A Mopologetic Version of Jesus?

[_Tom]

Friends and Colleagues:

It would seem that, in 2019, the Mopologists are treating us to a new level of openness and candor. First, Dr. Midgley very generously filled in mountains of backstory concerning (among other things) Mopologetic finances and tactics: a watershed moment if there has ever been one, to be sure! Even more recently, though, Dr. Peterson treated us to an important insight on the way that the Mopologists view Jesus:

I was the founder and, for years, the editor-in-chief of Brigham Young University’s former Middle Eastern Texts Initiative, which was recently transferred by the Maxwell Institute to E. J. Brill Publishing in the Netherlands. The Middle Eastern Texts Initiative (METI) produced bilingual editions of books (mostly Islamic, but also sometimes Eastern Christian and Jewish) from the classical Islamic world. The books were printed at Brigham Young University Press and distributed by the University of Chicago Press.

Anyway, one of the volumes features what I still consider the best single line that we ever published.

Al-Ghazālī (d. AD 1111), who was one of the most significant figures in the history of Islamic thought, a legendarily brilliant philosophical theologian and legal thinker who spent most of his life in Iran and Iraq but also sojourned for a significant period in Jerusalem, is talking about extremely poor students, and, in that context, attributes the following remark to Jesus:

“Even though I managed to raise the dead, I have never been able to cure an idiot!”

(See al-Ghazālī, “O Son!,” trans. David C. Reisman, in Classical Foundations of Islamic Educational Thought, ed. Bradley J. Cook [Provo, UT: Brigham Young University Press, 2010], 103.)

Now, I’ll admit that my first inclination was to say that this alleged statement can’t possibly be authentic. And that’s still probably correct. But al-Ghazālī is entirely serious, and plainly regards the statement as genuine. Furthermore, his citation of it takes us back fully a thousand years or more, halfway to the time of Jesus. So . . .

I have to confess that I rather like the idea that the Savior might have said such a thing. It humanizes him a bit. Surely, with all those long walks from Nazareth to Capernaum, and from Capernaum to Jericho, and from Jericho to Jerusalem, and from Jerusalem back up to Capernaum or Nazareth, it can’t all have been immortal sermons and solemn earnestness. (Can it? Maybe I’m just not fit for heaven.) There must have been some small talk. And the image of Jesus trudging along with the disciples down those dusty paths and confiding, at the end of a tough day, “You know, Peter? I can raise the dead, but I just can’t cure idiots” is oddly appealing to me.

No, actually: there's nothing "odd" about it at all: of course the Mopologists would long for a meaner, snarkier Jesus! There is nothing at all odd about the fact that Dr. Peterson is contemptuous of people he considers "idiots" (or that he wishes the Savior felt the same way), nor is there anything particularly strange about the Mopologists feeling critical about the kind, loving, generous version of Jesus Christ that actual, legitimate Christians view as the cornerstone of their belief-system (a belief-system which--lets face it--is almost totally foreign to the Mopologists).

I have to say: I am enjoying this new era of Mopologetic openness!

I should note that Dr. Peterson is recycling an old post in this case (see here, here, and here).

One of Dr. Peterson’s most inexplicable repeats can be found here and here. There he recycles an old Deseret News column in which he suggested, among other things, that Francis Collins has failed to give the Intelligent Design “movement” a “fair hearing.” Dr. Peterson and gemli could have saved a lot of time this month by cutting and pasting their comments from a month ago.

[_moksha]

In the Mormon apologist version, Jesus not only passes judgment on an immature fig tree for not have fruit out of season, but he also turns on a group of decorative ficus plants and labels them as apostates.

Professor Midgley talks to the gardeners of these ficus plants hoping to dig up dirt on them. Dr. Greg Smith writes a treatise on why these ficus plants should be classified as weeds and summarily dismissed from the garden section of Walmart.

[_Stem]

It's idiotic to think (or to hope, can't really tell which he means by this) God can't cure an idiot. Isn't God supposed to be working on our minds and our hearts to fix us?

[_Kishkumen]

Jesus was pretty aggressive at times in the gospels, especially the gospel of Mark. The question is, whom was that aggression directed against?

(1) The false religious leaders of his day
(2) The moneychangers at the temple
(3) His own disciples

In other words, the powerful, the greedy, and the privileged.

He wasn't aggressive with the poor, the downtrodden, and the sinners. He wasn't aggressive with his female disciples, even when they accused him of failing them (Mary and Martha), in contrast to the men. He wasn't aggressive with people who were burned out with the hypocritical religious elite of their day.

But apologists have often relished attacking the least capable of critics while avoiding the more capable, more intelligent ones. (How many times did MrStak challenge Dan Peterson, and how many times was he ignored? Yet "Kristi" gets a lengthy email exchange?)

So, Mormon apologists attacking low-hanging anti-Mormon fruit is not an analog for Jesus' aggression.

Excellent point, Jack.

[_Doctor Scratch]

Jesus was pretty aggressive at times in the gospels, especially the gospel of Mark. The question is, whom was that aggression directed against?

(1) The false religious leaders of his day
(2) The moneychangers at the temple
(3) His own disciples

In other words, the powerful, the greedy, and the privileged.

