South Park episode about Mormons

Page 4 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

Excelsior

Lifer
May 30, 2002
19,047
18
81
Originally posted by: Cabages
Im mormon (currently on the fence about it though), and I go to a seminary class almost every day. If you have any questions, feel free to ask.

My religious class today talked about the PBS special. Most of them felt it was bias, and that they were unfair.

Its a tough religion to commit too. No sex before marraige, and no drinking are one of the harder things to follow, at least for me.

Gee, a bunch of Mormons thought the special was biased and unfair? Big shocker! :p

Funny thing is, apparently some thought it was too pro-Mormon. I guess it depends on her POV..I thought it was fair though. It talked a lot about strong families and values, and gave the story of a woman who was 'saved' by the church, etc.

 

engineereeyore

Platinum Member
Jul 23, 2005
2,070
0
0
Originally posted by: zinfamous
or, you could just die and be baptized by the Mormons...they don't really care!

It was very nice of them to baptize all of those jewish Hollocaust victims :thumbsup:

Actually, the church stopped doing that as soon as it was requested. Even today, the church will not baptize anyone of Jewish decent based upon this agreement. A person living today who is Jewish can only be baptized if they renounce their citizenship to the state of Israel and become a U.S. (or other national) citizen.
 

SaltBoy

Diamond Member
Aug 13, 2001
8,975
11
81
We believe the FIRST principle of the gospel is FAITH in the Lord Jesus Christ.
 

engineereeyore

Platinum Member
Jul 23, 2005
2,070
0
0
Originally posted by: zinfamous
I'm talking about intellectualism, not education. These are different things. Specifically, how the church frowns on attempts of objective portrayals of their history. Sure, if reading books is education that's fine; but being told what books you can and can't read is anti-intellectualism. Plenty of the most educated mormons have been excommunicated for reading "too much." I've known some pretty smart Mormons; the question is, "what were they allowed to learn?"

Anyway, I don't want to discredit the Mormon church's vast charity and social work. I have a lot of respect for that, and honestly, far more respect now than I ever thought I could give to the sect.

I don't know man. If anything, I've been encouraged to read as much as possible. Now I understand that some of the books I read may not have a common place in the normal LDS household, but they are still good books. We are encouraged to do two things, to gain as much knowledge during this life as possible and to read out of the best books that exist. There is no specification of what those "best books" are, but are simply left to the individual to determine. For instance, my wife loves Florence King, who is not exactly Mormon, but incredibly funny. ;)

My personal experience will obviously be different from others, but no one I have every meet has ever been encouraged not to read.
 

glutenberg

Golden Member
Sep 2, 2004
1,941
0
0
Originally posted by: child of wonder
Not being affiliated with any religion, I certainly do see many people who surrender reason and common sense for the feeling of belonging and importance organized religion provides.

I never spoke the word "intellectual" so I'm not sure where your first sentence is going there.

IMO it's possible to be religious AND have common sense. However, those who fall for so obvious a dupe such as Mormonism, Scientology, etc. forces one to question those individual's common sense.

What led you to believe this? I'd imagine that historically, many of the intellectuals of our past that we highly praise were religious and full of common sense.
 

engineereeyore

Platinum Member
Jul 23, 2005
2,070
0
0
Oh, and OP, yes, the South Park episodes are slightly off, but soo funny. I die everytime I see that one with "It appears it was the Mormons, yes the Mormon were the correct answer." So funny.
 

Cabages

Platinum Member
Jan 1, 2006
2,918
0
0
Originally posted by: engineereeyore
Oh, and OP, yes, the South Park episodes are slightly off, but soo funny. I die everytime I see that one with "It appears it was the Mormons, yes the Mormon were the correct answer." So funny.

While I myself dont like South Park, I have to admit whenever they do that line, its funny as hell.

<--1000:Q
 

toolboxolio

Senior member
Jan 22, 2007
872
1
0
Originally posted by: glutenberg
Originally posted by: child of wonder
Not being affiliated with any religion, I certainly do see many people who surrender reason and common sense for the feeling of belonging and importance organized religion provides.

I never spoke the word "intellectual" so I'm not sure where your first sentence is going there.

