Why are people mormon considering it is obvioulsy fabricated?

[dianaiad]

I agree, I think it’s in the “how interesting” category for me. I haven’t read much about Quetzalcoatl, but from the wikipedia page, apparently he was sometimes seen as a symbol of death and resurrection, and was born of a virgin (along with his twin).

yep. The myth has some extremely interesting aspects to it.

But other myths from other civilizations are also interesting…and when you think about it, if God is, and He created all of us, OF COURSE all the mythology of the world would have interweaving concepts and aspects to it. After all, as we all came from the same place, so to do the stories.

As a sorta linguist, I’m somewhat familiar with the language trees of the world. If we can trace two incredibly different modern day languages back to a common language ancestor, almost back to a first, general, protolanguage, so to will many of the stories (and certainly the morals of those stories) also be traced back.

…and if we Christians are right, consider what all those stories are traced back TO.

 

[mjf001]

Michael, however you got here, I’m just glad you’re here!

The feeling’s mutual, Melanie, and it’s good to know I’m not the only fan of Fr. Corapi.

 

[mjf001]

Michael,
Thanks for expressing your feelings about the use of the word “apostasy”. I’ve never felt like that was the “right word” for what was being talked about, so I agree with you from the standpoint that it is not the “right word,” but as far as I know there is no “right word”. One could say the “falling away” but I don’t think that expresses what happened, either. One could say the “straying away”, and perhaps that would best fit but it would still need to be explained. I wish there were a different, distinctive word that would have a single connotation that would not be able to misunderstood. But there’s the English language for you–words with several connotations, and sometimes no word at all to fit the exact meaning desired by the speaker or the writer. I wish with all of my heart that there were a different word in existence in this case. I think it would alleviate a lot of misunderstanding.

Have a good evening.

Looking forward to our continuing conversation.

God Bless,
Michael

 

[Stephen168]

LDS like to throw apostacy around all the time. Apostacy is a big deal for Catholics, it means a total abandonment of the faith. To say the early church fathers were apostate, for a Catholic, well, there really is no bigger insult. It means the entire church from that point on was fallen.

A total abandonment/rejection of the faith is the definition of ‘apostasy.’ I believe this definition makes apostasy a historical event. As it has become clear that it was never a historical event it seems that Mormonism has had to change the definition of apostasy to be a belief. Believing that apostasy was a loss of authority can not be confirmed or denied by the events of history; problem solved. It also seems to me that the ‘new’ definition helps Mormonism appear to be nice. What do you think?

 

[mjf001]

A total abandonment/rejection of the faith is the definition of ‘apostasy.’ I believe this definition makes apostasy a historical event. As it has become clear that it was never a historical event it seems that Mormonism has had to change the definition of apostasy to be a belief. Believing that apostasy was a loss of authority can not be confirmed or denied by the events of history; problem solved. It also seems to me that the ‘new’ definition helps Mormonism appear to be nice. What do you think?

Regardless of the definition they use, traditional Christianity, I think, has always used apostasy as originally defined in my post and in the first part of your post. I’m not sure, from our perspective it’s seen as nice, because of our definition of the word. I suppose someone in LDS circles might see it that way.

 

[PaulDupre]

Here is something interesting I read:

understandingmormonism.org/book_of_mormon_evidence

"Frequently in Ancient American literature and legends, reference is made to a “white, bearded god who descended out of the heavens.” Although he is referred to by several names, this legendary figure is often referred to as Quetzalcoatl. “Historians of the sixteenth century recorded pre-Hispanic beliefs concerning the white, bearded god who came to the Americas long before the arrival of the Spanish conquerors” (Brewerton, 30). While this may seem to be merely a legend or an unexplainable part of history, the Book of Mormon, believed to be written by ancient American prophets, reports the visitation of Jesus Christ to the American continent following his resurrection. The congruencies between the Book of Mormon account and Native American legends are astonishing. The following paragraphs contain examples of these Native American legends"

From wikipedia, the all-source D):
**
"Some Mormon scholars believe that Quetzalcoatl, as a white, bearded God who came from the sky and promised to return, was actually Jesus Christ. According to the Book of Mormon, Jesus visited the American natives after his resurrection.[15]

Latter-day Saint President John Taylor wrote:

"The story of the life of the Mexican divinity, Quetzalcoatl, closely resembles that of the Savior; so closely, indeed, that we can come to no other conclusion than that Quetzalcoatl and Christ are the same being. But the history of the former has been handed down to us through an impure Lamanitish source, which has sadly disfigured and perverted the original incidents and teachings of the Savior's life and ministry."[16] "**

Look at the Wikipedia page. Quetzalcoatl was a feathered serpent god associated with mars and venus. This god had nothing to do with Jesus, and was not a white man with a beard until Cortez created such a myth. There is no indication, prior to the Spanish conquest of the new world, that the Aztecs or anyone else associated Quetzalcoatl with a bearded white man, or anything but a feathered serpent who was a god of war and fertility, slept with a forbidden priestess and comitted suicide. Hardly our savior.

