It is currently Thu Sep 20, 2018 9:11 pm

All times are UTC - 7 hours [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 16 posts ] 
Author Message
 Post subject: Liu Cixin testifies of Christ? What on earth?
PostPosted: Sat Jun 30, 2018 1:05 am 
Hermit
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jul 06, 2007 11:12 pm
Posts: 8043
Location: Cave
Liu Cixin testifies of Christ?

(Dr. Shades, my keyboard is literally missing the apostrophe key. Hope that's not probable cause...)
(fixed most of it from another keyboard)

Just when you think you've seen it all, Jeff Lindsay moves to China and becomes a big fan of Liu Cixins Sci Fi Book The Three Body Problem, and within its pages, finds proof of Joseph Smith.

http://www.mormoninterpreter.com/joseph ... e-fiction/

Where to start? Lindsays review is nearly as long as the entire trilogy itself. How about a spoiler alert? I've heard that Amazon may pay up to a billion dollars to adapt Liu's work and so if you don't want to ruin their venture, then consider skipping this post, although I only need to ruin one plot point to make my case. And my case is that Lindsay misses the entire point of the book and does so with a huge twist of irony.

Lindsay's basic excitement is over the vision of Liu (and others) of a universe teeming with aliens, because Joseph Smith revealed just this kind of reality. Liu envisions advanced aliens that are Godlike; Smith reveals advanced aliens at Kolob that are Gods -- according to Lindsay. Lindsay seems to think that as Liu follows Trolley through the tunnel to the truly weird fringe science that governs his universe, Smith's far more pedestrian speculations about the Mormon universe are legitimized. He's cautious, of course, and amid his flowing excitement, Lindsay stops to make it clear that Smith's scientific accuracy -- per his incredibly loose pacing of Chinese sci-fi writers -- falls short of being final proof for the gospel.

But Lindsay has his own plot twist -- one that is entirely predictable, of course. Liu paints a dark and dreadful universe, while Smith reveals a universe of hope and love. His words:

Lindsay wrote:
The bitter cosmos of “darkness, everything darkness” frequently envisioned in science fiction, whether Asian or Western, is what we might expect if what we see — or think we see — is all there is, a terribly misguided notion completely unsupported by science


Lindsay wrote:
The universe of many modern intellectuals and materialists seems to offer no purpose beyond propagating random genes


(hurry, go get DCP! yaawwwwwnnn)

Lindsay wrote:
Two noteworthy Chinese works, though lacking the eternal perspectives of the Gospel, help us better contemplate the mysteries of intelligent life and the expanse and majesty of the cosmos. Without the perspectives of the Gospel, that universe can be a dark place


Okay, Lindsay is all excited to see that Liu wasn't able to steal Joseph Smith's grand and purposeful revelation, but let's back up a little, because Lindsay is missing some major context. Liu's depressing scenery has less to do with materialism, and far more to do with this:

Lindsay wrote:
Joseph’s benign universe fits into a beautiful, rational framework that provides unlimited capacity for the integration of science and religion


Lindsay must have missed about a third of the book, the parts of the book that gives context to all his gloom, although he hints at it here:

Lindsay wrote:
The Three Body Problem begins during the chaos of the Cultural Revolution of China, when many professors and other intellectuals were punished or even killed. Ye Wenjie, the daughter of a physicist brutally slain in public during the Cultural Revolution, becomes hardened about life and as a scientist ends up retreating to a remote military radio telescope facility that has a secret mission: to advance China by gaining assistance from extraterrestrial life, if such exists. Contact with an advanced civilization could not only establish China as a leading scientific force in the world but could also give China a massive competitive advantage over the West.


(and now for my one major spoiler)

Picking up where Lindsay leaves off: Wenjie is a sensitive soul and would otherwise see the beauty in the world that Lindsay thinks Joseph Smith gives us, but she's screwed at every turn by loyalists to the state. So when she finally makes contact with the aliens, she tells them to come and take them. Humanity doesn't deserve to exist anymore. She's hurt, and lashes out in a moment of weakness. Unsurprisingly, as technically interesting as the aliens are, they are also somewhat pale, cultural stereotypes of authoritarian regimes.

