quote: What are rules of ettiquette on removing parts of a post that, as Kat so wisely predicted, I regret the delivery in? Is it disingenuous to do so once people have commented on it?
It's up to you. Most things, I choose to leave in because, well, it happened and that's that. We all are human, we all make mistakes and we all say things we later regret. The important thing is that you are both cool with what happened.
Posts: 7050 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I wouldn't worry too much about it simply because we're almost to the next page. I always leave my posts (I do typo fixes and sometimes add content with an edit label), even when I've planted my foot thoroughly in my mouth, but if I had to make a guess about the "official" etiquette I'd say that if you really want to edit it just label your edit(s).
Posts: 10886 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
From what we know of Mayan culture, yes, all their human sacrifices went willingly. The sacrifice was the re-enactment of Quetzalcoatal voluntarily killing himself (actually his twin self, but still himself) at the beginning of time. The world grew out of his corpse. The Quetzalcoatal stand in was painted blue and volunteered their heart -- the greatest honour. Their sacrifice renewed creation.
They had plenty of other more minor blood sacrifices throughout the year. The elder of every house would be bloodletted every night. The king's penis would be cut open and the queen's tongue cut and their blood would be burned. The will of the gods could be seen in the smoke and this is how wars, crops, and new temples were decided.
Posts: 3243 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Interesting. It is my personal belief that the traditions of Quetzalcoatal are remnants from the actual visit Christ made to those people long before as chronicled in The Book of Mormon. That they went willingly in symbolism of what Christ (Quetzalcoatal) did (dying to redeem man) reminds me a lot of the tradition in the Philippines where men (and perhaps women, I don't know) volunteer to be crucified before Easter. They are not killed, and quite often the nails only go through the webbing of their feet and hands, but the motivation is very similar. To honor Christ's atonement. Their method is just less... committed.
I personally find both practices to be repugnant to God, but I understand that those who do it in the Philippines are honored greatly for their sacrifice and their willingness to approach suffering what Christ suffered. My personal belief is that Christ suffered so that we did not have to. I believe the only sacrifice he requires of us is "a broken heart and a contrite spirit" in recognition of what was done for us.
I realize that my calling Quetzalcoatal Christ would be deeply offensive to someone of that culture and perhaps others. But it is in alignment with my beliefs--for I do believe that Christ visited them and that I hold in my posession the record of it.
posted
I thought Quetzalcoatl was Aztec, not Mayan?
Ah-- here's an answer:
quote:Lastly, it must be kept in mind that despite Quetzalcoatl being an Aztec name, the cultures preceding them had their name for him as well, and applying their own unique attributes to him. Consequently, Quetzalcoatl is related to many names and incarnations, and seems to play a prominent role in a pantheon of virtually all the other Mesoamerican deities. Quetzalcoatl himself goes by the names of Gukumatz, Nine Wind, and Kukulcan among others. These are the most common names found in the general Aztec and Mayan cultures, with Quetzalcoatl maintaining a host of avatars with whom he is intimately connected with or represented by.
posted
Well, not ALL Aztec/Mayan blood sacrifices went willingly, mind you. Captives taken in war were generally part of mass sacrifices to the gods -- especially Huitzilapoctli, IIRC -- for further military favor.
Basically, both religions believed that the gods only listened to you if you spilled blood, and only did you favors if you spilled a LOT of it. I would be very, very leery of connecting Aztec and Mayan blood cults to the LDS church in any way; it's not really a comparison I think you'd want to make.
posted
You know, I hate to admit it, but I think the whole "eating babies" joke is getting more than a little long in the tooth. Want to retire it for something not quite so cliche?
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
No, see, that one's not really comedy gold, either. For one thing, the whole "eating babies/horns" thing isn't actually a legitimate mainstream comment directed at Mormons, so it lacks real satirical value in the first place. And on this site, it's WAY overused, especially as a bit that wasn't particularly incisive to start with.
