Charity is continuing to propagate the ignorance of Nibley
Posted: Mon Mar 03, 2008 10:45 pm
I posted the reply to your ludicrous comments in the celestial thread in this forum because I have more range to mock your asinine beliefs here.
Lets get this straight. Vacuous similarities cited by you and Nibley combined with reaching and spurious arguments of relation to said observations with Mormonism are based in looking for what you want to see.
Now lets talk about mormonisms "restoration of truth". The telephone game you describe is once again a poor analogy for a pseudo scientific outlook you and nibley perpetuate. In this act you sully the cultures you compare and do a disservice to the misanthropes who also perpetuate nibleys tinfoil hat theories about meme propagation. To use this reaching method to legitimize Mormonism by attempting to link a 1830's tent revival/mysticism religion with ancient cultures is intellectually dishonest.
Mormonism is a collection, as I stated, of frontier mystical beliefs and early American Christianity. It is not a restoration of old principals. Once again you put the end at the beginning and try to fix it by the time-warping properties of a "restored gospel". What I mean by this is that you look to the past, see what Mormonism has ripped off and declare "AHA! The two are similar because we restored the REAL truth and cut out all the fluff". Too bad, so sad. A typical behavior of any culture is to copy the culture that came before the existing culture. All you are doing is labeling this behavior as restoring original principals. You are not restoring anything by doing so. What you are doing si just changing the label and claiming authorship of another culture. This is a cheap way to give Mormonism the mystique of ancient cultures, giving false credibility to the believers. It does not work and you look like an idiot when you try to do so.
This is like me plagiarizing a book, changing it a little and when I am prosecuted for said plagiarism simply declaring that I restored the book to how it should have been.
This line of reasoning always bothered me. It is an example of blatant arrogance. Then again, it does not surprise me that you follow this method of faking out your frontal lobe in order to continue your own self agrandizing fantasy.
Hugh Nibley should have recieved public flogging for giving missionaries the false belief that there was someone out there who could make bald faced lies and call it scholarship.
Lets get this straight. Vacuous similarities cited by you and Nibley combined with reaching and spurious arguments of relation to said observations with Mormonism are based in looking for what you want to see.
Now lets talk about mormonisms "restoration of truth". The telephone game you describe is once again a poor analogy for a pseudo scientific outlook you and nibley perpetuate. In this act you sully the cultures you compare and do a disservice to the misanthropes who also perpetuate nibleys tinfoil hat theories about meme propagation. To use this reaching method to legitimize Mormonism by attempting to link a 1830's tent revival/mysticism religion with ancient cultures is intellectually dishonest.
Mormonism is a collection, as I stated, of frontier mystical beliefs and early American Christianity. It is not a restoration of old principals. Once again you put the end at the beginning and try to fix it by the time-warping properties of a "restored gospel". What I mean by this is that you look to the past, see what Mormonism has ripped off and declare "AHA! The two are similar because we restored the REAL truth and cut out all the fluff". Too bad, so sad. A typical behavior of any culture is to copy the culture that came before the existing culture. All you are doing is labeling this behavior as restoring original principals. You are not restoring anything by doing so. What you are doing si just changing the label and claiming authorship of another culture. This is a cheap way to give Mormonism the mystique of ancient cultures, giving false credibility to the believers. It does not work and you look like an idiot when you try to do so.
This is like me plagiarizing a book, changing it a little and when I am prosecuted for said plagiarism simply declaring that I restored the book to how it should have been.
This line of reasoning always bothered me. It is an example of blatant arrogance. Then again, it does not surprise me that you follow this method of faking out your frontal lobe in order to continue your own self agrandizing fantasy.
Hugh Nibley should have recieved public flogging for giving missionaries the false belief that there was someone out there who could make bald faced lies and call it scholarship.
charity wrote:Mercury wrote:charity wrote:Mercury wrote:charity wrote:
Charity, by design documents of a religious nature are just xeroxed memes propagated in the language of another culture. I am sure you think that the Bible was produced out of "everlasting principles" but realistically look to the reliable likelihood that it was (like every other religious document) ripped off from previous ideas and doctrines.
Mercury, LDS theology is that Adam and Eve were the human progenitors. The Gospel in its fulness was given to them by direct messengers from God.
Then as human history unfolded, those original, pural doctrines were distorted, corrupted, etc. and became the myths and legends we find in all cultures. So you see, when subsequent dispensations repeated those doctrines and stories, they weren't ripping off any of the surrounding cultures. They were going back to the original.
No.
What you are doing is using standard behavior and reinterpreting it to fit your world view. This is an intellectually dishonest approach.
You don't see things through your own world view? I have a news flash for you. WE ALL DO!
It is always instructive to learn about behavior. Didn't you ever play "Gossip" at a party? Tell one person a story, they tell someone else, and they tell someone else. Was the story at the end of the line the same as the begnning story? Stories changed over time.Mercury wrote:[
All cultures borrow from other cultures. Your (borrowed) theory of dilution is not sound and I would appreciate it if you gave it another thought and dumped this idea, as it is pompous and backwards to believe that your world view is the distilate of truth instead of what it is, a patchwork of frontier occultic practices and early American christian teachings.
My world view is not a "distillation" of truth. I think I made it plain that there is an original "truth" which becomes distorted until God reveals and restores it again. LDS theology is not distilled from any cultural millieu. We have a restoration of the original truth.Mercury wrote:Nibleys silly approach of playing mix-and-match with cultural comparison is a study in faith promoting rumor via poor interpretation of disparate cultures and their mythology.
People who can't understand what Nibley said shouldn't try to comment on it.Mercury wrote:[
To continue in the belief that Mormonism is somehow a restoration of what is true is neither provable nor utilitarian. I would appreciate it if you would cease and desist propagating this silly line of reasoning.
Maybe not provable. But certainly utiliarian. It suits 13 million of us just fine. I would appreciate it if you would cease and desist with mocking and ridiculing concepts you cannot understand.