Let me ask this: Does Lindsay or anyone else think that the scientific materialist state of China wants Liu to write such depressing books? Does Lindsay not see that Liu is rebelling against an authoritarian system? Its quite interesting that he's been allowed to speak his mind the way he has. If he were writing state-friendly material, he would be filling the universe with hope and statist propaganda, and he'd come up with something beautiful and hopeful just like Joseph Smith. Its really not that hard to do.

Liu gives some fascinating insights into what it is like to be a scientist subservient to politics, or religion, or in general, ideology. As he explains it, discoveries must be carefully examined by senior staff to ensure that even metaphorically, they are not offensive to the regime. There's a big culture of ratting out unfaithful colleagues -- let me stop here and ask: what on earth does it sound like he's describing that we are familiar with? Literally, he's describing a universe filled with church leaders and apologists: The "unlimited capacity for the integration of science and religion"

September Six? The apologists attacking critics and outing them to the Brethren? There's no love in the universe because institutions like Lindsay's church stamp out academic freedom, individuality, and demand absolute loyalty. They suppress information, revise history, and all of these tactics are on full display in Liu's book. Liu's embrace of the hope of science is somewhat childish in my opinion and many of his moral ideas are a little simplistic, but he's a man who grew up in poverty, worked for his success, and has a major set of balls to criticize his government the way he does -- it's a world of leaders who rule without question and apologists who keep them in power that shape his raw angst. And it's unbelievable that a man as otherwise intelligent as Lindsay completely misses the entire point.

The darkest worlds are painted by those who long to hope the most, and quite often, the lightest worlds are the pale creations of autocrats like the reprehensible founder of Mormonism, Joseph Smith.

_________________
FARMS refuted:

"...supporters of Billy Meier still point to the very clear photos of Pleiadian beam ships flying over his farm. They argue that for the photos to be fakes, we have to believe that a one-armed man who had no knowledge of Photoshop or other digital photography programs could have made such realistic photos and films..." -- D. R. Prothero


Last edited by Gadianton on Sat Jun 30, 2018 5:36 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Liu Cixin testifies of Christ? What on earth?
PostPosted: Sat Jun 30, 2018 4:22 pm 
God
User avatar

Joined: Fri Oct 27, 2006 2:42 pm
Posts: 19250
Location: Koloburbia
It would be really neat if Jeff Lindsey could do another review of Isaac Asimov's Foundation series, by noting its relationship to the Mormon Interpreter. From its humble beginnings in the distant past on Planet Earth during the FARMS/Maxwell Era to the Mormon Galactic Interpreter's eventual role in shaping the history of the galaxy, via the Peterson Plan of utilizing the science of Psycho-Apologetics, making sure the right thoughts and information survive and flourish.

_________________
Cry Heaven and let loose the Penguins of Peace


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Liu Cixin testifies of Christ? What on earth?
PostPosted: Sat Jun 30, 2018 5:24 pm 
B.H. Roberts Chair of Mopologetic Studies
User avatar

Joined: Sat Apr 18, 2009 10:44 am
Posts: 7009
Location: Cassius University
Excellent post, Dr. Robbers. Lindsay's article really is rather remarkable. You probably recall that it was scarcely a couple of years ago when Grant Hardy dropped a hydrogen bomb on the FAIR Conference by telling the crowd that it is OK to believe that the Book of Mormon is "inspired fiction," and that believing such a thing will have no impact on a person's chances of getting into the CK. And now we get this, from Brother Lindsay! We can read science fiction novels for insight into the way that the Gospel works. It seems to me that the Mopologists are therefore several steps closer to fully adopting Dr. Hardy's so-called "heresy."

