Mormon Cartoon

[Savage Beatings]

Will commend Jimmy Neutron for trying to engage the conversation rather than blowing a gasket for all the anti-mormon propaganda in the film.

 

 

JN has ALWAYS answered questions about his faith with openess, class and honesty.

[millerx]

I don't know how it works in other faiths, but it may be similar to the way that the Catholic Church categroizes such beliefs. Here is what it looks like for Catholics (the only thing really missing from the list would be contemporary Theological Opinion which would likely fall somewhere between #4 and #5):

 

 

 

1) Deposit of Faith:

Holy Scripture AND Sacred Tradition, recognized and deliniated by the Magesterium. INFALLIBLE. Cannot be added to or subtracted from.

 

 

 

2) Dogma:

INFALLIBLE teaching of Faith or Morals, derived from the Deposit of Faith. Propagated by ex cathedra pronouncment of reigning Pontiff or by a ecumenical council of the Church's bishops in turn ratified by reigning Pontiff. Cannot contradict Deposit of Faith or prior Dogma.

 

 

 

3) Doctrine:

NOT infallible teaching of the Church of Faith and Morals. Binding on all Catholics while propagated. Can be altered, modified, abandoned, even condemned. Doctrine RARELY becomes Dogma.

 

 

 

4) Discipline:

NOT infallible rules of behavior, binding on all Catholics while propagated, designed with the intent to keep believers "on the straight and narrow". Includes Lenten rules of fasting & priestly celibacy. Can be relaxed, altered, or abolished.

 

 

 

5) Devotions:

Private practice of prayers, meditions, and disciplines, in accordance to Church approval. Includes 99% of Marian devotions, belief in approved apparitions or visions (Private Revelation), First Saturdays, Stations of the Cross, etc...

 

 

So, in essence there are some areas where one could disagree with some stands taken by their preferrred religion without necessarily being non-religious (at least as goes the Catholic model). But by and large, I think you are correct that there are way too many people who identify themselves with a particular religion (for whatever reason) without wanting to fully invest themselves in the beliefs or practices of that religion.

Where does the sin of wearing a condom fall in this spectrum? Is that a Discipline? a Doctrine? what?

[CaP'N GRuNGe]

Where does the sin of wearing a condom fall in this spectrum? Is that a Discipline? a Doctrine? what?

 

That's clearly a deposit of...well you know.

[Savage Beatings]

Where does the sin of wearing a condom fall in this spectrum? Is that a Discipline? a Doctrine? what?

 

Probably Doctrine (that's just my opinion), as it is a teaching from the Church that relates to faith and morals. And while all Catholics are bound to the teaching, that does not mean that it is infallible. I can see a case being made that it should be a Discipline, but the theology behind the teaching is really more related to Doctrine than Discipline.

[Dr. Sacrebleu]

Um, I'm not so sure that film was created as anti-Mormon propaganda. Though I certainly believe Jimmy when he says that plenty in the cartoon is crap or at very least "mad libbed" from the old books.

 

Good point. It just had that feel about it, where propaganda takes basic truths, and cherry picking points to make someone look real bad. Now I am just curious as to the origin of this film. anyone?

Is it propaganda, or is it the fact that it is so antiquated (please don't tell me it is contemporary and not tongue in cheek or I might take my ire towrds the pope and turnit to the LDS) that makes it so weird?

Also the phrase mad libbing was pretty awesome...

[matt770]

Taken objectively, is Mormon mythology any more wacko than Christian mythology? The virgin birth, water into wine and all that? I'd call it a toss-up.

[detlef]

Good point. It just had that feel about it, where propaganda takes basic truths, and cherry picking points to make someone look real bad. Now I am just curious as to the origin of this film. anyone?

Is it propaganda, or is it the fact that it is so antiquated (please don't tell me it is contemporary and not tongue in cheek or I might take my ire towrds the pope and turnit to the LDS) that makes it so weird?

Also the phrase mad libbing was pretty awesome...

Have you ever seen "Mad Libs"? It's a word game.

[detlef]

I don't know how it works in other faiths, but it may be similar to the way that the Catholic Church categroizes such beliefs. Here is what it looks like for Catholics (the only thing really missing from the list would be contemporary Theological Opinion which would likely fall somewhere between #4 and #5):

 

 

 

1) Deposit of Faith:

Holy Scripture AND Sacred Tradition, recognized and deliniated by the Magesterium. INFALLIBLE. Cannot be added to or subtracted from.

 

 

 

2) Dogma:

INFALLIBLE teaching of Faith or Morals, derived from the Deposit of Faith. Propagated by ex cathedra pronouncment of reigning Pontiff or by a ecumenical council of the Church's bishops in turn ratified by reigning Pontiff. Cannot contradict Deposit of Faith or prior Dogma.