The LDS have grabbed hold of a Spanish PR trick to try to legitimize the Book of Mormon, a 19th century work of fiction.

 

[dianaiad]

Look at the Wikipedia page. Quetzalcoatl was a feathered serpent god associated with mars and venus. This god had nothing to do with Jesus, and was not a white man with a beard until Cortez created such a myth. There is no indication, prior to the Spanish conquest of the new world, that the Aztecs or anyone else associated Quetzalcoatl with a bearded white man, or anything but a feathered serpent who was a god of war and fertility, slept with a forbidden priestess and comitted suicide. Hardly our savior.

The LDS have grabbed hold of a Spanish PR trick to try to legitimize the Book of Mormon, a 19th century work of fiction.

(sigh)

Paul, you are taking this a little too far. The fact is, there are similarities between the Quetzalcoatl myth and the story of Jesus, and it is NOT ‘spanish pr’ that Montezuma had a little problem with his version of it.

You don’t have to work this hard to disparage every piece of evidence that could possibly even SLIGHTLY support the Book of Mormon, y’know. Don’t be so flippin’ afraid of it. Finding something that might actually support it does NOT mean that it is true.

Nobody here is claiming that the existence of such myths are proof that the Book of Mormon is true,though it is one of those things that one would expect to find if such an event as Christ’s visit to the New World actually did happen. Stories including that event, in some version or incarnation or other, would be natural.

Of course, almost every culture has a god-figure that is born of a virgin and shares other characteristics with the story of Jesus. I have my own theory about why that is.

 

[ParkerD]

Paul,
I’m looking at the article on the Aztecs in an old encyclopedia in my home, and it says “An Aztec legend said that Quetzalcoatl had sailed across the sea and would return someday.” I’m not sure if you’re saying that you have read that the Spaniards “created” that legend or made it up? The encyclopedia has reputable scholars as writers.

“Feathered serpent” would likely be a symbol of a flying serpent.

 

[RebeccaJ]

The cult of the serpent god Quetzalcoatl originates with the Olmec, c. 1200-400 BC. Like much of Olmec culture, it spread to most of Mesoamerica. The serpent god does not have wings, and does not fly, it is plumed only.

As Paul Dupre points out, it is a pagan god, part of a large pantheon of gods. One that is still worshiped in some areas.

 

[why_me]

I’m not talking about your posts here. I’m talking about the ones on another board where you talk specifically about people on this board, and none to kindly I might add.

I do believe that I mentioned the tone of this board but no specific names. By the way, a catholic who used to post here more or less said the same thing and agreed with me. You would be surprised what the average catholic would think about threads like this.

 

[why_me]

And so at this moment we have almost 60 pages on this topic about the mormon church being obviously fabricated. It would seem that since the topic has taken close to 60 pages and still growing with mormon and catholic debate about it, we can say that the lds church is not obviously fabricated. And this was my claim all along.

Since faith and doubt go hand in hand, there is certainly a lot of people who wish to give doubt in mormon minds about the truthfulness of their church and it does work at times because doubt is a powerful tool but still the lds church is not obviously false. But then again, there are a lot of doubt-sayers toward christianity and religion in general and these doubt sayers have an impact too. Doubt promotion is a very powerful tool.

 

[RebeccaJ]

(sigh)

Paul, you are taking this a little too far. The fact is, there are similarities between the Quetzalcoatl myth and the story of Jesus, and it is NOT ‘spanish pr’ that Montezuma had a little problem with his version of it.

You don’t have to work this hard to disparage every piece of evidence that could possibly even SLIGHTLY support the Book of Mormon, y’know. Don’t be so flippin’ afraid of it. Finding something that might actually support it does NOT mean that it is true.

Nobody here is claiming that the existence of such myths are proof that the Book of Mormon is true,though it is one of those things that one would expect to find if such an event as Christ’s visit to the New World actually did happen. Stories including that event, in some version or incarnation or other, would be natural.

Mormon rumors of this sort are used to promote the BoM as historically viable. Particularly to the gullible and under educated.

