New Insights into the Mopologetic Version of the Afterlife

[_Shulem]

DCP in 'Expressions of Faith' wrote:
I can believe in prophecy and revelation because I have, on my own small scale, experienced them. I have known things about the future that I could not possibly have known from any natural reading of the situation. I have felt the Lord speak through me and pronounce things (including a remarkable healing) that I, a cautious fellow, would never have said on my own. Indeed, I have been astonished and more than a little bit shocked to hear the words of the Lord come out of my mouth.

For what it is worth, this is a complete contradiction of what Dan argued with me, some years ago, on whether or not God (Elohim) was all knowing.

My argument was in regards to a shifting belief in LDS theology, that to some, like JFS...God was all knowing, yet to others, like BY, God was always learning.

Long story short, Dan’s answer to this was God was indeed all knowing, but he can’t possibly know the mind of man or what decisions man will make in the future by his agency, because they have not been made In other words, God knows all things that are knowable, but the future of man is not knowable until it happens. Once it happens, then God knows it, and is therefore all knowing.

My answer was, in form of a question, “then how did Christ know Peter would betray him three times?” That’s when he called me a few names and bailed out of the conversation...but looking at what he wrote in his testimony, it is clear that he can know the future, but God can’t?

This gets deeper and makes certain demands on pre-destination and election, which get into Calvinism which he hates..but reading his testimony he is certainly mixed up

I wonder if Daniel Peterson has an opinion on whether Elohim has an anus or not? I wonder if Elohim even knows if he has an anus or not?

Nobody seems to know the answer! Perhaps Daniel Peterson will kindly respond and provide an inspired answer down in the TELESTIAL forum where serious questions are asked BUT (no pun intended) remain unanswered:

Heavenly Father has an ANUS?

What do you say, Dan? Does Father have one? A simple yes or no will do.

[_Doctor Scratch]

Does he think it's an enjoyable read? I'm at a loss.

Did you miss this part of his essay?

Added Upon depicts a small group of characters as they move from the premortal existence through this life (where they come in contact with the gospel), into the spirit world, and beyond, into the resurrection and the millennium. I must have heard of such things before, but I had never previously had any notion of the richness, the sheer sweep and grandeur, of what we call “the plan of salvation.” It was, I realized, the most exciting thing I had ever encountered, the most magnificent vision of human destiny imaginable. And this sense of excitement has never left me.

"Enjoyable read" understates the recommendation severely.

Precisely. I don't think it's possible to underestimate just how important this revelation is. I know the phrase gets bandied about a bit too often, but watershed moment seems absolutely appropriate in this case. Encountering Added Upon seems to have been downright theophanous for Dr. Peterson. This is his own, heartfelt account of his own conversion. This--what is described in Added Upon--is apparently what convinced him to devote his entire life, including 10% of income for life, two years' worth of mission, never getting to experience certain dimensions of life, plus quite a bit of criticism, to Mormonism. It's all worth it, in his mind, because he will eventually get to go to an afterlife where those who "made mistakes" will be punished in demonstrably painful fashion.

Interestingly, I noticed that he was silent all day on "SeN," emerging only to trash (and allegedly ban) Markk, and to submit this bizarre and unconvincing response to our current thread. He provided the following quote from the D&C:

“Nothing could be more pleasing to the Saints upon the order of the kingdom of the Lord, than the light which burst upon the world through the foregoing vision. Every law, every commandment, every promise, every truth, and every point touching the destiny of man, from Genesis to Revelation, where the purity of the scriptures remains unsullied by the folly of men, go to show the perfection of the theory [of different degrees of glory in the future life] and witnesses the fact that that document is a transcript from the records of the eternal world. The sublimity of the ideas; the purity of the language; the scope for action; the continued duration for completion, in order that the heirs of salvation may confess the Lord and bow the knee; the rewards for faithfulness, and the punishment for sins, are so much beyond the narrow-mindedness of men, that every honest man is constrained to exclaim: “It came from God.”” (Joseph Smith, History of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, ed. B. H. Roberts, 2nd ed. rev. (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book, 1957), 1:252–53; brackets and emphasis in original.)

So, this is just putting the ideas of Added Upon into stereotypically "scriptural," obscurantist terms. Note that the passage is apparently *explicitly about* the "different degrees of glory," and note, too, the later bits about how "the heirs of salvation may confess the Lord and bow the knee" and that "the punishment of sins, are so much beyond the narrow-mindedness of men." Now, this is actually quite disturbing. The "punishment of sins," as imagined by the "narrow-mindedness of men," is beyond horrific. Think of torture. Not just waterboarding, but disembowelment. Getting drawn-and-quartered. Crucifixion, for heaven's sake! Earthly tortures are awful--just ask Hieronymous Bosch. And yet her is Dr. Peterson, seeming to offer this macabre quote as an affirmation of what he believes about the afterlife! It is a little mind-boggling to know that there are actually people out there who go through life getting satisfaction from the idea that there are millions of other people walking the earth who are going to suffer horribly in the next life. I guess this is yet another thing that distinguishes the "deeply embedded" Mormons from Catholics? My understanding (and I freely admit that my expertise is in Mopologetics, and not in Catholicism) is that Catholics *don't like* the idea of hell--it's something to be feared and to hate. For the Mopologists, on the other hand, the idea that other people will be made to suffer in the afterlife seems to be something that they find exciting. DCP, in his testimony in Expressions of Faith, seems downright tumescent over the terrifying, stratified version of heaven that is depicted in Added Upon.