IMO it's possible to be religious AND have common sense. However, those who fall for so obvious a dupe such as Mormonism, Scientology, etc. forces one to question those individual's common sense.

What led you to believe this? I'd imagine that historically, many of the intellectuals of our past that we highly praise were religious and full of common sense.

I think he just proved his point.

You are imagining again. I can spout out the great minds of the past and none of them were highly religious if at all. (let alone fanatics like morms and scientologists).
 

child of wonder

Diamond Member
Aug 31, 2006
8,307
176
106
Originally posted by: engineereeyore
Originally posted by: zinfamous
or, you could just die and be baptized by the Mormons...they don't really care!

It was very nice of them to baptize all of those jewish Hollocaust victims :thumbsup:

Actually, the church stopped doing that as soon as it was requested. Even today, the church will not baptize anyone of Jewish decent based upon this agreement. A person living today who is Jewish can only be baptized if they renounce their citizenship to the state of Israel and become a U.S. (or other national) citizen.

They were asked to stop in 1995 and said they would.

Since then Mormons have not stopped, the Jews keep asking them to do so, the church reassures that they will stop... rinse and repeat.

Text
Text
Text
 

Vic

Elite Member
Jun 12, 2001
50,422
14,333
136
Originally posted by: toolboxolio
I can spout out the great minds of the past and none of them were highly religious if at all. (let alone fanatics like morms and scientologists).

You mean great minds of the past like Newton, Descartes, or Faraday? ;):p
 

child of wonder

Diamond Member
Aug 31, 2006
8,307
176
106
Originally posted by: toolboxolio
Originally posted by: glutenberg
Originally posted by: child of wonder
Not being affiliated with any religion, I certainly do see many people who surrender reason and common sense for the feeling of belonging and importance organized religion provides.

I never spoke the word "intellectual" so I'm not sure where your first sentence is going there.

IMO it's possible to be religious AND have common sense. However, those who fall for so obvious a dupe such as Mormonism, Scientology, etc. forces one to question those individual's common sense.

What led you to believe this? I'd imagine that historically, many of the intellectuals of our past that we highly praise were religious and full of common sense.

I think he just proved his point.

You are imagining again. I can spout out the great minds of the past and none of them were highly religious if at all. (let alone fanatics like morms and scientologists).

My bolded statement means this:

Just because one is religious does not mean they are stupid or lack common sense. I believe there are many intelligent, thoughtful people who are religious.

However, there are some religions that are so obviously false (Mormonism and Scientology for example) that I am forced to question the common sense of those who rigorously follow these faiths.

IMO, most follow these faiths for the sense of belonging, community, and importance that comes with being in a "secret" group that gives out special titles such as "Priest," "Brother," Operating Thetan levels, or secret names.
 

homercles337

Diamond Member
Dec 29, 2004
6,340
3
71
Originally posted by: Zolty
wiki

Inaccuracies

While most of the Mormon history and theology explained in this episode is correct, a few of the episode's details regarding Mormonism are incorrect:

* The "four golden plates" depicted in the episode appear as massive tablets, perhaps echoing traditional depictions of the two stone tablets containing the 10 commandments. However Smith and some of the witnesses described the golden plates as a collection (the exact number was never specified) of thin, metal sheets approximately 6" x 8".(Joseph Smith, Times and Seasons, v3:9, March 1, 1842, 707.)
* Mormon beliefs regarding the location of the Garden of Eden (Independence, Missouri) are not found in the Book of Mormon, but in the Doctrine and Covenants, another Mormon scripture (see Adam-ondi-Ahman).
* The episode claims that Mormons believe all Native Americans are descended from "white people" who came from Jerusalem, and that another Israelite tribe killed them and was cursed with "red" skin as a result. The episode is broadly reflective, however, of a repeated indication in the Book of Mormon that Lamanites were "cursed" with a "dark" skin or a "skin of blackness" as a result of their "iniquities" and "transgressions" (e.g. 2 Ne. 5: 21; Alma 3: 6), an effect that has been interpreted by some LDS Church members and leaders, including former church president Spencer W. Kimball, to apply to modern Native Americans.[1] It should also be noted that the introduction to the Book of Mormon states: "After thousands of years, all were destroyed except the Lamanites, and they are the principal ancestors of the American Indians." LDS.org
* In the episode, the Mormon family speaks only of Joseph Smith and the Book of Mormon, and the Marshes appear to convert after having only spoken informally with the Mormon family once or twice in as many days. In reality, potential converts are not allowed to join the Mormon church until they have met with official missionaries and followed a series of formal "discussions" outlining Mormon beliefs about God, Jesus, the Mormon concept of the purpose of life and the "Plan of Salvation", and agreed to live by various church precepts. They are expected to read from the Book of Mormon and the Bible, ask God in prayer if the Mormons' teaching are true, attend Sunday religious meetings at least twice, and commit to being baptized into the religion, all before conversion. An interview with other missionaries to determine readiness is conducted before baptism by immersion and confirmation take place, which are the rites necessary for membership in the church. The actual length of the process can vary from a couple of weeks to months depending on the actual individual taking the lessons. [2]