 

 

 

3) Doctrine:

NOT infallible teaching of the Church of Faith and Morals. Binding on all Catholics while propagated. Can be altered, modified, abandoned, even condemned. Doctrine RARELY becomes Dogma.

 

 

 

4) Discipline:

NOT infallible rules of behavior, binding on all Catholics while propagated, designed with the intent to keep believers "on the straight and narrow". Includes Lenten rules of fasting & priestly celibacy. Can be relaxed, altered, or abolished.

 

 

 

5) Devotions:

Private practice of prayers, meditions, and disciplines, in accordance to Church approval. Includes 99% of Marian devotions, belief in approved apparitions or visions (Private Revelation), First Saturdays, Stations of the Cross, etc...

 

 

So, in essence there are some areas where one could disagree with some stands taken by their preferrred religion without necessarily being non-religious (at least as goes the Catholic model). But by and large, I think you are correct that there are way too many people who identify themselves with a particular religion (for whatever reason) without wanting to fully invest themselves in the beliefs or practices of that religion.

Thanks for the thoughtful reply. Forgive me, but I'm not familiar with some of the terms. Like Deposit of Faith. That one seemed to refer to things like accepting communion and such? Just a bit confused.

 

At any rate, unless I read your post incorrectly (and given my lack of understanding, that is highly likely), it seems like most of what you are referring to are basically the rules. But that part, honestly, seems like the logical part. It's like obeying the laws of the land. My question has more to do with believing all the stories about how the earth was made and such. That's the part I don't get. I seem to recall that the last time we discussed this, you were rather adamant that these were not fables made up to make a point, but a true Catholic must believe that this is how it all went down. Is this correct?

[Savage Beatings]

Thanks for the thoughtful reply. Forgive me, but I'm not familiar with some of the terms. Like Deposit of Faith. That one seemed to refer to things like accepting communion and such? Just a bit confused.

 

At any rate, unless I read your post incorrectly (and given my lack of understanding, that is highly likely), it seems like most of what you are referring to are basically the rules. But that part, honestly, seems like the logical part. It's like obeying the laws of the land. My question has more to do with believing all the stories about how the earth was made and such. That's the part I don't get. I seem to recall that the last time we discussed this, you were rather adamant that these were not fables made up to make a point, but a true Catholic must believe that this is how it all went down. Is this correct?

 

I'm not trying to make this about Catholics. I'm just trying to give an example of one faith which has this kind of ranked categories of belief. I tried to give an explantion for each, and I'd say that it really doesn't have to do with rules, so maybe you are reading it a little bit incorrectly.

 

I think where things get most tricky is in certain theological interpretations which have not really been hashed out yet. For instance, Catholics must believe in Creation, but that certainly doesn't mean that they must believe in Creationism (which would say that God created man about 10,000 years ago or whatever it is that they believe). That God created us is part of the Deposit of Faith (the highest ranking category of belief) but how that occurred is up for debate (like it can ever be known).

[Dr. Sacrebleu]

Have you ever seen "Mad Libs"? It's a word game.

 

I may be a big fat frenchie, but I am familiar with mad libs I just thought that Neutrons description of the video as a madlib version of his beleifs (once again i was going on the principle that this was an anti-mormon video) was pretty ept. One can imagine a similar toon about, say catholics that would seem like the result of adrunken session of madlibs

As far as I am concerned we could have these conversations about all religions, just pointing out that the LDS are being mocked here in a way that would not be tolerated with other christian branches.

Definitely not being outraged though.

Now I AM super curious about where this film comes from.

As I said, if it is propaganda, I want to know who is behind it and I will conclude that religion is weird

If it is not propaganda, and rather a promotion of religion by a sect, I will conclude that it is weird.

[detlef]

I'm not trying to make this about Catholics. I'm just trying to give an example of one faith which has this kind of ranked categories of belief. I tried to give an explantion for each, and I'd say that it really doesn't have to do with rules, so maybe you are reading it a little bit incorrectly.

 

I think where things get most tricky is in certain theological interpretations which have not really been hashed out yet. For instance, Catholics must believe in Creation, but that certainly doesn't mean that they must believe in Creationism (which would say that God created man about 10,000 years ago or whatever it is that they believe). That God created us is part of the Deposit of Faith (the highest ranking category of belief) but how that occurred is up for debate (like it can ever be known).

Well, I doubt there's anyone here who knows more about their religion as you do yours, so let's just make it about Catholics for the time being. Hi-jack that it is, given the thread title.

