MAGA

The catch-all forum for general topics and debates. Minimal moderation. Rated PG to PG-13.
Post Reply
_Maksutov
_Emeritus
Posts: 12480
Joined: Thu Mar 07, 2013 8:19 pm

MAGA

Post by _Maksutov »

Image
"God" is the original deus ex machina. --Maksutov
_Gadianton
_Emeritus
Posts: 9947
Joined: Sat Jul 07, 2007 5:12 am

Re: MAGA

Post by _Gadianton »

I agree. If the New Maxwell Institute dishonors Maxwell's name because it doesn't do mopologetics, then BYU dishonors Brigham Young, because it doesn't teach Adam is God.
Lou Midgley 08/20/2020: "...meat wad," and "cockroach" are pithy descriptions of human beings used by gemli? They were not fashioned by Professor Peterson.

LM 11/23/2018: one can explain away the soul of human beings...as...a Meat Unit, to use Professor Peterson's clever derogatory description of gemli's ideology.
_Kishkumen
_Emeritus
Posts: 21373
Joined: Sat Dec 13, 2008 10:00 pm

Re: MAGA

Post by _Kishkumen »

Gadianton wrote:I agree. If the New Maxwell Institute dishonors Maxwell's name because it doesn't do mopologetics, then BYU dishonors Brigham Young, because it doesn't teach Adam is God.



Well said!
"Petition wasn’t meant to start a witch hunt as I’ve said 6000 times." ~ Hanna Seariac, LDS apologist
_Doctor Scratch
_Emeritus
Posts: 8025
Joined: Sat Apr 18, 2009 4:44 pm

Re: MAGA

Post by _Doctor Scratch »

Gadianton wrote:I agree. If the New Maxwell Institute dishonors Maxwell's name because it doesn't do mopologetics, then BYU dishonors Brigham Young, because it doesn't teach Adam is God.


I've never understood the embarrassment over the Adam-God Doctrine. Why do the Mopologists care about this one? I actually think that Adam-God is theologically interesting, and seriously, who are they worried about here? Who do they think is going to criticize them? Other Christians? EVs? Do they think that Brigham Young--an anointed prophet of God--is wrong on this issue because EVs and other Christians will laugh at them and accuse them of being fake Christians? I mean: yes, we all already know the answer to that question, but it's just so disappointing, on so many levels. Why should the opinion of EVs matter enough to completely affect their behavior?

And it occurs to me that this is sort of a sub-field of Mopologetic studies--i.e., the way that Mopologists react to "embarrassing" doctrine. Think of the ways they responded to threads on, e.g., the notion of Elohim physically impregnating Mary, or the "TK Smoothie" idea, etc. Their discomfort is palpable, and, frankly, their responses have been exceptionally revealing in terms of what it says about Mopologetic views.
"[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
_moksha
_Emeritus
Posts: 22508
Joined: Fri Oct 27, 2006 8:42 pm

Re: MAGA

Post by _moksha »

Doctor Scratch wrote:And it occurs to me that this is sort of a sub-field of Mopologetic studies--i.e., the way that Mopologists react to "embarrassing" doctrine. Think of the ways they responded to threads on, e.g., the notion of Elohim physically impregnating Mary, or the "TK Smoothie" idea, etc. Their discomfort is palpable, and, frankly, their responses have been exceptionally revealing in terms of what it says about Mopologetic views.

The best way to handle patently absurd notions from the past is to deny the past. The other ways involve pretzelized rationalizations and personal attacks on those mentioning the absurd notions from the past.

It is imperative that they never refer to these past absurd notions as being absurd. To do so would be a breach of apologetic etiquette and could lead to termination of employment and disfellowshiping from all they hold dear.
Cry Heaven and let loose the Penguins of Peace
_Gadianton
_Emeritus
Posts: 9947
Joined: Sat Jul 07, 2007 5:12 am

Re: MAGA

Post by _Gadianton »

Dr Scratch,

Thank you for the scholarly insights. A senior staff writer at sen recently, as you recall; admitted truthfully that he wasn’t fit for “heaven” — avoiding a reference to the Celestial Kingdom. Anyone who was raised Mormon knows that nobody who knows the truth calls it “heaven” — it even sounds uncomfortable. Also, this same staff writer just admitted to reading the Chronicles of Narnia for the 20th time.