Turns out to be a hell of a lot more accurate than some seem to think.

/thread
 

Aikouka

Lifer
Nov 27, 2001
30,383
912
126
I remember watching the South Park episode based on WoW and pointing out all of the improper uses :p. Although when I spoke to Tristan, he said they tried to keep it accurate. Although how does one not realize that Pyroblast already has a 6s cast time :Q! And they were in Arathi at the Circle of Inner (or was it Outer?) Binding, not in Westfall! THE AUDACITY!
 

glutenberg

Golden Member
Sep 2, 2004
1,941
0
0
Originally posted by: toolboxolio
Originally posted by: glutenberg
Originally posted by: child of wonder
Not being affiliated with any religion, I certainly do see many people who surrender reason and common sense for the feeling of belonging and importance organized religion provides.

I never spoke the word "intellectual" so I'm not sure where your first sentence is going there.

IMO it's possible to be religious AND have common sense. However, those who fall for so obvious a dupe such as Mormonism, Scientology, etc. forces one to question those individual's common sense.

What led you to believe this? I'd imagine that historically, many of the intellectuals of our past that we highly praise were religious and full of common sense.

I think he just proved his point.

You are imagining again. I can spout out the great minds of the past and none of them were highly religious if at all. (let alone fanatics like morms and scientologists).

Strange, I don't remember saying that the great minds of the past had to be religious. Just that there have been many great minds that are religious which seems to negate the idea that they do not have common sense. Child of Wonder, himself, further clarified that he was referring to specific sets of religions (which, in itself, doesn't prove much).
 

child of wonder

Diamond Member
Aug 31, 2006
8,307
176
106
Originally posted by: glutenberg
Originally posted by: toolboxolio
Originally posted by: glutenberg
Originally posted by: child of wonder
Not being affiliated with any religion, I certainly do see many people who surrender reason and common sense for the feeling of belonging and importance organized religion provides.

I never spoke the word "intellectual" so I'm not sure where your first sentence is going there.

IMO it's possible to be religious AND have common sense. However, those who fall for so obvious a dupe such as Mormonism, Scientology, etc. forces one to question those individual's common sense.

What led you to believe this? I'd imagine that historically, many of the intellectuals of our past that we highly praise were religious and full of common sense.

I think he just proved his point.

You are imagining again. I can spout out the great minds of the past and none of them were highly religious if at all. (let alone fanatics like morms and scientologists).

Strange, I don't remember saying that the great minds of the past had to be religious. Just that there have been many great minds that are religious which seems to negate the idea that they do not have common sense. Child of Wonder, himself, further clarified that he was referring to specific sets of religions (which, in itself, doesn't prove much).

Individuals belonging to certain sects immediately bring me to question their common sense. However, someone could belong to a much more mainstream and not as obvious fabrication and they could still lack common sense.

I'm just saying that based on the validity of the religion (some are more valid than others in terms of historical accuracy, common practices, and overall agenda) that I feel the mean common sense of it's constituents is lower proportional to the absurdity of the religion and Mormonism is pretty absurd.
 

zinfamous

No Lifer
Jul 12, 2006
111,125
30,076
146
Originally posted by: engineereeyore
Originally posted by: zinfamous
I'm talking about intellectualism, not education. These are different things. Specifically, how the church frowns on attempts of objective portrayals of their history. Sure, if reading books is education that's fine; but being told what books you can and can't read is anti-intellectualism. Plenty of the most educated mormons have been excommunicated for reading "too much." I've known some pretty smart Mormons; the question is, "what were they allowed to learn?"