For self-deprecating humor -- or, in this case, humor that's pretending to be self-deprecating -- to work, you have to start with a premise that people find remotely credible or actually associate with the group in question. Jokes about coffee, seagulls, magic underwear, temple recommends, and beehives are therefore considerably more ripe for humor.
The "didn't you know we all have horns" makes a good one-off quip, but Mormons on this board treat it like a rich vein of humor instead of the strip-mined wasteland that it is.
(Note: that said, Dag's response of "too many babies" WAS funny, because it took the cliche to an amusing conclusion. It's like the chicken crossing the road to do something useful.)
posted
Katie, I'm not about to start posting suggestions on jokes about Mormons that I think Mormons should find funny. If calling the destruction of the entire planet an evil act is a controversial claim that spawns six pages of defensiveness, I'm not NEARLY brave enough to start making fun of home teachers.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Who's defensive? I'm not defensive. Why is it always the other guy who's defensive? I'm not. It's him, right? Right?
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
I actually expected this question, and no. This is how my thinking goes. I don't personally believe that God talks audibly to people anymore, since we were given the Holy Spirit. And it would take a lot more than a niggle in my mind to get me to believe I was really supposed to kill someone.
I'm doing my best to follow God, but you don't kill someone unless you are very sure that's the only solution and I don't believe that God is ever going to make that clear enough to me that there is no doubt.
Truthfully, if something/someone came before me and told me to kill someone, and said they were a messenger of God, I'm not sure I'd believe them. There are two kinds of angels out there. : ) The Bible tells us to test all spirits to be sure they are from God. I think if someone came to me and directly ordered me to go do something that God had already told me not to do, or something that directly contradicted things God had already said, I'd have to wonder about the quality of the messenger. I mean, Satan's "angels" were originally just like the others, and they are pros at disguising and deceiving. My personal belief is that the only way you can tell a real messenger from a false one is by the message they give.
Besides, I also believe that 99% of what I need to know is in the Bible, and that, because I have the Scriptures to read, God guides me in small ways via the Holy Spirit. I don't need God to come down and tell me what to do straight out in every situation, because the Bible covers nearly everything I need to know.
This is not to say that I think God can't guide people more forcefully, I can't attest to another person's experience. And I don't necessarily believe that there can be no more revelations from God, but I still think it's necessary to compare the revelation to scripture we already have before accepting it. Does it expand, or contradict?
Now, because I know you will bring up the places in the Bible where God orders people to kill, let me say that I need to read those passages again before I get too deep into how I feel about them. I will say that, since the Holy Spirit became our main source of information from God, I don't believe that he comes to people and tells them things like that anymore.
I just don't see that it is something that's ever going to happen, or even meant to happen in the times we live in.
Posts: 6367 | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Come now. Those that believe that the death of Jesus was necessary also believe that he was not a mere moretal.
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
So the blood sacrifice of mere mortals is evil, but the blood sacrifice of gods made flesh is okay?
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote: I would be very, very leery of connecting Aztec and Mayan blood cults to the LDS church in any way
It's kinda hard for there *not* to be a connection when The Book of Mormon is (probably) about their ancestors. Just because they twisted the true gospel of Christ into something so ugly and vile doesn't make me leery of connecting them. The sins of the ancient Americas are the responsibility of the individuals involved.
Posts: 7050 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think there's a world of difference between dying to redeem man and dying to renew creation, Bev. Also, I don't know how fair it is to say that they're mimicking Christ just because their creation myth has someone dying to redeem/renew/create. That's a pretty common theme in creation myths from around the world (I believe). To me it sounds like you're stating with a conclusion and working toward the data rather than visa versa.
Of course, there's no real point in me bringing this up, is there?
Posts: 3243 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
I am not starting backwards. I have a book of scripture that talks about Christ visiting these people. It is obvious from all the evidence that symbols and stories of Christianity were widespread through the people of this continent. I am drawing a very logical conclusion.
Besides, considering how many centuries had passed since that visitation, it is astounding that anything at all would remain. I am impressed at how much evidence is actually there.