[_Gadianton]

Catholics *don't like* the idea of hell--it's something to be feared and to hate....For the Mopologists, on the other hand, the idea that other people will be made to suffer in the afterlife seems to be something that they find exciting. DCP, in his testimony in Expressions of Faith, seems downright tumescent over the terrifying, stratified version of heaven that is depicted in Added Upon.

A profound observation. I can't speak for Catholics, and certainly in the past Catholic scholars have had ideas such as the viewing of the damned, and so Mormons aren't distinctly awful here. But, I think the idea that you're groping toward here, professor, is that generally in Christian theology, salvation isn't zero-sum, as it is for Mormons. Consider the words I quoted above from Added Upon:

In this celestial world, the fittest have Survived.

Note that Darwin is always spoken of favorably at Sic et Non. Perhaps Darwin was wrong about the random elements of evolution, but he had a portion of the truth -- that salvation is competitive and and our earthly estate is nothing more than an apologist-celebrated eugenics project to the ultimate ends:

The [master] race of Gods must not deteriorate

And as you point out, the master race exists as a strata to contrast itself with the inferior races:

Thus everlasting increase is denied To those who have not reached perfection's plane.

And it's exactly as you say, the exaltation of the Mopologists must be at the expense of the inferior races, where the inferior races suffer in the defeat by their betters. Now do you want to see something really scary?

Let's go back to Added Upon to fill in the traits of those who constitute the Celestial strata -- the fittest who have survived:

Of parentage they stand, the perfect type. Of that eternal principle of sex found in all nature, making possible For every living thing to multiply

The fittest are those who are married and create children sexually. Those who have failed are not married, and have no children.

And other worlds may now be visited; For end there's none to matter and to space. Infinitude holds kingdoms, great and small,-- worlds upon worlds, redeemed and glorified,

The fittest are those who travel throughout the stars and visit kingdoms.

What bliss to mingle with such company! To taste the joys of friendships perfected, And feel to fulness that sweet brother-love Which binds in one the noble race of Gods!

What company might you ask?

They stepped out on to a portico where they could see the throng of children standing on a large lawn outside. They were singing a song of welcome, and through the trees could be seen three men approaching.

Who might this company of three be?

"Two of the faces are familiar," remarked Remand, "but the third is
strange. Surely, surely--"

"Surely you did not expect to see George Washington and Martin Luther in
the flesh, walking and talking as other men?"

"The third is Socrates of old."

LOL! Oh look, it's George Washington, Martin Luther, and Socretes! The point is, the fittest who survive will also mingle fraternity style with the most important men of history!

Now, why did I say this is really scary? Can you see how this work has influenced the Mopologists? Where do you think I can find a thread where an elitist fraternity of men collectively boast of being married, having children, rubbing elbows with important people, and traveling extensively, and then making fun of the "losers" in the eugenics experiment, who (supposedly) aren't married, don't have children, don't have lots of important friends, and don't travel abroad constantly?

[_krose]

Ah, Added Upon.

My experience with the book was similar to the anecdotes MG posted. I found my mother’s copy and read it as a kid and was quite moved by it. It was like the feeling after watching Saturday’s Warrior a decade or so later. They were both designed to make people feel good about being Mormons, and determined to make the grade to get that special reward in the afterlife.

I can pick them apart now, but as a youth I found they definitely had the intended effect.

[_Everybody Wang Chung]

Ah, Added Upon.

My experience with the book was similar to the anecdotes MG posted. I found my mother’s copy and read it as a kid and was quite moved by it. It was like the feeling after watching Saturday’s Warrior a decade or so later. They were both designed to make people feel good about being Mormons, and determined to make the grade to get that special reward in the afterlife.

I can pick them apart now, but as a youth I found they definitely had the intended effect.

Yes, Added Upon is Mormon kitsch at its worst.

I wonder why Peter$on, as a grown man, is still highly recommending this book to people? The book is painfully embarrassing to read. It makes the Jack Weyland novels look Shakespearean in comparison. Added Upon obviously still resonates strongly with Peter$on and he obviously agrees and endorses the misogynistic themes, the TK Smoothie and silly childish plot.

I would love to see Peter$on and the Interpreter start raising money to make Added Upon into a masterpiece feature film for all to see. I'm sure Peter$on would have no problem getting a contract in place with the BYU religion department to show the Added Upon film to tens of thousands of students.

[_moksha]

The simplistic nature of Nephi Anderson's book probably appealed to deacon-aged Daniel Peterson, but do we know if he would still enthusiastically endorse it in his retirement years - especially now that the gray areas have been pointed out? Would he still hold God to be as judgmental as early 20th Century LDS speculations suggested?