Anyway, I don't want to discredit the Mormon church's vast charity and social work. I have a lot of respect for that, and honestly, far more respect now than I ever thought I could give to the sect.

I don't know man. If anything, I've been encouraged to read as much as possible. Now I understand that some of the books I read may not have a common place in the normal LDS household, but they are still good books. We are encouraged to do two things, to gain as much knowledge during this life as possible and to read out of the best books that exist. There is no specification of what those "best books" are, but are simply left to the individual to determine. For instance, my wife loves Florence King, who is not exactly Mormon, but incredibly funny. ;)

My personal experience will obviously be different from others, but no one I have every meet has ever been encouraged not to read.


Well, the did expel one of their more recent historians (not sure if he was completely excomunicated) for researching a little too deeply. Honestly, this argument is primarily based on teh Frontline program, as it really exposed me to a lot I didn't knwo about the church, both positive and negative.

The fact that there is a repeated history of sanctioning and excommunicating those within the church that Investigate the faith at any length disturbs me. And during a mission, when you are partnered with your mission buddy and required at all times to knwo exactly what that person is up to, and to refrain from watching TV, listening to radio, going to movies, etc (if such things are directly forbidden), this is an active attack on intellectualism.

They may be responsible for fine Universities, but selective encouragement (and directed discouragement) is the antithesis of intellectualism ;)

An analogy I was thinking of earlier whilst mucking around with mouse embryos: George Bush can be considered educated. He went to Yale, he graduated (somehow he did; but he still graduated). He is certainly educated. An Intellectual, he is most certainly not. His staunchest supporters would admit this....and gladly. In fact, that's likely the main reason that most of the yokels voted for him--his perceived anti-intellectualism. It doesn't matter to them whether he went to Yale, whether or not his family is one of wealthy Northeastern decent (Well, it mattered to the Texas voters in '83 when they kept his ass out of the state senate for being too smart, and an elitist Northeasterner--amazing how 2 decades can seemingly erase an education and a family history ;))

Point being: educated /= intellectual.

I think this changed with the advent of Business Schools. (in that I think of intellectual meaning philosophical, mathematical, scientific, and literary)
 

zinfamous

No Lifer
Jul 12, 2006
111,125
30,076
146
Originally posted by: Vic
Originally posted by: toolboxolio
I can spout out the great minds of the past and none of them were highly religious if at all. (let alone fanatics like morms and scientologists).

You mean great minds of the past like Newton, Descartes, or Faraday? ;):p


Descartes indeed, but I do believe that Newton's faith was more akin to that of Jefferson's. It was convenient, in that it didnt' draw suspicion form those he needed to convince....in order to his important work unabated. (He learned from Gallileo) He was apparently so into cosmology, alchemy, and supernatural exploration that I think it would be difficult to truly label his faith.

But plenty of great minds were indeed religious, but I think most of them would be attributed to the literary or artistic mind. The most obvious being Da Vinci, Michelangelo, et al. The great philosophers and writers of the Renaissance were certainly religious.

However, with a lot of these great minds there is a tendency towards atheism as they progress in their life. Darwin being one hell of an example. And even Einstein, who was always careful to attribute some magic to God in his public speeches and publications, was perceived by his friends as atheist.
 

engineereeyore

Platinum Member
Jul 23, 2005
2,070
0
0
Originally posted by: child of wonder
They were asked to stop in 1995 and said they would.

Since then Mormons have not stopped, the Jews keep asking them to do so, the church reassures that they will stop... rinse and repeat.

Text
Text
Text

They have stopped. The only ordinances that are still performed, as each of those article confirm, is for people who were in the database prior to 1995. And, as you second article specifically states, that is in complete compliance with the agreement. Simply because joe-blow doesn't agree doesn't make a hill of beans. Plus, the fact that all that has been done for most of these people is baptism is proof that the work has stopped. More would be done on them if this was not the case.

