DCP Explains Why He's a Mopologist (And not a Mere "Apologist")

The catch-all forum for general topics and debates. Minimal moderation. Rated PG to PG-13.
MrStakhanovite
Anti-Mormon
Posts: 5269
Joined: Mon Apr 19, 2010 9:32 pm

Re: DCP Explains Why He's a Mopologist (And not a Mere "Apologist")

Post by MrStakhanovite »

Double post.

User avatar
Doctor Scratch
B.H. Roberts Chair of Mopologetic Studies
Posts: 8025
Joined: Sat Apr 18, 2009 10:44 am

Re: DCP Explains Why He's a Mopologist (And not a Mere "Apologist")

Post by Doctor Scratch »

MrStakhanovite wrote:
Tue Oct 13, 2020 8:28 pm


That is also why this throwaway line from Daniel is so ironic and depressing:
Daniel Peterson wrote:It seemed to me a pastoral duty.
In all seriousness, guys like Peterson, Midgely, and Gee could only be less suited for “pastoral duty” if they were incarcerated.
LOL! It's so true, and it speaks volumes about the core values of the LDS Church. Sadly, John Dehlin actually seemed to understand "pastoral duty" in a far more empathetic way than any of the Mopologists. And rather than trying to find a way to work with him, they excommunicated him. I'm not really a fan of Dehlin per se, but I think you can look at his Mormon-related career and see that he's been a good deal more successful at bringing people together than the Mopologists.

You'd think that, with all their resources, the Brethren would be able to see this. The claims about Peterson, Midgley, et al. driving people away from the Church is absolutely true.
"[I]f, while hoping that everybody else will be honest and so forth, I can personally prosper through unethical and immoral acts without being detected and without risk, why should I not?." --Daniel Peterson, 6/4/14

User avatar
Doctor Scratch
B.H. Roberts Chair of Mopologetic Studies
Posts: 8025
Joined: Sat Apr 18, 2009 10:44 am

Re: DCP Explains Why He's a Mopologist (And not a Mere "Apologist")

Post by Doctor Scratch »

huckelberry wrote:
Tue Oct 13, 2020 4:37 pm
No Mormon theology? I am halfway puzzled. How about Sterling Mcmurrin ,"The Theological Foundations of the Mormon religion" It was a bunch of years ago when I read it but I remember finding it thoughtful and very Mormon. Well I realize he held Mormon belief like Kishkumen does but that did not seem to harm the book.

I cannot help but think that there are all sorts of Mormon books that might be called theological. Why not the books by Talamage? For better or worse would not "Mormon Doctrine" by Bruce Mckonkie qualify? (I have never read that but it gets mentioned)

Mr Stakonovite, I could not help but wonder what sort of theological thought, questions or study you are thinking of. There are books considering historical theology, philosophical consideration, biblical theology of a wide variety depending on types of Biblical views, experiential, cultural or historical reflection and various combinations of these.I do not suppose you are thinking of Juan Segundo or other Catholic liberation thinkers. How about Christian Theology by Millard Erickson, a good paper weight for pressing fall leaves I found.
I think you have a point, huckelberry, but I think the reality is that none of this theology is "official." It's not "official" Church doctrine. This is where you get that old critical complaint about people leaving the Church for "intellectual" reasons. The Mopologists have always claimed that this never happens: it's always because you wanted to drink beer, or watch pornography, or because you were "weak," etc. There is no way--per them--that you could ever leave the Church over "intellectual" or even *theological* reasons. And yet the explanations that the Church gives about some of its chief tenets are really lacking. E.g., the three-tiered heaven. Why? And, in all seriousness, what are the distinction between those three tiers?I wrote a post some time ago in which I asked some pointed questions about the Mopologists' beliefs. One of the Brethren seemed to be saying that people in the lower kingdoms will not get to keep their genitals. Look: I get it. It's embarrassing. But is it true? Is this doctrine? Theologically speaking, what does this say about the Church's views on things like: The Afterlife; Procreation and Sexuality; Gender; and so on. Why not tackle these questions directly? I think that, if you asked the apologists, they'd make some dumb, dismissive remark about "casting pearls before swine," but the thing is: people are already laughing. They are already leaving the Church.