 

[Religio71]

And so at this moment we have almost 60 pages on this topic about the mormon church being obviously fabricated. It would seem that since the topic has taken close to 60 pages and still growing with mormon and catholic debate about it, we can say that the lds church is not obviously fabricated. And this was my claim all along.

Since faith and doubt go hand in hand, there is certainly a lot of people who wish to give doubt in mormon minds about the truthfulness of their church and it does work at times because doubt is a powerful tool but still the lds church is not obviously false. But then again, there are a lot of doubt-sayers toward christianity and religion in general and these doubt sayers have an impact too. Doubt promotion is a very powerful tool.

So…as a Catholic, where is your claim that the Catholic Church is the true Church, founded by Christ and continued for 2000 years? Sad.

 

[RebeccaJ]

The entire religion is based on a fabrication, that of a “great apostasy”. For a Catholic, it doesn’t get any more obvious than that.

 

[dianaiad]

Mormon rumors of this sort are used to promote the BoM as historically viable. Particularly to the gullible and under educated.

Actually, the study of comparative mythology and linguistics is not generally the purview of the undereducated or the gullible.

But if you want to talk about ‘gullible’ and ‘faith promoting’ stories, how about the sightings of the Virgin Mary on 1; A pancake griddle, 2. A grilled cheese sandwich, 3. a couple of Funyums stuck together, 4. a potato chip and 5; chocolate drippings found on the floor in a chocolate factory.

Now me, since I don’t happen to deal ithe images of Mary or use the symbology of statues or icons to help me worship, I’m more likely to ascribe these sightings to faith—and pareidolia.

Now, if I were going to behave like you do, I would start making fun of these sightings, and talk about how such things are only for the gullible and illiterate—and that it might be a wee bit silly to put a griddle in a makeshift altar in a storage room, or to spend $28.000 for that grilled cheese sandwich.

However, I’m quite able to see how those images could be interpreted as being of Mary, even if I don’t think that there are any supernatural explanations for them. I particularly like the Funyums one. That looks like a particularly graceful Mother and Baby sculpture. I’m not going to pretend that people don’t really see them, or have their faith increased thereby…or that their very existence proves you FALSE.

Even if I do think it sounds pretty silly.

In the case of the Quetzocoatl mythology, the fact is, that the myths exist. I do not, and neither does any mormon I know, think that their existence (or similar ones in other native American cultures and oral histories) prove that the BoM is true. They are just…interesting, and more interesting to folklorists, linguists and anthropologists than anybody else.

It is YOU that are so afraid that they might actually support it that you can’t stand it; you must poo poo them, and make them less than they are, for fear that there might be something to it.

Shoot, you remind me of those scientists who, upon first hearing the ‘Big Bang’ theory, didn’t want to examine it or to hear about it, because they were afraid that it actually supported the idea of a Creator, and they couldn’t have THAT, could they?

 

[RebeccaJ]

Actually, the study of comparative mythology and linguistics is not generally the purview of the undereducated or the gullible.

Actually, your missionaries had this Quetzlcoatl rumor in slide stips, ie, part of their 6 week fast track to mormonism.

What’s your point.

But if you want to talk about ‘gullible’ and ‘faith promoting’ stories, how about the sightings of the Virgin Mary on 1; A pancake griddle, 2. A grilled cheese sandwich, 3. a couple of Funyums stuck together, 4. a potato chip and 5; chocolate drippings found on the floor in a chocolate factory.

Unlike mormonism, we are not required to believe the “visions” of others. This would include the visions of Smith.

Now me, since I don’t happen to deal ithe images of Mary or use the symbology of statues or icons to help me worship, I’m more likely to ascribe these sightings to faith—and pareidolia.

Now, if I were going to behave like you do, I would start making fun of these sightings, and talk about how such things are only for the gullible and illiterate—and that it might be a wee bit silly to put a griddle in a makeshift altar in a storage room, or to spend $28.000 for that grilled cheese sandwich.

Ummmm, are you saying Quetzlcoatl is a part of your religion? Really? Because yeah, Mary is a part of our religion. And if someone sees her image in toast or tortillas, really, what’s the problem? It leads them to a stronger devotion to Mary? What? Not that!

How strong is your devotion to Questzlcoatl?

In the case of the Quetzocoatl mythology, the fact is, that the myths exist. I do not, and neither does any mormon I know, think that their existence (or similar ones in other native American cultures and oral histories) prove that the BoM is true. They are just…interesting, and more interesting to folklorists, linguists and anthropologists than anybody else.

Really? Any mormon? I like how you have never been taught the things that every mormon I know has been taught. Rather convenient.

It is YOU that are so afraid that they might actually support it that you can’t stand it; you must poo poo them, and make them less than they are, for fear that there might be something to it.