Your argument here is as lame as the one for the mountain meadow massacre. Just give it up. You can't prove the truth wrong, no matter how hard you try.
 

engineereeyore

Platinum Member
Jul 23, 2005
2,070
0
0
Originally posted by: zinfamous
Well, the did expel one of their more recent historians (not sure if he was completely excomunicated) for researching a little too deeply. Honestly, this argument is primarily based on teh Frontline program, as it really exposed me to a lot I didn't knwo about the church, both positive and negative.

The fact that there is a repeated history of sanctioning and excommunicating those within the church that Investigate the faith at any length disturbs me. And during a mission, when you are partnered with your mission buddy and required at all times to knwo exactly what that person is up to, and to refrain from watching TV, listening to radio, going to movies, etc (if such things are directly forbidden), this is an active attack on intellectualism.

Oh, but that was such a great time. By the way, we were allowed to listen to the radio, but only classical and news stations. Brings up a lot of good memories. Such a great time!

They may be responsible for fine Universities, but selective encouragement (and directed discouragement) is the antithesis of intellectualism ;)

An analogy I was thinking of earlier whilst mucking around with mouse embryos: George Bush can be considered educated. He went to Yale, he graduated (somehow he did; but he still graduated). He is certainly educated. An Intellectual, he is most certainly not. His staunchest supporters would admit this....and gladly. In fact, that's likely the main reason that most of the yokels voted for him--his perceived anti-intellectualism. It doesn't matter to them whether he went to Yale, whether or not his family is one of wealthy Northeastern decent (Well, it mattered to the Texas voters in '83 when they kept his ass out of the state senate for being too smart, and an elitist Northeasterner--amazing how 2 decades can seemingly erase an education and a family history ;))

Point being: educated /= intellectual.

I think this changed with the advent of Business Schools. (in that I think of intellectual meaning philosophical, mathematical, scientific, and literary)


Oh I would agree, but I'd just have to disagree with the idea that the church pushes anything like that. I just don't see it. I've read and seen what many of the ex-communicated people have done and said. Matter of fact, I've been and still remain friend with several people who have been excommunicated. Just my personal experience, I don't see it. That's just my experience though.
 

Eeezee

Diamond Member
Jul 23, 2005
9,922
0
0
Are you really looking to South Park for your information on a topic?

Are you insane? It's a comedy show.
 

child of wonder

Diamond Member
Aug 31, 2006
8,307
176
106
Originally posted by: engineereeyore
Originally posted by: child of wonder
They were asked to stop in 1995 and said they would.

Since then Mormons have not stopped, the Jews keep asking them to do so, the church reassures that they will stop... rinse and repeat.

Text
Text
Text

They have stopped. The only ordinances that are still performed, as each of those article confirm, is for people who were in the database prior to 1995. And, as you second article specifically states, that is in complete compliance with the agreement. Simply because joe-blow doesn't agree doesn't make a hill of beans. Plus, the fact that all that has been done for most of these people is baptism is proof that the work has stopped. More would be done on them if this was not the case.

Your argument here is as lame as the one for the mountain meadow massacre. Just give it up. You can't prove the truth wrong, no matter how hard you try.

LMAO

"The truth?!?!"

Mormon beliefs could not be any further from it!

Obviously you made no attempt to read the few articles I posted using a simple Google search for "Mormons holocaust." Either that, or you mistook them for a "create your own story" book.

From the first link:

"Mormon officials promised in 1995 to stop the practice of posthumously baptizing Jews, but did not. They reiterated the pledge in 2000."

From the second link:

"Ms. Radkey, an Australian-born Christian, said she began researching the Mormon practice in 1999 after discovering that the teenage diarist Anne Frank had been posthumously baptized."

"Ms. Radkey also provided Mr. Michel with evidence that many of these Jews had been baptized after the 1995 agreement."

And the third link is filled with articles chronicling the dispute between the Jewish community and Mormons.

You can close your eyes, plug your ears, and scream "la la la!" all you want, but that doesn't change the FACT that the post humus baptisms of Jews killed in the Holocaust HAS NOT STOPPED. As late as December of 2006 the feud is still ongoing. To dispute that only shows your complete and total fear of relevant debate on the subject and unwillingness to contemplate any point of view outside what your local Mormon authority tells you (like a good little Mormon should!).