I found this disclaimer, from the "Editor," to be quite stunning:

Some Editor at Mormon Interpreter wrote:
[Editor’s Note: As stated in the formal mission statement of the Interpreter Foundation, we try to draw upon a “wide range of ancillary disciplines” (including literature and culture) to help illustrate the truths of the gospel and the reality of the Restoration. Even so, some may never have considered how one particular literary genre — science fiction — can fit into such an effort. Indeed, some may scoff at the genre entirely and presume it has no place in academic discourse. Owing to the fact that science fiction attempts to create future worlds and that those worlds necessarily reflect a “world view” consistent with the cultural views of the authors, it can be helpful to at least consider those views. When you further consider that Joseph Smith described and promoted a future world that he credited to revelation and interaction with the divine, we can learn new insights by comparing the man-made views of our potential future with the revealed views of our future. In this paper, author Jeff Lindsay does just that, comparing our place in the universe as viewed through the lens of cutting-edge science fiction with our place in the universe as viewed through the lens of the founding prophet of the Restoration. We found this effort both intriguing and interesting. My hope is that you will consider this somewhat “out of the box” approach both enjoyable and worthwhile.]


What a bizarre comment. "Ancillary disciplines"? Literary studies is arguably *the* best discipline by which to study the Book of Mormon; certainly, fields like history and archaeology have been complete disasters. (Also: "culture" is *not* an academic discipline, I'm afraid....) And what is this: "some may scoff at the genre entirely and presume it has no place in academic discourse." Who actually thinks this? Are 1984 and Brave New World both "degenerate" works of half-baked "literature"? (And, for that matter: to what extent does either of those novels help to shed light on the Restored Gospel?)

But there is quite a provocative challenge embedded in this disclaimer--namely, the mysterious "Editor" seems to be welcoming comparisons between the LDS Church and various works of science fiction. Which SF novel is the most "Mormon"? 1984? What about To Your Scattered Bodies Go? Or Larry Niven's Ringworld? Or the drug-addled novels of Philip K. Dick? (How many Mormon metaphors can you spot in Ubik?) Come to think of it, I sort of think that Arthur C. Clark's classic story, Childhood's End really fits with Mormonism in a lot of ways: it's a story (spoiler alert!) about some (seemingly) benevolent aliens who've come to help out with humanity's progress, but it turns out that (drumroll) the aliens actually look like earthly depictions of Satan. Now, how cool would that be for the Mopologists? To discover that their Heavenly Father actually looks exactly like Lucifer--complete with horns, beet-red skin, and cloven-hoof feet? Just imagine how a Satan-alien-God could be used to browbeat critics and intimidate non-LDS Christians!

In any case, I thank you kindly, Dr. Robbers, for this thought-provoking post. Now, if you don't mind, I'm off to re-read Ursula LeGuin's The Left Hand of Darkness. (Aliens that are *both* genders? Would Heavenly Father ever have allowed such a thing? Perhaps LeGuin has an apostate imagination?)

_________________
"[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


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Liu Cixin testifies of Christ? What on earth?
PostPosted: Sat Jun 30, 2018 6:29 pm 
Hermit
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jul 06, 2007 11:12 pm
Posts: 8043
Location: Cave
Doctor,

Did you see Midgley's endorsement in the comments? How strange is that? I'll return to that in a moment. But to answer some of your questions, it appears Lindsay's way of doing comparative literature is to compliment the writers for their imagination to the point in which their ideas reflect what he knows about from church. LeGuin's book you mention gets a mention in the comments also. The point is made that her genderless world is more compatible with Christianity than the real world is -- why have gender if there is no procreation in the resurrection? One wonders by this argument, along with knowing the gate is straight and narrow, how it isn't the case that man was primarily created to flog the dolphin. Since most will end up in a lower kingdom, and since everything must function, then the conclusion is impossible to avoid. Once they concede to the TK smoothie hypothesis, Christianity moves out of check.

Part of his excitement is to smile knowingly at these writers for having lost their way, unable to stumble upon the pristine truths of Smith. For instance, in the area of galactic inter-species relations, Liu, like Hawking, see a cold universe filled with danger. And really, it might better make Hawking's point to say that any alien encounter or even encounter with a new civilization poses the problem of asymmetric information, and so both species in the encounter find themselves in a prisoner's dilemma. Darkness isn't really the issue, even if we anthropomorphize the entire universe. Lindsay glosses over this by pointing out that Smith teaches our planet has the most wicked inhabitants in the universe, and so pretty much once you leave earth's orbit, it's a friendly place out there filled with light and benevolent beings. And that brings me back to Midgley's approval.