 

Why I went with the "rules" tag, is that it seemed to me that you were talking about what was and was not optional in terms of what you can and can't do. And, again, I'm really trying to get a handle on how much of the bible the church recognizes as theories or fables and, thus let's you just go ahead and believe what you want in that regard.

 

If I understand correctly, Creation simply means that god made all this. Whether that means that, in 7 days it went from nothing to people walking around or whether it's some sort of "Intelligent design" thing is up to interpretation? Or that, perhaps, he really just sort of lit the spark and then science took over? Are any of those viable theories? The last one would seem tough though.

 

See, here's something that I could see being profound enough to launch a "religion" that requires no magic or water into wine stuff.

 

A great man was born to very humble means. But you could tell very early on that he was special. And people followed him because of this and he said many great things. He explained things so well using fascinating stories, and people wrote them down. The amazing thing about this guy was the fact that he didn't get drunk from this fame. He still walked with everyone and loved everyone. He was just that good.

 

Unfortunately, the tyranny of man couldn't handle it, so he was betrayed and killed. So, he died for our sins. Because "we" collectively, couldn't figure out what to do with something so pure. And, while he didn't actually rise from the grave, he lived on in the hearts of those who believed. So he may as well have risen because he ended up like a William Wallace thing. He lived through the stories and an increasing effect on more and more people. And people who may have been on the fence about whether to be a good person or not, were changed for the better.

 

And of course, over 2000 years, people got a hold of the story and made it more interesting and more likely to captivate people. And, for the most part, that's not a bad thing. We can learn from fiction just like we can learn from fact.

 

Could someone be a Catholic if that's what they believed?

Edited December 17, 2010 by detlef

[Savage Beatings]

Could someone be a Catholic if that's what they believed?

 

Short answer, no they couldn't. I'll try to give you a better, more in-depth reply another time.

[detlef]

Short answer, no they couldn't. I'll try to give you a better, more in-depth reply another time.

That's sort of what I thought. So, in short, one could live one's life in a manner completely consistent with the values and "rules" set forth by the Catholic religion. However, if you just accepted these rules as worth following without the clout that divine direction lends. That you didn't believe in "god" but, none the less, accepted Jesus as your savior (given the story above), you would not be a Catholic?

[Ursa Majoris]

Short answer, no they couldn't. I'll try to give you a better, more in-depth reply another time.

I'm guessing the most important bit that Detlef left out is the literal Son of God and the literal resurrection. I shall of course defer to your reply.

 

As far as the cartoon goes, it clearly seems to me to be an attack, although a fairly civil one. It looks like something from the 60s or 70s.

[detlef]

I'm guessing the most important bit that Detlef left out is the literal Son of God and the literal resurrection. I shall of course defer to your reply.

 

As far as the cartoon goes, it clearly seems to me to be an attack, although a fairly civil one. It looks like something from the 60s or 70s.

Why do you think it's an attack? If it's an attack, it's deftly done because it manages to avoid judgment. Damning as it is, it does seem to simply be an account of how things went down from a certain perspective.

[Bier Meister]

it's spelled moran

[Ursa Majoris]

Why do you think it's an attack? If it's an attack, it's deftly done because it manages to avoid judgment. Damning as it is, it does seem to simply be an account of how things went down from a certain perspective.

I just get the impression that it's done in a way that makes it seem laughable. "Endless celestial sex"? Smith sitting between Jesus and God?

[Chavez]

Sounds about right. Another peculiar thing about them is that they believe only 144,000 people will get to make it to Heaven... however, there are about 18,000,000 Jehovah's Witnesses in the world.

 

 

Hey, you don't have to be the BEST person in the world, you only have to be the 144,000th best; and not out of 5 billion, but out of 18 million. Them odds aren't that bad; way better than Powerball odds, at least.

[Chavez]

As many of you know, I am an atheist, and frankly think of all religion as a lot of weird myths.

While I disagree STRONGLY with most people's beleif systems, I do understand that these faiths are important to people, and respect them (which does not stop me from being vocal about it when it impinges on my freedoms)

While I do not know the source of this film, it certainly reminds me of those propagandist caricatures decrying jews, christians, or non-beleivers. At the very least, the phrase "people in glass houses..." come to mind.

Will commend Jimmy Neutron for trying to engage the conversation rather than blowing a gasket for all the anti-mormon propaganda in the film.

 

Without forgetting that that film is way funny and weird.

 

But since this board is predominantly protestant and catholic, let's not forget that a similar film about them with similar poor illustration would be equally weird and stupid

 

 

Cheese eating surrender monkey.

[Chavez]

Now I know where black people come from.

 

Is this real?