As for the Mountain Meadows Massacre, again, your unwillingness to look at any facts regarding the issue does not form any kind of coherent talking point.

Mormons murdered men, women, and children at Mountain Meadows in cold blood. This is an indisputable, recorded FACT. The only point in dispute is whether Brigham Young had prior knowledge of, condoned, or ordered the attack.

Why don't you fast on this for a few days and then come back with some actual arguments worth debating, not silly rhetoric, remission of facts, and chest thumping.
 

engineereeyore

Platinum Member
Jul 23, 2005
2,070
0
0
Originally posted by: child of wonder
LMAO

"The truth?!?!"

Mormon beliefs could not be any further from it!

Now, if anything deserves a LMAO, it's that comment.

Obviously you made no attempt to read the few articles I posted using a simple Google search for "Mormons holocaust." Either that, or you mistook them for a "create your own story" book.

From the first link:

"Mormon officials promised in 1995 to stop the practice of posthumously baptizing Jews, but did not. They reiterated the pledge in 2000."

:roll: Yeah, cause "reiterate" means the first one wasn't in place? Reiterate means repeat. What's the problem?

From the second link:

"Ms. Radkey, an Australian-born Christian, said she began researching the Mormon practice in 1999 after discovering that the teenage diarist Anne Frank had been posthumously baptized."

"Ms. Radkey also provided Mr. Michel with evidence that many of these Jews had been baptized after the 1995 agreement."

From the article.

Some Jewish genealogists agree with the Mormon interpretation of the agreement. "I have a copy of the agreement," said Gary Mokotoff, the publisher of Avotaynu, the International Review of Jewish Genealogy. "The wording is vague in some places, but it definitely does not obligate the Mormons to scour their own archives on an ongoing basis."

Hmm, Mr. Michael vs. someone who knows what they're talking about. Hmm, wonder which one I'm going to go with?

Perhaps it's is YOU that needs to read your articles before you post them.

And the third link is filled with articles chronicling the dispute between the Jewish community and Mormons.

Yes, and provides nothing that isn't already stated in the first two.

You can close your eyes, plug your ears, and scream "la la la!" all you want, but that doesn't change the FACT that the post humus baptisms of Jews killed in the Holocaust HAS NOT STOPPED. As late as December of 2006 the feud is still ongoing. To dispute that only shows your complete and total fear of relevant debate on the subject and unwillingness to contemplate any point of view outside what your local Mormon authority tells you (like a good little Mormon should!).

Yeah, the fact that people I know have had to go through the process of changing citizenship to be baptized because they were Jewish was apparently just a dream. You keep dreaming and hating the church all you want little boy. Doesn't hurt me a bit.

As for the Mountain Meadows Massacre, again, your unwillingness to look at any facts regarding the issue does not form any kind of coherent talking point.

Mormons murdered men, women, and children at Mountain Meadows in cold blood. This is an indisputable, recorded FACT. The only point in dispute is whether Brigham Young had prior knowledge of, condoned, or ordered the attack.

Facts? What facts? You have no facts? You have possibilities that you will hold on to till your dying day because you hate the church, PERIOD. Here's the facts.

Brigham Young was not only the religious leader of the LDS church, but the political leader as well. After LDS people being murdered, abused, beaten, raped, jailed, assaulted, and forced out of their homes, can you blame the man for being a little paranoid? I'm sure you could, but I doubt many normal people would. The fact is they were at that time expecting an army from the U.S. that received false claims that they were again gathering an army to fight against the U.S. Once again fearing what happened before would happen again, they were prepare to fight this time.

Was what happened tragic? Absolutely. Should it have happened? I would hope not. But the fact remains, it was not a MORMON army sent out. You want to blame this on the Mormon church because you hate it and the people involved were Mormon, and for you, that's all you need.

You have no proof, only theories, that would claim Brigham Young as being responsible. And even if he was, he was acting in the office of political leader, not church leader. But hey, who cares? I've got something I can use to justify my hatred of the Mormons!! Well congratulations, no one cares.

Why don't you fast on this for a few days and then come back with some actual arguments worth debating, not silly rhetoric, remission of facts, and chest thumping.

ROFLMAO!!! The irony of that coming from you almost made me pee my pants. Just shut up.