If the universe isn't the dark, adult, and morally gray realm that Liu and others offer, and instead is primarily a light and happy place, why are the apologists so opposed to Mr. Roger's Neighborhood?

_________________
FARMS refuted:

"...supporters of Billy Meier still point to the very clear photos of Pleiadian beam ships flying over his farm. They argue that for the photos to be fakes, we have to believe that a one-armed man who had no knowledge of Photoshop or other digital photography programs could have made such realistic photos and films..." -- D. R. Prothero


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Liu Cixin testifies of Christ? What on earth?
PostPosted: Sun Jul 01, 2018 11:27 am 
B.H. Roberts Chair of Mopologetic Studies
User avatar

Joined: Sat Apr 18, 2009 10:44 am
Posts: 7009
Location: Cassius University
Gadianton wrote:
Doctor,

Did you see Midgley's endorsement in the comments? How strange is that? I'll return to that in a moment. But to answer some of your questions, it appears Lindsay's way of doing comparative literature is to compliment the writers for their imagination to the point in which their ideas reflect what he knows about from church. LeGuin's book you mention gets a mention in the comments also. The point is made that her genderless world is more compatible with Christianity than the real world is -- why have gender if there is no procreation in the resurrection? One wonders by this argument, along with knowing the gate is straight and narrow, how it isn't the case that man was primarily created to flog the dolphin. Since most will end up in a lower kingdom, and since everything must function, then the conclusion is impossible to avoid. Once they concede to the TK smoothie hypothesis, Christianity moves out of check.

Part of his excitement is to smile knowingly at these writers for having lost their way, unable to stumble upon the pristine truths of Smith. For instance, in the area of galactic inter-species relations, Liu, like Hawking, see a cold universe filled with danger. And really, it might better make Hawking's point to say that any alien encounter or even encounter with a new civilization poses the problem of asymmetric information, and so both species in the encounter find themselves in a prisoner's dilemma. Darkness isn't really the issue, even if we anthropomorphize the entire universe. Lindsay glosses over this by pointing out that Smith teaches our planet has the most wicked inhabitants in the universe, and so pretty much once you leave earth's orbit, it's a friendly place out there filled with light and benevolent beings. And that brings me back to Midgley's approval.

If the universe isn't the dark, adult, and morally gray realm that Liu and others offer, and instead is primarily a light and happy place, why are the apologists so opposed to Mr. Roger's Neighborhood?


These are some incredibly trenchant observations, Dean Robbers. I had initially overlooked those items from the comments that you mentioned. Quite stunning. If I may be allowed to speculate, though: Do you suppose that the apologists' objection to Mister Rogers' Neighborhood is primarily a function of the fact that this is an earthly or "worldly" program? If, per Lindsay, the key division has to do with location--outer space and its environs is where one finds happiness and friendliness, whereas earth--to quote from your post--"has the most wicked inhabitants in the universe," then wouldn't that make Mr. Rogers's program something of an incongruous anomaly? What I mean is: if the show were filmed on, say, a planet orbiting Alpha Centauri, and if it turned out that Fred Rogers was actually an alien....would that change the apologists' opinion of the program--make more "acceptable" on some level?

I cannot help but be reminded here of Skousen's theory about the "ghost committee." Normally--among reasonable people--such a preposterous assertion would be laughed out of the room, and yet somehow, referencing a "ghost committee" somehow makes the presence of Elizabethan prose in the Book of Mormon okay. If the Elizabethan language were instead the result of something more banal and worldly (e.g., Smith wrote it; it was partially plagiarized out of Shakespeare), then it seems only fitting that they would hate it in much the same way that they hate Mr. Rogers.

_________________
"[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


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Liu Cixin testifies of Christ? What on earth?
PostPosted: Mon Jul 02, 2018 9:17 am 
God

Joined: Sun Apr 05, 2015 1:25 pm
Posts: 7163
Dr. Scratch wrote:
....If I may be allowed to speculate, though: Do you suppose that the apologists' objection to Mister Rogers' Neighborhood is primarily a function of the fact that this is an earthly or "worldly" program?