At some point, you've got to ask: What's left? What else is on offer? Added Upon? Is that it?
"[I]f, while hoping that everybody else will be honest and so forth, I can personally prosper through unethical and immoral acts without being detected and without risk, why should I not?." --Daniel Peterson, 6/4/14

User avatar
Physics Guy
God
Posts: 1331
Joined: Sun Aug 28, 2016 4:38 pm

Re: DCP Explains Why He's a Mopologist (And not a Mere "Apologist")

Post by Physics Guy »

Kishkumen wrote:
Tue Oct 13, 2020 12:22 pm
What partly gives me hope is new scholarship and the LDS disavowal of the term Mormon. If the LDS Church is no longer Mormon, then what do they care if this kind of theology goes by that moniker?
So is this hopeful scenario one in which Mormonism splits into many more branches, of which your (let me say as shorthand even if it's a poor title) Mormon Neoplatonism would be as good a branch as any? Or is it a scenario in which the main trunk of a coherent Mormon core recognizes itself as having been fundamentally neoplatonist from the roots, had it but known itself aright?

User avatar
Physics Guy
God
Posts: 1331
Joined: Sun Aug 28, 2016 4:38 pm

Re: DCP Explains Why He's a Mopologist (And not a Mere "Apologist")

Post by Physics Guy »

MrStakhanovite wrote:
Tue Oct 13, 2020 8:47 pm
TBH Mormon theology sounding more like Science Fiction than the theology of the traditional religious traditions is a feature more than a bug. Take a look at Tarik LaCour for example, when it comes to the philosophy of mind the guy is a strident materialist while at the same time he is an out and proud Mormon. ...
So I’d just lean into the weirdness if I were them. As long as you maintain a certain amount of rigor and combine it with creativity and some humility, you are going to generate something that resonates with people.
I guess it depends what you want. I agree that soft sci-fi is more entertaining than rehearsing fine historical distinctions, but it doesn't have the "What is the Matrix?" kick of seriously wondering about the nature of reality. I don't see how any theology can legitimately offer much confidence in any strong propositions, but even an epsilon worth of conviction about how things must really be is a different product from mere entertainment.

In other words, the only theology that really matters, it seems to me, is theology that one can take seriously at least as far as it goes. Maybe you don't ultimately buy an argument but it should at least make you think for a bit—perhaps stumped for a day like Bertrand Russell by the Ontological Proof—about whether maybe the whole world is different.

Soft sci-fi speculation about superhuman aliens is too obviously arbitrary for me to take seriously in that way.

User avatar
Kishkumen
Seedy Academician
Posts: 21373
Joined: Sat Dec 13, 2008 4:00 pm

Re: DCP Explains Why He's a Mopologist (And not a Mere "Apologist")

Post by Kishkumen »

Physics Guy wrote:
Wed Oct 14, 2020 2:04 am
So is this hopeful scenario one in which Mormonism splits into many more branches, of which your (let me say as shorthand even if it's a poor title) Mormon Neoplatonism would be as good a branch as any? Or is it a scenario in which the main trunk of a coherent Mormon core recognizes itself as having been fundamentally neoplatonist from the roots, had it but known itself aright?
These are complicated questions, and I am not a prophet or a person of great influence such that I can either see or determine this hypothetical future. Let me say this: I am less interested in seeing a fixed theology form than in seeing a healthy discourse of theology come about. I would say that such a discourse could take place among people in existing branches of the Restoration. It is inevitable that schisms will continue to occur. There will alway be new branches, but my preference and interest is in seeing people in different branches interact and work together. I have no goal to promote the emergence of new schisms. The problems that we see now are partly cultural. As our own Symmachus has pointed out in the past, there is a dearth of serious intellectual activity of a philosophical/theological kind in Mormonism (not complete; there are serious and smart people who are interested and do some work of this kind). That is perhaps partly due to the young age of the movement. There are other factors that have worked to suppress serious activity along these lines. It will take time, effort, and investment to overcome those problems, if they can be overcome. It is possible that we will see a continuation of the decline of Mormonism without any effective pushback.
"Petition wasn’t meant to start a witch hunt as I’ve said 6000 times." ~ Hanna Seariac, LDS apologist

User avatar
huckelberry
God
Posts: 4559
Joined: Tue Dec 26, 2006 8:29 pm

Re: DCP Explains Why He's a Mopologist (And not a Mere "Apologist")

Post by huckelberry »

Doctor Scratch wrote:
Tue Oct 13, 2020 10:00 pm
huckelberry wrote:
Tue Oct 13, 2020 4:37 pm
No Mormon theology? I am halfway puzzled. How about Sterling Mcmurrin ,"The Theological Foundations of the Mormon religion" It was a bunch of years ago when I read it but I remember finding it thoughtful and very Mormon. Well I realize he held Mormon belief like Kishkumen does but that did not seem to harm the book.