[_Doctor Scratch]

The simplistic nature of Nephi Anderson's book probably appealed to deacon-aged Daniel Peterson, but do we know if he would still enthusiastically endorse it in his retirement years - especially now that the gray areas have been pointed out? Would he still hold God to be as judgmental as early 20th Century LDS speculations suggested?

I definitely think that he still admires the book, Moksha. I'm guessing that he is still, to this day, hoping to go on to "eternities" that resemble what is depicted in the novel. If the idea of being connected with this book is in any way bothersome to him, then he'll issue a disclaimer: you can count on it.

[_Lemmie]

Calling Professor Lemmie!

Maybe I'm mistaken, but it looks like Peter$on's testimony was plagarized, word for word from Chapter 44 of the study manual for The Teachings of Joseph Smith. Was Peter$on really this sloppy or lazy? Does Peter$on not have a testimony of his own? I truly hope I'm mistaken and that Peter$on meant to quote Joseph Smith instead of plagarizing him word for word.

The building up of Zion is a cause...

I did check, while DCP did attribute the quote, at least as far back as the internet wayback copies his chapter in "expressions of faith" go (earliest I can find is april 2016) his lead-in is astonishingly arrogant:

But I find the gospel wholly fulfilling in the here and now, and I do not dream only of the world to come, glorious as I believe that will be. And the dream of Zion, of which I have had some foretaste, ignites my imagination:
"..."

As for copies prior to that date, I give no guarantee. Peterson doesn't have a good track record with plagiarism, so I would have to see the 1996 book before giving a final answer.

I am bumping this to show that while Peterson clearly read the thread, when he comments on the question Everybody Wang Chung asks, he completely twists my response:

But then it was realized that the words aren’t mine at all. They’re quoted from Joseph Smith.

Oops.

And suddenly, at that point, the narrative turned on a dime: I had plagarized Joseph Smith, you see, “word for word.” Without credit.

Oh my.

Please see the photos above, taken from the book itself. Please notice the indenting that indicates a block quotation. Please notice the reference to HC 4:609-619.


This little episode offers a clear object lesson on how consuming malice can cloud one’s vision, making obvious things invisible and replacing them with phantasms, specters, and fictions.
https://www.patheos.com/blogs/danpeters ... -them.html

This little episode offers a clear object lesson on how Peterson's consuming malice can make him disregard what actual posts say, and make him think that replacing them with whatever lie he needs to present is acceptable in his religion.

You know, I left the Mormon church for specific reasons. One thing I didn't know before I left was that members like Peterson felt that lying was acceptable. His character is execrable, and his use of lies to promote his mopologist position is indefensible. What a liar he is.

[_Lemmie]

Louis Midgley • a day ago • edited

This illustrates the kind of rubbish that otherwise presumably rational people who are driven by violent passions regularly post on a truly disgusting message board, where the so-called "moderator" hides what must be his miserable identity behind by calling himself "Dr. Shades." This bizarre handle illustrates what others, most often perhaps even illustrating their miserable identities under even more weird handles. I actually enjoy knowing that whoever they are constantly pawing through Dan's blog looking for something about which to opine, often in vulgar language that sometimes would cause a brute to blush.

vulgar language that would cause a brute to blush? that's from the mopologist group that includes "spit or swallow" Midgley, "my initials DP are so obscene that you're banned" Peterson, and "bukake" Smoot!

Also note that Midgley based this on Peterson's lie about what was posted here. Character is apparently optional with the mopologist crowd.

[_Gadianton]

Interestingly, Dr. Scratch cited the article properly, including a link to the book and noted the page numbers where the essay could be found. Note that up to just a few hours prior to the B.H. Chair's post, and this is really ironic given all of Midgley's conspiracy theories, the essay was readily available to cite directly at the Maxwell Institute's website, but either due to the faltering infrastructure or the upgrade that was happening (unbeknownst to the rest of the world) the link had become unreliable and led to an error page, otherwise no doubt the B.H. Robert's Chair would have linked to that source, I'm fairly certain. I would ask for those who might feel otherwise, if there are any examples whatsoever elsewhere, where Professor Scratch, who holds a Phd and carries himself in a sophisticated manner, has ever failed to offer citations regarding what he's commenting on, if such citations are possible?

Had the Old Guard taken better care of their data and not put so much effort into blocking the efforts of the New Guard to stabilize the archives, then a link would have been available for all who read the post, and that could have influenced how the OP was understood initially. As it stands, while Everybody Wang Chung's question was asked in quite a provocative manner, it did not rise to an accusation, and even included, twice, "I can't believe he would...", and then after Lemmie found another source somewhere, the issue was dropped entirely. An accusation was never made.

In contrast, for the readers at the 'the blog', there is no link or reference to the source of the controversy, this site, and those in the comment section are left to rely only on how the thread was portrayed by the staff writer. And the Joseph Fielding Smith scissors were brought into service liberally to represent the dialog that went on. I wonder, if those in the comment section so convinced of the unscrupulous nature of critics and their anger and hate; if they were given the opportunity to read source materials for themselves, would their opinions change at all?