NOSTRADAMUS ON 2022

[The Nehor]

13 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Well, you have to understand that Joseph Smith was the Magus of the American Renaissance.

I don’t concede this but if true than Nostradamus was the Magus of Marketing Gurus. His product was rubbish but he knew how to sell it.

[MustardSeed]

Nostradamus?  hmm.  
 

Y2K was thought to be the end as well.  There were a LOT of babies born early October 2000.  In other words, we can either wring hands or live life. 

[The Nehor]

51 minutes ago, MustardSeed said:

Nostradamus?  hmm.  
 

Y2K was thought to be the end as well.  There were a LOT of babies born early October 2000.  In other words, we can either wring hands or live life. 

Learn to multi-task.

[Robert F. Smith]

4 hours ago, The Nehor said:

I don’t concede this but if true than Nostradamus was the Magus of Marketing Gurus. His product was rubbish but he knew how to sell it.

That is virtually the same thing which many say about Joseph Smith, even though it is false.

[Calm]

4 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

That is virtually the same thing which many say about Joseph Smith, even though it is false.

Does it make a difference to you if it is true when applied to Nostradamus?

Serious question as I am not sure what your position is, if intent matters or if you believe Nostradamus has been lied about and is actually a prophet or something else. 

[Robert F. Smith]

4 hours ago, The Nehor said:

My assessment of Nostradamus is accurate.

The weirdness of the comparison is a separate issue. Nostradamus didn’t bring any great truths to mankind, wasn’t created to inspire or improve humanity, and didn’t have any real moral or spiritual component. Just weird to try to compare them.

The apt comparison is with the general content of the Hermetic ideas.  Too often, the ideas are frequently the same or similar to those of Joseph Smith (as in the case of Bruno).   Whether those ideas are correct is quite another matter.  The "weirdness" is in the eye of the beholder.

[Robert F. Smith]

1 minute ago, Calm said:

Does it make a difference to you if it is true when applied to Nostradamus?

Serious question as I am not sure what your position is, if intent matters or if you believe Nostradamus has been lied about and is actually a prophet or something else. 

The Renaissance magi said and did a great many things which were controversial and so come in for a lot of criticism even today (aside from getting burned at the stake from time to time).  Dr John Dee, whom the Puritans hated with great passion (they destroyed his library at Mortlake), even wrote a book of Enoch, and possessed an Aztec stone (obsidian) which he used to conjure with -- both currently in the British Museum.  Harsh criticism of the magi might hit very close to home for us Latter-day Saints.  I suggest caution.

[ttribe]

Doesn't Mormonism have enough weird in it, as it is, that we don't really need to add Nostradamus as some kind of interregnum prophet?

Edited December 30, 2021 by ttribe

[Calm]

17 minutes ago, ttribe said:

Doesn't Mormonism have enough weird in it, as it is, that we don't really need to add Nostradamus as some kind of interregnum prophet?

I don’t see him leading many to Christ myself.

[ttribe]

1 minute ago, Calm said:

I don’t see him leading many to Christ myself.

Obviously, I don't believe in any of this stuff anymore, but assuming the LDS Church is actually led by prophets, doesn't it stand to reason (within the LDS rubric) that there would have been modern updates to his prognostications if he was, in fact, inspired?

[The Nehor]

1 hour ago, Robert F. Smith said:

That is virtually the same thing which many say about Joseph Smith, even though it is false.

People wrote up horrible things about Hitler too. And Mother Theresa. And George Washington. And Benedict Arnold. What is your point? That we can’t know anything and thus must give everyone the benefit of the doubt? A confession that you could dig down and see if what has been said about Nostradamus is true but just don’t want to?

It is also not virtually the same thing.

Joseph Smith had a message that he fought for, lived for, and died for. Nostradamus wrote down a mix of oracular pronouncements from the past along with some vague predictions that could mean anything. He also cast personal horoscopes and did so very badly.

51 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

The Renaissance magi said and did a great many things which were controversial and so come in for a lot of criticism even today (aside from getting burned at the stake from time to time).  Dr John Dee, whom the Puritans hated with great passion (they destroyed his library at Mortlake), even wrote a book of Enoch, and possessed an Aztec stone (obsidian) which he used to conjure with -- both currently in the British Museum.  Harsh criticism of the magi might hit very close to home for us Latter-day Saints.  I suggest caution.