I cannot help but think that there are all sorts of Mormon books that might be called theological. Why not the books by Talamage? For better or worse would not "Mormon Doctrine" by Bruce Mckonkie qualify? (I have never read that but it gets mentioned)
I think you have a point, huckelberry, but I think the reality is that none of this theology is "official." It's not "official" Church doctrine. This is where you get that old critical complaint about people leaving the Church for "intellectual" reasons. The Mopologists have always claimed that this never happens: it's always because you wanted to drink beer, or watch pornography, or because you were "weak," etc. There is no way--per them--that you could ever leave the Church over "intellectual" or even *theological* reasons. And yet the explanations that the Church gives about some of its chief tenets are really lacking. E.g., the three-tiered heaven. Why? And, in all seriousness, what are the distinction between those three tiers?I wrote a post some time ago in which I asked some pointed questions about the Mopologists' beliefs. One of the Brethren seemed to be saying that people in the lower kingdoms will not get to keep their genitals. Look: I get it. It's embarrassing. But is it true? Is this doctrine? Theologically speaking, what does this say about the Church's views on things like: The Afterlife; Procreation and Sexuality; Gender; and so on. Why not tackle these questions directly? I think that, if you asked the apologists, they'd make some dumb, dismissive remark about "casting pearls before swine," but the thing is: people are already laughing. They are already leaving the Church.

At some point, you've got to ask: What's left? What else is on offer? Added Upon? Is that it?
Doctor Scratch, I think I see your point. The Doctrine and Covenants are official as can be but if a person has questions there is no official analysis. Three heavens? Are you sure it is not a more traditional seven, or one or an outlier five? No body is going to know beyond saying says so in Doctrine and Covenants. I am inclined to think that for all groups the answer, I do not know, is underused.

But Mormon beliefs can cause a person to wonder whether somethings make sense. It is more serious to observe something is confused than to observe there are things people do not know. Asking theological questions opens the possiblity of clarifying theological confusions.

I think that assertion that people leave the church because of a desire to sin is bit of an underhanded trick. After all everybody has at times some desires to sin. I do not think there is any way to completely protect oneself from the accusation. Then after all there are actually people who leave to sin. Or perhaps leave because they never found the church very persuasive so they feel they might as well sin when that is desired and seems to make sense.

There are a lot of people who struggle with the idea of the church's validity. That could be over doctrine coherence or just plane facts associated with the church.I believe a good percent of people who leave leave after struggling with such things. I think of myself as one like that. I struggled and thought till deciding it did not add up and I could not get my brain back to a believing condition. I thought I was serious but I cannot pretend that a desire to see and experience a wider range of things surely played not role at all. I am sure curiosity encouraged the destabilizing questions.

Perhaps it is best to confess that you have on occasion found that the church has annoying rules beyond the basic, don't kill,steel,lie or harm your neighbor and be a help instead of a problem Would It not be easier to get along with Mormon extra rules if one could believe the church is true?

User avatar
moksha
God
Posts: 22509
Joined: Fri Oct 27, 2006 2:42 pm

Re: DCP Explains Why He's a Mopologist (And not a Mere "Apologist")

Post by moksha »

Physics Guy wrote:
Wed Oct 14, 2020 2:13 am
I agree that soft sci-fi is more entertaining than rehearsing fine historical distinctions, ...
Excellent point. I think Dr. Peterson could have a potential movie hit on his hands, if he made the Jaredite Barges voyage the center of his next cinematic venture. This movie could cover both the fantasy and sci-fi categories. Many technical questions could be bypassed if each barge had an ample supply of seer stones for propulsion, gyroscopic stability, and water filtration. Did you ever see the film Snowpiercer?
Cry Heaven and let loose the Penguins of Peace

User avatar
Philo Sofee
God
Posts: 6656
Joined: Wed Jul 04, 2012 3:04 am

Re: DCP Explains Why He's a Mopologist (And not a Mere "Apologist")

Post by Philo Sofee »

Dr. Scratch
You'd think that, with all their resources, the Brethren would be able to see this. The claims about Peterson, Midgley, et al. driving people away from the Church is absolutely true.
I would not at all be surprised if they have driven away 10 times more than they have ever convinced and converted through any of their arguments concerning every subject they have combined ever commented, authored, or spoken on with Mormonism......
Dr CamNC4Me
"Dr. Peterson and his Callithumpian cabal of BYU idiots have been marginalized by their own inevitable irrelevancy defending a fraud."

Post Reply