He wasn't aggressive with the poor, the downtrodden, and the sinners. He wasn't aggressive with his female disciples, even when they accused him of failing them (Mary and Martha), in contrast to the men. He wasn't aggressive with people who were burned out with the hypocritical religious elite of their day.

But apologists have often relished attacking the least capable of critics while avoiding the more capable, more intelligent ones. (How many times did MrStak challenge Dan Peterson, and how many times was he ignored? Yet "Kristi" gets a lengthy email exchange?)

So, Mormon apologists attacking low-hanging anti-Mormon fruit is not an analog for Jesus' aggression.

Excellent point, Jack.

It *is* an excellent point. The Mopologists really do have a wildly idiosyncratic interpretation of Jesus, and, indeed, what it means to conduct one's self as a "Christian." (I am not the only one who's made this observation, I might add.) The Mopologists' notion of who is deserving of "punishment" is radically different from Jesus' documented approach. Dr. Robbers's insights above are deserving of further consideration, I think. Compare the situation he describes: Peter and Jesus are out spreading the gospel all day--and this is thousands of years ago, mind you, well before the era of cars, air conditioning, television, the Internet, or any of our modern niceties--and they managed to maintain their cool and live up to their godly callings throughout the day. And Dr. Robbers is very generous--he's willing to at least entertain the Mopologists' ideas--i.e., that Jesus still might talk some trash at the end of a long day. But there's just no comparison, is there? Compare Jesus and Peter walking around all day--probably wearing sandals or some other less-than-desirable footwear--maybe it's really hot and in the summer, with no air conditioning, and certainly no cars or radio or anything of that nature. And then compare the Mopologists: mostly a bunch of middle-aged white guys who don't really seem to do any truly meaningful "work," and who instead spend all their spare time blogging (or indulging in meals, cruises, or travel--some of which is comped by the LDS Church--which then leads to more blogging), picking fights with gemli, "opining up a storm" on others' blogs, or penning smear articles on Church critics.

At the end of the day, the idea of the Mopologists wanting to bend Jesus to fit their desires is really quite jaw-dropping.

[_kairos]

Would they be throwing BRMcConkie under the bus if they reignited the Adam-god doctrine- I know Bruce is probably having it out with BY in the telestial kingdom or outer darkness but the mopologists don't know that.

[_moksha]

In the Mormon apologist version, Jesus not only passes judgment on an immature fig tree for not having fruit out of season, but he also turns on a group of decorative ficus plants and labels them as apostates.

Professor Midgley talks to the gardeners of these ficus plants hoping to dig up dirt on them. Dr. Greg Smith writes a treatise on why these ficus plants should be classified as weeds and summarily dismissed from the garden section of Walmart.

Did you forget about Calmoriah and Juliann having the transcript of Jesus' conference presentation at Utah Valley University where Professor Midgley asked the Prince of Peace how many times he would smite Dr. Scratch for challenging the favored apologists for the Lord?

[_Doctor Scratch]

I should note that Dr. Peterson is recycling an old post in this case (see here, here, and here).

One of Dr. Peterson’s most inexplicable repeats can be found here and here. There he recycles an old Deseret News column in which he suggested, among other things, that Francis Collins has failed to give the Intelligent Design “movement” a “fair hearing.” Dr. Peterson and gemli could have saved a lot of time this month by cutting and pasting their comments from a month ago.

My goodness, Tom. Words fail me in moments like these. Does he really have nothing new to say? (Actually--lol--my money is on him reading some book or article on "successful blogging," and one of the no doubt sleazy "tips" was to "recycle old material": E.g., "The point is to show your audience that your blog is active and busy! So, it's okay every once in a while to post things you've posted before. Just make sure to wait long enough, so that your target audience forgets!")

[_Everybody Wang Chung]

I should note that Dr. Peterson is recycling an old post in this case (see here, here, and here).

One of Dr. Peterson’s most inexplicable repeats can be found here and here. There he recycles an old Deseret News column in which he suggested, among other things, that Francis Collins has failed to give the Intelligent Design “movement” a “fair hearing.” Dr. Peterson and gemli could have saved a lot of time this month by cutting and pasting their comments from a month ago.

My goodness, Tom. Words fail me in moments like these. Does he really have nothing new to say? (Actually--lol--my money is on him reading some book or article on "successful blogging," and one of the no doubt sleazy "tips" was to "recycle old material": E.g., "The point is to show your audience that your blog is active and busy! So, it's okay every once in a while to post things you've posted before. Just make sure to wait long enough, so that your target audience forgets!")

It's sleazy and dishonest for Peterson to be "recycling" these old posts over and over without informing his readership. Unfortunately, it's the type of behavior we have all come to expect from Peterson.

Peterson is so lazy that in his attempt to repackage these old posts and fool his readership, he's only managed to change the titles. The content of the posts are the same.

Peterson is either lazy, dishonest or holds his readership in utter contempt. I tend to think it's a combination of all three.

[_Doctor Scratch]

Good point, Bishop Wang Chung. Dr. Peterson has publicly admitted that he makes money from his blogging. *This*, I guess, is how he goes about doing it. He ought to be ashamed of himself. I suppose this is at least better than what he did at the FAIR Conference: here, it's Patheos and their advertisers that he's ripping off, whereas at the FAIR Conference, it would have been the actual LDS attendees.