Why is an attack on Nostradamus and his lazy methods somehow seen as an attack on everyone who had similar beliefs. Saying that Brother DownTheStreet is an apostate because he is selling blessings and using his church position to make cash…would that somehow be an attack on the church to you? Also, why Nostradamus? There are lots of oracular books out there written by much more sincere practitioners. Why go with the sloppy guy? Because it is popular? Tells you what you want to hear?

The Puritans were fanatical jerks? I find that hard to believe. Please stop disparaging my pilgrim ancestors!!!!!

1 hour ago, Robert F. Smith said:

The apt comparison is with the general content of the Hermetic ideas.  Too often, the ideas are frequently the same or similar to those of Joseph Smith (as in the case of Bruno).   Whether those ideas are correct is quite another matter.  The "weirdness" is in the eye of the beholder.

So Joseph Smith was a jerk to stop Hiram Page getting revelations from his stone. He should be defended lest we make the rest of the faith look weird? Not only that we should comb through the revelations he got to see if they were prophetically right just in case?

48 minutes ago, ttribe said:

Doesn't Mormonism have enough weird in it, as it is, that we don't really need to add Nostradamus as some kind of interregnum prophet?

Plus there are much better people to pick for the role if we have to have one.

[Robert F. Smith]

4 hours ago, The Nehor said:

People wrote up horrible things about Hitler too. And Mother Theresa. And George Washington. And Benedict Arnold. What is your point? That we can’t know anything and thus must give everyone the benefit of the doubt? A confession that you could dig down and see if what has been said about Nostradamus is true but just don’t want to?

It is also not virtually the same thing.

Joseph Smith had a message that he fought for, lived for, and died for. Nostradamus wrote down a mix of oracular pronouncements from the past along with some vague predictions that could mean anything. He also cast personal horoscopes and did so very badly.

Why is an attack on Nostradamus and his lazy methods somehow seen as an attack on everyone who had similar beliefs. Saying that Brother DownTheStreet is an apostate because he is selling blessings and using his church position to make cash…would that somehow be an attack on the church to you? Also, why Nostradamus? There are lots of oracular books out there written by much more sincere practitioners. Why go with the sloppy guy? Because it is popular? Tells you what you want to hear?

The Puritans were fanatical jerks? I find that hard to believe. Please stop disparaging my pilgrim ancestors!!!!!

So Joseph Smith was a jerk to stop Hiram Page getting revelations from his stone. He should be defended lest we make the rest of the faith look weird? Not only that we should comb through the revelations he got to see if they were prophetically right just in case?

Plus there are much better people to pick for the role if we have to have one.

Yes, the critics often mean well and are sometimes even sincere.  They speak with great self-assurance, and are often dumbfounded when their "facts" are ignored.  After all, it makes very little difference in the long term.  How surprising that our own tradition or faith should be treated as shabbily as someone else's.  Oh, the irony, Nehor.  Oh, the irony.

[The Nehor]

11 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Yes, the critics often mean well and are sometimes even sincere.  They speak with great self-assurance, and are often dumbfounded when their "facts" are ignored.  After all, it makes very little difference in the long term.  How surprising that our own tradition or faith should be treated as shabbily as someone else's.  Oh, the irony, Nehor.  Oh, the irony.

How is this a response to anything I actually said?

[Robert F. Smith]

10 hours ago, The Nehor said:

How is this a response to anything I actually said?

Your strong belief that logic and a list of "facts" is important is just silly.  That is not how things get done.  Never has been.

Perhaps you actually believe that it is necessary to attack astrology or the flat earth faith.  You need to connect the dots, Nehor.

[The Nehor]

4 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Your strong belief that logic and a list of "facts" is important is just silly.  That is not how things get done.  Never has been.

I don’t want to live on this planet anymore.

4 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Perhaps you actually believe that it is necessary to attack astrology or the flat earth faith.  You need to connect the dots, Nehor.

I thought it was only necessary to laugh at them. Recent years have taught me the folly of letting fools believe lies.

[Stargazer]

15 hours ago, The Nehor said:

Recent years have taught me the folly of letting fools believe lies.

Just be careful you're not one of them.