Yes, that seems to be a common tactic, adding the caveat that to the more extreme LDS, it seems that no matter how meaningful anything may be, if it did not originate in a Mormon setting, then it can be interpreted as being of the world, and therefore not as good. One of my earliest encounters with that mindset was when my dad told me I shouldn't read Chronicles of Narnia because its religious overtones would make the Book of Mormon seem like fiction, also.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Liu Cixin testifies of Christ? What on earth?
PostPosted: Mon Jul 02, 2018 11:33 pm 
Hermit
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jul 06, 2007 11:12 pm
Posts: 8043
Location: Cave
Doctor Scratch wrote:
I cannot help but be reminded here of Skousen's theory about the "ghost committee." Normally--among reasonable people--such a preposterous assertion would be laughed out of the room, and yet somehow, referencing a "ghost committee" somehow makes the presence of Elizabethan prose in the Book of Mormon okay. If the Elizabethan language were instead the result of something more banal and worldly (e.g., Smith wrote it; it was partially plagiarized out of Shakespeare), then it seems only fitting that they would hate it in much the same way that they hate Mr. Rogers.

Like an earthy Scotch, it took a couple of rounds to appreciate this one. I wasn't quite sure if I could see the apologists welcoming the friendliness of Rogers even if his neighborhood were discovered near the star Kolob. I think it's an anomaly though, because I think you have to be right that legitimizing Smith's fiction by Liu's fiction is very similar to legitimizing the Book of Mormon by suggesting a committee of alien scholars, or ghost scholars (depending if you're a sci-fi man or a fantasy man) speaking in the same vernacular on their home world.

Well, what's striking to me is the extent to which pedestrian ideas are spiffed up by placing them in an exotic setting, and to be fair, Sci-fi generally is guilty as all hell doing this very thing, and so Liu would be pretty accessible to Lindsay. I think Lindsay or others should expand their horizons with more challenging works of fiction. What would come of looking for the Book of Mormon within the pages of Bolaño's 2666?

Maybe Lindsay, or DCP even, should give it a shot.

_________________
FARMS refuted:

"...supporters of Billy Meier still point to the very clear photos of Pleiadian beam ships flying over his farm. They argue that for the photos to be fakes, we have to believe that a one-armed man who had no knowledge of Photoshop or other digital photography programs could have made such realistic photos and films..." -- D. R. Prothero


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Liu Cixin testifies of Christ? What on earth?
PostPosted: Tue Jul 03, 2018 8:52 am 
God
User avatar

Joined: Mon Dec 09, 2013 1:10 am
Posts: 1102
Lindsay has nothing on Orson Scott Card, who doesn't just see parallels to Mormonism, but writes them in.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homecoming_Saga

http://www.nauvoo.com/library/card-bookofmormon.html


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Liu Cixin testifies of Christ? What on earth?
PostPosted: Tue Jul 03, 2018 9:01 am 
God
User avatar

Joined: Mon Dec 09, 2013 1:10 am
Posts: 1102
And there's Glen Larsen and Battlestar Galactica for those unaware...

https://www.millennialstar.org/battlest ... Mormonism/


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Liu Cixin testifies of Christ? What on earth?
PostPosted: Tue Jul 03, 2018 10:33 am 
God
User avatar

Joined: Mon Feb 25, 2013 4:32 pm
Posts: 1122
Location: Parowan, Utah
I hope not to derail the thread, but I guess I'll have to give a lot more thought to how Joseph Smith's cosmology and theology "represent profound and original breakthroughs in thought, solving significant problems in the world’s views on life and the cosmos."

It might be true, but this is what I don't get:

Lindsay wrote:
The universe of many modern intellectuals and materialists seems to offer no purpose beyond propagating random genes


How is that ultimately different from Joseph Smith's materialist universe, which seems to offer no purpose beyond propagating random gods?