 

 

It isn't nice to troll poor Thews.

[Rovers]

I'm no theologan of catholisism, but as a catholic, while dorctrine does state catholisism is the only true religion, I've never been taught that people form other religions will be barred from heaven and everlasting life. Nor have I ever heard any condemnation of other christian churches, or of Judaism or Islam either. I have never been taught even through 9 years of private catholic schooling to hate at all.

 

I know not a single catholic that ever implied that any other christian church be "hated'. That flies in the face of the basic teachings in fact. I think the Mormons and JW's are pretty far out there, but hate? Not even close. I've been taught tolerance and understanding in my catholic upbringing. It is ONLY God that can judge. Having said that, I am somewhat repulsed by the "born again" faiths who claim sainthood for themselves and judge others who do not share their beliefs as people who are destined to be cast into hell. I cringe at their simplistic views of homosexuality being soley one of choice rather than genetic.

 

So, it doesn't mean I don't shake my head at other christian belief systems, but hate? No. I knew two guys who said they were born agains. They tried to 'recruit" me. They claimed that if they went out and murdered someone, if they truely asked for forgiveness that night, they would be forgiven, even if they went out and did the same thing the next day. When I questioned them on homosexuality, they said it was choice and meant condemnation to hell. When I asked them about true hermaphrodites, they were dumbstruck. Visably shaken. They said they would ask their preacher about it. Then they accused me of attacking their faith and being subversive. Good and evil, right and wrong are not so easilly polarized. It isn't black and white, it's all shades of gray.

 

Bottom line, as a catholic I've been taught to focus not on the differences in different christian chruch's belief systems, but to look for common ground instead. There is far more common ground than there are contradictory or opposing root beliefs. And taught not to judge, as that is soley up to God.

 

Are the Mormans christians? Do they consider themselves as such? The almost bizarre thing is that Judaism, christianity and even the Islamic faith all honor the same God, all based on the old testament bible God. How strange they should war with one another based on religion. But, even the Muslims wage religious war on each other withing the structure of Islamic beliefs. At the very basic level, I don't think these wars are religously based. It's something to hide behind. It's about power and econimics, money.

 

Lastly, I cannot admit to being a blind follower of any faith, I often question my own beliefs and wonder if it all is indeed, just opium for the masses. Even Mother Theresa questioned these things. In any case, I think being raised a catholic gave me a pretty good foundation for being an individual who has a pretty solid value system for living as a compassionate humanitarian. If that is all it is in the end, that isn't so bad.

[Azazello1313]

See, here's something that I could see being profound enough to launch a "religion" that requires no magic or water into wine stuff.

 

A great man was born to very humble means. But you could tell very early on that he was special. And people followed him because of this and he said many great things. He explained things so well using fascinating stories, and people wrote them down. The amazing thing about this guy was the fact that he didn't get drunk from this fame. He still walked with everyone and loved everyone. He was just that good.

 

Unfortunately, the tyranny of man couldn't handle it, so he was betrayed and killed. So, he died for our sins. Because "we" collectively, couldn't figure out what to do with something so pure. And, while he didn't actually rise from the grave, he lived on in the hearts of those who believed. So he may as well have risen because he ended up like a William Wallace thing. He lived through the stories and an increasing effect on more and more people. And people who may have been on the fence about whether to be a good person or not, were changed for the better.

 

And of course, over 2000 years, people got a hold of the story and made it more interesting and more likely to captivate people. And, for the most part, that's not a bad thing. We can learn from fiction just like we can learn from fact.

 

Could someone be a Catholic if that's what they believed?

 

a catholic? I dunno. but a christian, yes. what you describe is more or less pretty damn close to where I started my "journey of faith". I go back and forth on how fundamental "the empty tomb" idea is to a basic christian faith, but it is something I have devoted a lot of thought too. I fell pretty certain you don't necessarily need to believe in the virgin birth and such ( I honestly do not) to be a christian. but the resurrection? it comes down to a question of how much is literal and how much is metaphorical, and how much does the difference even matter?

[Duchess Jack]

All About the Mormons

[Dr. Sacrebleu]

Hey, you don't have to be the BEST person in the world, you only have to be the 144,000th best; and not out of 5 billion, but out of 18 million. Them odds aren't that bad; way better than Powerball odds, at least.

 

That's about the same odds as getting into Harvard.

Do you think your odds improve if you are a legacy mormon?

[Chavez]

it comes down to a question of how much is literal and how much is metaphorical, and how much does the difference even matter?

 

To some, it doesn't matter at all....to other, and I'm going to go out on a limb and say that the 2nd group are FAR more vocal about stuff, it makes ALL the difference.