balances so well between truth and parody that I could see it going either way.

Nibley found it hard to deny evidence of the past and so the pre-Adamite idea helped him reconcile both this evidence and Mormonism.

moksha wrote: ↑

Sun Dec 24, 2023 11:04 pm

Hagoth wrote: ↑

Sun Dec 24, 2023 11:15 am

moksha wrote: ↑

Fri Dec 22, 2023 5:16 am

Mormonist Hugh Nibley put forth the idea that Mormons came way later than the rest of humankind

Did Nibbles really teach that? It balances so well between truth and parody that I could see it going either way.

Nibley found it hard to deny evidence of the past and so the pre-Adamite idea helped him reconcile both this evidence and Mormonism.

I remember one essay where he tried to put some reality on things. He described the expulsion from the garden as the gradual encroachment of the desert, and the Flood as a local phenomenon.

Pre-Adamites is such a goofy concept, but it is a great example of how apologetics deals with science. When the empirical evidence becomes convincing enough to threaten a magical belief about something, you just split that something into two somethings: Adamites/pre-Adamites, Mesoamerican Cumorah/North American Cumorah, angel-given seer stones/found-in-a-well seer stone...

Of course, the only other response is to plug your ears and simply deny the evidence, like JFS and fossils. I remember a visiting GA in my mission (can't remember who) pounding his fist and angrily commanding us NOT to believe the heresy of any kind of so-called prehistory. We have the books of Genesis and Abraham, gosh darn it, so we KNOW historical writing goes all the way back to the day of creation.

moksha wrote: ↑

Fri Dec 22, 2023 5:16 am

Mormonist Hugh Nibley

I'd like to see a Jared Hess movie about a character named Huge Nibbler who is a satirical conglomerate of all of the apologists we know an love. In my imaginary script Huge is a guy who will defend any crazy-ass dogma he's told to defend as long as there is a glimmer of admiration from above and a guarantee of a secure pension. He is a gregarious, spiritual man on the surface, but he is actively working behind the scenes to destroy anyone who isn't 100% with the program.

I would not make the script specifically about the Mormon church, but about a fictional church and it's bizarre doctrines, history and scriptures, and its money laundering university.

I know I was guilty of doing this back when I was a TBM, and I really hope I didn't annoy or offend anyone with nuanced or disbelief, but it's hilariously frustrating to hear talks or comments that build upon these things that we "know", taking a really tenuous idea and running it further or connecting it to another tenuous thread to make a point. You hear the "wise" or experienced priesthood holders do this very frequently, sounding like "spiritual giants" and intelligent guys who really understand the gospel even though when you break down their argument or premise, there's not a lot that becomes very defensible, or is equally susceptible to refute from another Mormon line of reasoning based on scripture and conf talks.

But.. since "we know" this to be true, that must also be correct. Blah blah.

I wish we could all agree that we don't know shit. Anything we "know" is just wishful thinking based on some nice emotions.

In the same way, I know football and baseball are true. Good music.

But rituals can be helpful, so if extended family is over, I'll remember to ask a willing kid to offer the blessing and pray that it's quick. Maybe all those Christmas cookies won't be quite as unhealthy.

Hagoth wrote: ↑

Tue Dec 26, 2023 8:11 am

I would not make the script specifically about the Mormon church but about a fictional church and its bizarre doctrines, history and scriptures, and its money laundering university.

It would be fun if some scenes of the movie were shot in the catacombs of the Neil A. Maxwell building and showing the secret apologetics ceremony with the goat. Not any animal cruelty, just where they are murmuring words of love and beginning to shout wild Adamic phrases before donning their goatskin leggings and dancing.

Cnsl1 wrote: ↑

Tue Dec 26, 2023 1:55 pm

You hear the "wise" or experienced priesthood holders do this very frequently, sounding like "spiritual giants" and intelligent guys who really understand the gospel even though when you break down their argument or premise, there's not a lot that becomes very defensible, or is equally susceptible to refute from another Mormon line of reasoning based on scripture and conf talks.

Or if you go to the effort to rationally and logically refute a belief or doctrine you run the risk of being perceived as having a darkened countenance and the cunning of The Adversary.

moksha wrote: ↑

Tue Dec 26, 2023 5:56 pm

It would be fun if some scenes of the movie were shot in the catacombs of the Neil A. Maxwell building and showing the secret apologetics ceremony with the goat. Not any animal cruelty, just where they are murmuring words of love and beginning to shout wild Adamic phrases before donning their goatskin leggings and dancing.

Don't joke about it, Moksha. This stuff is real. Leaked video: https://youtu.be/NIm8qNirTOk?t=69

Hagoth wrote: ↑

Wed Dec 27, 2023 7:27 am

Don't joke about it, Moksha. This stuff is real.

What could be more real or a greater tie-in than a Temple marriage ceremony?


BYU coed Connie Swail and two Temple workers

Hagoth wrote: ↑

Wed Dec 27, 2023 7:18 am

Cnsl1 wrote: ↑

Tue Dec 26, 2023 1:55 pm

You hear the "wise" or experienced priesthood holders do this very frequently, sounding like "spiritual giants" and intelligent guys who really understand the gospel even though when you break down their argument or premise, there's not a lot that becomes very defensible, or is equally susceptible to refute from another Mormon line of reasoning based on scripture and conf talks.

Or if you go to the effort to rationally and logically refute a belief or doctrine you run the risk of being perceived as having a darkened countenance and the cunning of The Adversary.

Pondering and thinking outside the box is fine so long as you still know that the church is true and you follow the brethren. Don't get outside of THAT box.

And yes, now that you mention it, I have noticed that Brother H's countenance has seemed darker.

Stained glass illustrating LDS religious belief from the Assembly Hall at Temple Square

Which one would represent a golden convert opportunity?

My guess is that the orangutan is the most likely, while the howler monkey would always be discussing politics in the Elders Quorum.

BYU Library Restricted Section:

https://www.youtube.com/shorts/Bjj1qVKWjwk

moksha wrote: ↑

Wed Jan 31, 2024 11:40 am

BYU Library Restricted Section:

https://www.youtube.com/shorts/Bjj1qVKWjwk

Hilarious. Probably some books about critical thinking in there too.

Happy Chinese New Year!