_________________
"As to any slivers of light or any particles of darkness of the past, we forget about them."

—B. Redd McConkie


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Liu Cixin testifies of Christ? What on earth?
PostPosted: Tue Jul 03, 2018 1:56 pm 
God
User avatar

Joined: Tue Dec 26, 2006 8:29 pm
Posts: 3747
Symmachus wrote:
Lindsay wrote:
The universe of many modern intellectuals and materialists seems to offer no purpose beyond propagating random genes

How is that ultimately different from Joseph Smith's materialist universe, which seems to offer no purpose beyond propagating random gods?

It might depend upon how much similarity one sees in Mormon understanding of God and a pale gray member of a ruling party seeking to maintain complete control.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Liu Cixin testifies of Christ? What on earth?
PostPosted: Tue Jul 03, 2018 5:40 pm 
Hermit
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jul 06, 2007 11:12 pm
Posts: 8043
Location: Cave
Symmachus wrote:
I hope not to derail the thread, but I guess I'll have to give a lot more thought to how Joseph Smith's cosmology and theology "represent profound and original breakthroughs in thought, solving significant problems in the world’s views on life and the cosmos."


It's difficult to fathom the compartmentalization that goes on. In the comments, one of the moths following the glow of pseudoscience expressed his beliefs about an electric universe, and Lindsay produced a swatter the size of a box fan to dispense with that nonsense. I mean, don't say Lindsay isn't capable when the subject changes from Joseph Smith to something else.

It reminds me of a well-known article -- it may have been the first article actually -- on the Bad Astronomy blog, where Hoagland is dealt with, and the author points out that Hoagland is actually a solid researcher if he needs to be. The author claimed Hoagland wrote a great article debunking the "we never went to the moon" conspiracy theory. The BA blog author also wrote an article debunking the same theory, but claimed Hoagland's article brought up valid points that he himself had not considered. Well, we can't have people believing we never went to the moon if we're claiming to have found sprawling moon cities in covered-up NASA photos.

Quote:
How is that ultimately different from Joseph Smith's materialist universe, which seems to offer no purpose beyond propagating random gods?


It doesn't, and random gods reduce to random genes anyway. Smith's universe is an abomination, where the exalted human phenotype has no natural predators, and thus is an inter-galactic invasive species. It's the darkest universe imaginable, unless you just happen to be either an exalted human or one waiting on exaltation any day. It's a good time for the winners in Liu's books too.

_________________
FARMS refuted:

"...supporters of Billy Meier still point to the very clear photos of Pleiadian beam ships flying over his farm. They argue that for the photos to be fakes, we have to believe that a one-armed man who had no knowledge of Photoshop or other digital photography programs could have made such realistic photos and films..." -- D. R. Prothero


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Liu Cixin testifies of Christ? What on earth?
PostPosted: Tue Jul 03, 2018 6:59 pm 
God
User avatar

Joined: Tue Oct 31, 2006 9:16 pm
Posts: 2959
Location: Unassigned Lands
It's a long article, because Jeff Lindsay is obviously passionate about these two science fiction books, The Three Body Problem and The Heart of the Milky Way. He says,

Jeff Lindsay wrote:
Reading these two books resulted in more continuous contemplation of Gospel principles than I have experienced in reading almost anything else outside of the scriptures and books overtly dealing with Gospel topics.

He's passionate, but not too passionate. I mean, Joseph Smith will always be the best author.

_________________
"And yet another little spot is smoothed out of the echo chamber wall..." Bond


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Liu Cixin testifies of Christ? What on earth?
PostPosted: Tue Jul 03, 2018 7:11 pm 
B.H. Roberts Chair of Mopologetic Studies
User avatar

Joined: Sat Apr 18, 2009 10:44 am
Posts: 7009
Location: Cassius University
The Dude wrote:
It's a long article, because Jeff Lindsay is obviously passionate about these two science fiction books, The Three Body Problem and The Heart of the Milky Way. He says,

Jeff Lindsay wrote:
Reading these two books resulted in more continuous contemplation of Gospel principles than I have experienced in reading almost anything else outside of the scriptures and books overtly dealing with Gospel topics.


He's passionate, but not too passionate. I mean, Joseph Smith will always be the best author.