Really? I kind of thought he had no real choice in the matter. Or is this the "choose to have a safe, happy afterlife or BURN IN HELL!" sort of choice. You know, not really a choice. Or as Tom sort of put it the "Convert or Suffer!" choice that Christians offer in the after life or the Muslims offer in this one. Not really a "two roads diverge" choice where the outcomes aren't quite so clearly defined.
posted
No, it was a choice. Christ volunteered for the job before the earth began, and even in the Garden of Gethsamane and on the cross, it was always voluntary. It was a self-sacrifice.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
My understanding was that because of Christ's sinless state, if He had not gone through with it, He alone would have been worthy of returning to God. All the rest of mankind would have been lost.
Posts: 7050 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
Yeah, forget I mentioned it. It comes down to a differing opinion of The Book of Mormon, really. Something that isn't really reconcilable.
Posts: 3243 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
OMG, the Book of Mormon says that Christ visited the Mayans???!!! I really HAVE to read this book! And here, I merely thought it was time travelers from the far future. That certainly does explain two more books of OSC to me now.
Honestly, this surprises the heck out of me. Is this seen as a tale meant to teach a lesson or is this seen as true history? Are there Mormons who see this story in two ways as Christians do the Bible? I mean, do some see it as truth in history only (fundamental) vs. those who see it as Truth in meaning, but not likely historically? Wow. When did Jesus (as a human? Another human? Ghost? Holes in hands?) do this visit? Was he born again in the body of a human as a baby or just "poof" showed up? Sorry for my naivete in this but dang...blew me away.
quote:So the blood sacrifice of mere mortals is evil, but the blood sacrifice of gods made flesh is okay?
It should also be noted that the people who took part in the actual betrayal, tormenting, and cricifixion were committing evil acts, even though God used those acts for a far geater good.
posted
fil, in the interest of preserving this discussion, you should probably take that question to another thread. I'm pretty sure this thread will drown under the weight of The Book of Mormon replies. Actually, I'm reasonably sure there was a thread that talked about it recently. You could probably do a search for it.
Posts: 3243 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Christ volunteered before the earth was formed? Well, it makes it an easier choice when a) you know you really do exist and b) you know you really will exist after the event. What makes choices tough is when you DON'T know the outcome for sure. That is choice with real consequences. This is why I have a hard time sympathizing with the "no mere mortal" Jesus. I have much more sympathy with Jesus as a human who was so devout in his belief that he made the ultimate sacrifice not knowing if he was right or wrong. For Jesus, already an fully realized immortal godbeing to say he will...continue to be so after some mucking around with the humans...well, it is like creating a religion around Bill Gates taking a day to go to the hunger shelter and fill soup bowls for dinner. Sure, the intent was nice but a) he didn't really sacrifice a whole lot and b) the next day, he is still the (nearly) richest man in the world.
And now we know one reason why there are so many versions of Christians in the world!
posted
Bob, I thought this was a thread about Powell's wife being the devil? Seems just as on topic as the rest of the stuff!
Good point though. Didn't read your post until after I posted my last question. But it mostly keeps in tune with the "fundamentalist view" of one's religion. Mostly.
posted
Fil, I don't know of any LDS who takes the story as anything but literal. Some background: the people originally came from Jerusalem. They were lead by God across the sea to the American Continents. There were others who were led there in a similar manner. They brought scriptures with them so that their descendants would not forget the commandments of God.
They believed in Christ and had prophets, visions, and miracles. They were taught that Christ would be born in the area of their origins, would be the Son of God, would suffer, heal others, and sacrifice His life to redeem man. When Christ was born, they had a sign given, a day a night and a day without darkness. A new star also (I assume the same star seen in the Old World).
At the time of Christ's death, there was a terrible cataclysm, much worse than anything recorded happening in the Old World. Following that were three days of darkness. Shortly after the darkness dissipated, Christ appeared to a large group of people in his ressurrected form, holes in his hands and feet and all. He spent several days with them, visiting different groups, teaching them. The account of his visit begins int 3rd Nephi chapter 11.
Posts: 7050 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