I have to wonder if the Old-school MI characters defer more to CS Lewis than they do the Prophet. It must be uncomfortable, because on these topics you mention like the TK mandate, Lewis is polemical if not scornful, and makes fun of suggestions of bodily resurrection— what is any of it needed for? How it must hurt to hear that coming from someone regarded higher than the prophet.

It’s really odd, because one has to wonder what the apologists are defending? What do they defend that’s Mormon specific theologically? They avoid that at all costs. At best, you might get a lame “social trinity” defense, but that’s only because I believe some Catholic scholars have gone that route. They definitely won’t admit to any Mormon doctrine that doesn’t have a notable non-Mormon scholar backing the idea.

So why do they care about Book of Mormon geography so much, or proving the Book of Mormon when any actual unique theology is shit-canned. All the senior staff at SeN will say is “eyes have not seen nor ears heard” as an answer to what lies beyond. But why does anybody need to become Mormon to believe something that general? And how could such general beliefs be at odds at all with what the new MI believes?

It’s crazy because Maxwell also condemned gospel hobbies; and technical Book of Mormon geography sounds much like a hobby to me. I mean, if Nephi was fiction, does that have any bearing on the bland Mopologist theology of “heaven” being “spectacular” — “eyes have not seen nor ears heard”?

Mopologetics isn’t really a defense of the Church or Mormonism, but a war in justification of a hobby horse that doesn’t have relevance to anyone but them.
Lou Midgley 08/20/2020: "...meat wad," and "cockroach" are pithy descriptions of human beings used by gemli? They were not fashioned by Professor Peterson.

LM 11/23/2018: one can explain away the soul of human beings...as...a Meat Unit, to use Professor Peterson's clever derogatory description of gemli's ideology.
_Polygamy-Porter
_Emeritus
Posts: 8091
Joined: Wed Oct 21, 2009 1:07 am

Re: MAGA

Post by _Polygamy-Porter »

Mormons Acting Gay Again.
New name: Boaz
The most viewed "ignored" poster in Shady Acres® !
_Markk
_Emeritus
Posts: 4745
Joined: Sun Feb 10, 2008 4:04 am

Re: MAGA

Post by _Markk »

Doctor Scratch wrote:
I've never understood the embarrassment over the Adam-God Doctrine. Why do the Mopologists care about this one? I actually think that Adam-God is theologically interesting, and seriously, who are they worried about here? Who do they think is going to criticize them? Other Christians? EVs? Do they think that Brigham Young--an anointed prophet of God--is wrong on this issue because EVs and other Christians will laugh at them and accuse them of being fake Christians? I mean: yes, we all already know the answer to that question, but it's just so disappointing, on so many levels. Why should the opinion of EVs matter enough to completely affect their behavior?

And it occurs to me that this is sort of a sub-field of Mopologetic studies--i.e., the way that Mopologists react to "embarrassing" doctrine. Think of the ways they responded to threads on, e.g., the notion of Elohim physically impregnating Mary, or the "TK Smoothie" idea, etc. Their discomfort is palpable, and, frankly, their responses have been exceptionally revealing in terms of what it says about Mopologetic views.


Beyond the EV debate, it makes a bigger mess of LDS theology proper. It makes a mess out of the creation story and preexistence.

They also have to protect the Talmage/JFS folks that denounced Adam-God and introduced "investiture" trying to clear up things like Adam-God...like all things Mormon there are catch 22's at every bend. in my opinion, the Mopologist has no choice but to sweep Adam-God under the rug or come up with lame defenses like "Adam God Jr."
Don't take life so seriously in that " sooner or later we are just old men in funny clothes" "Tom 'T-Bone' Wolk"
Post Reply