They are hamstrung by the directive that the Book of Mormon must be the "greatest" book ever written: both as scripture, and as literature. I don't know if you remember, Dude, but Dr. Peterson was vexed--incredibly, incredibly vexed over our assertions that the apologists' ability to fully enjoy art, literature, films, music, and so on, has been hampered by their adherence to Mormonism. But you point to one of the main reasons why we are correct: they are pretty much forced into saying that Joseph Smith is the "best" author of all time. Melville, Shakespeare, Austen, or Conrad? Forget it! None of them can hold a candle to Joseph Smith! Of course, the more self-aware among the Mopologists know that this is silly and they feel embarrassed about the fact that they're basically required to think this way, and that they have to toe the party line on the matter in public.

So, what you get are these hilarious excursions--such as Lindsay's--where, hey: it's not the Book of Mormon, exactly--we can admit that it's Sci Fi, but that's okay! Because when you dig down, you can find that it is almost--almost--as edifying as the scriptures. Anything is okay so long as you can spin it to seem like it squares with the gospel, right?

I am waiting for the day when an apologist writes up an article explaining how something like, oh, I don't know.... Slouching Towards Bethlehem or (can you just imagine?) N.W.A's Straight Outta Compton are in keeping with gospel teachings. Or what about Roots, or Native Son--or virtually anything from the African American literary canon? Is Bigger Thomas an analog for Nephi? Or what about something like Henry Miller's Tropic of Cancer? Or anything by Hunter S. Thompson? The mind reels at the possibilities....

_________________
"[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


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Liu Cixin testifies of Christ? What on earth?
PostPosted: Tue Jul 03, 2018 8:01 pm 
Seedy Academician
User avatar

Joined: Sat Dec 13, 2008 4:00 pm
Posts: 18977
Location: The Brutus Memorial Rectory at Cassius University
Symmachus wrote:
How is that ultimately different from Joseph Smith's materialist universe, which seems to offer no purpose beyond propagating random gods?


Clash of the Titans?

Ragnarok?

You’ve gotta breed lotsa gods for the ultimate divine king of the multi-verse competition!

What if Elohim is building a giant army of gods to invade another universe and conquer it?

What if the real Armageddon takes place in space, with all the gods from all of the universes duking it out?

Don’t you want to be there on that epic day (1000 years earth time) when King Jesus kicks infinite ass and takes no prisoners?

Maybe you could be his Homeric bard!


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Liu Cixin testifies of Christ? What on earth?
PostPosted: Tue Jul 03, 2018 9:47 pm 
God
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jul 04, 2012 3:04 am
Posts: 4678
Location: Firmly on this earth
Quote:
Gad
And it's unbelievable that a man as otherwise intelligent as Lindsay completely misses the entire point.


Not really. It isn't that he misses the point, it's that he pulls a Mentalgymnast and redirects the point into positive spin exalting, once again, the great vision of redemption of Joseph Smith, while all such visions, ideas and imaginations of anyone else is clearly inferior to the great Gospel polymath Smith. No one can equal the grandeur, the glorious, the Godly of said Smith. All others are lame apostate attempts to try and climb the pyramid of Godliness where Smith (for apologists) continually inhabits the point by sitting on it, stuck there forever as the greatest the world has ever known, never overthrown by anyone. All else pales in comparison, though the hues are sometimes greater, sometimes less, but never as bright, optimistic, all encompassing, exalting, glorious, spiritually fulfilling as said Smith's. That yardstick can never be matched in apologetics minds. It's simple not allowed to be, it is verboten.

_________________
Science is not reliable because it provides certainty. It is reliable because it provides us with the best answers we have at present. And it is reliability we need, not certainty. The most credible answers are the ones given by science, because science is the search for the most credible answers available, not for answers pretending to certainty. Carlo Rovelli


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 16 posts ] 

All times are UTC - 7 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: beefcalf, Exiled, Google [Bot], jfro18 and 46 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Jump to:  
Revival Theme By Brandon Designs By B.Design-Studio © 2007-2008 Brandon
Revival Theme Based off SubLite By Echo © 2007-2008 Echo
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group