No Diana, I do not fear your fictions. However, you have stated that your purpose here is to provide information for any who might read these threads. I find no reason to sit by and let the lies flow, unchallenged, without an opposing view.

Do you fear this?

Shoot, you remind me of those scientists who, upon first hearing the ‘Big Bang’ theory, didn’t want to examine it or to hear about it, because they were afraid that it actually supported the idea of a Creator, and they couldn’t have THAT, could they?

You are grasping. If even that. The way you defend this, I’d say definitely, you believe Questzlcoatl is a part of your religion.

 

[dianaiad]

Actually, your missionaries had this Quetzlcoatl rumor in slide stips, ie, part of their 6 week fast track to mormonism.

What’s your point.

Your point, Rebecca. You were the one talking about how investigating this stuff was for the illiterate, ignorant and gullible.

Unlike mormonism, we are not required to believe the “visions” of others.

I guess you are going to have to throw out most of the New Testament, then, from Acts on. But you are correct; you aren’t required to believe a darned thing. Do what you wish.

This would include the visions of Smith.

You are a Catholic. Why would you believe Joseph Smith’s visions?

Ummmm, are you saying Quetzlcoatl is a part of your religion?

Nope. Pay attention. I was saying quite the opposite. YOU are the one setting up the strawman, and then mocking it.

Really? Because yeah, Mary is a part of our religion. And if someone sees her image in toast or tortillas, really, what’s the problem? It leads them to a stronger devotion to Mary? What? Not that!

You really don’t read, do you? I didn’t say it was a problem. I didn’t make fun of it at all.

How strong is your devotion to Questzlcoatl?

Really? Any mormon? I like how you have never been taught the things that every mormon I know has been taught. Rather convenient.

Rebecca, I love how you have presented yourself as an expert on a religion that you left when you were sixteen, and that your memories of teenaged years absolutely MUST trump the learning and experience of 50 years…and why? Because you left and I didn’t. This is the only area where something like that makes sense to anybody.

No Diana, I do not fear your fictions. However, you have stated that your purpose here is to provide information for any who might read these threads. I find no reason to sit by and let the lies flow, unchallenged, without an opposing view.

Do you fear this?

You are grasping. If even that. The way you defend this, I’d say definitely, you believe Questzlcoatl is a part of your religion.

What in the world do you think I’m defending? Do you even read anything I actually write?

 

[why_me]

.

What in the world do you think I’m defending? Do you even read anything I actually write?

No, she didn’t.

Diana, you are a very intelligent person who is attempting to accomplish something on these threads. And that is admirable. But one thing you will need to understand, there are anti mormon posters on the mormon threads who claim to be catholic and these posters will never be able to have a discussion with you. It is impossible for them to do so. The only thing they can do is throw negatives into the discussion. But they cannot have a communication with you except by those means. It is impossible for them. You are much better off taking what they say with a grain of salt since they are only trying to get a rise out of you. But let me say this:

Knowing what I know about receiving the communion in peace and harmony because of the receiving of the body and blood of christ, I really don’t know how these so called catholic posters do it. I sense too much dislike in them to take the communion. Feeling as they do toward mormons and also of those of other faiths and religions, I don’t know how they can take the communion.

And so, the so called catholics here are a minority and very small minority at that. Most catholics on this forum have no hatred or dislike for mormonism and mormons, And these people stay away from these threads because they know that it is against their faith to mock and disparage other religions.

Also, a good catholic should not have such contention inside them and they attempt to accomplish their task by and through prayer by praying for the mormons or any othe people of other faiths so that they may see the truth and come unto christ in the true and apostolic church. So don’t take it all so seriously. You will only get heartburn and in the end, the antimormon so called catholics will triumph because of it, because doubt is doubt and it is a powerful weapon, especially when coupled with a stream of negatives that actually say nothing.

 

[Stephen168]

Ummmm, are you saying Quetzlcoatl is a part of your religion?

I did think it was interesting after you pointed out that seeing Christ in the myth of a feathered serpent as gullible; her defense was to attack Catholics instead of defending the Mormon position. And comparing a historical Christian figure seen in toast; does make you ask the question: Is the feathered serpent considered a Mormon historical figure?

Attacking Catholics to try and defend Mormonism is one of many reasons I know it is a fabrication.

 

[zaffiroborant]

I do believe that I mentioned the tone of this board but no specific names. By the way, a catholic who used to post here more or less said the same thing and agreed with me. You would be surprised what the average catholic would think about threads like this.

And and LDS rebuked you for your posts on that thread. You were gossiping and “judging without mercy”.