Return of "The Doink": What's at Stake in Post-Mopologetics

[_Maksutov]

Yes, I saw that. Wow. Talking about yanking something out of context. I'm also guessing that Hancock's inclusion of the Camus bit here, in this badly-out-of-context quote, was done without a shred of irony.

Mopologist postmodern moves invariably turn into pratfalls.

[_Johannes]

The meat of the talk is a long series of deconstructions of "Liberal" LDS writers, all of whom are advocating Christlike discipleship: treating others with kindness and respect; being open to alternative points of view; and perhaps most pointedly, not seeking to drive people out of the Church. At heart, it seems to me that this is what is most at stake for the Mopologists at this point in time. Though they loathe having to admit it or having it pointed out to them, the truth seems to be that the view their ability to kick people out of the Church--the ability to ostracize--as one of the principal things that they are in danger of losing.

Sadly, I have a feeling that this is true.

There are people like this in all churches. I've been on the receiving end of it myself. Loyalty to the in-group comes above anything else. If someone has an unorthodox take on the faith, you don't just disagree with them and mount arguments against them, you try to drive them out.

Someone should tell them that if Jesus had taken that attitude they wouldn't have a church to exclude people from. THey would be trying to ostracise people for having unorthodox thoughts about Zeus and Woden.

[_Everybody Wang Chung]

You know it's bad when even Juliann Reynolds is disappointed in the "The Doink":

I am extremely disappointed that he displayed so-called quotes from Blair, one of which I couldn't find in the blog he claimed to have gotten it from. I don't expect to hear FM speakers belittling other LDS scholars' work. When one has to go to blogs to find something to criticize, it ends up looking more like a grudge than anything else. Is anyone familiar with the work of the other scholars he critiqued? Was he more accurate in those instances?

http://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/680 ... ity-loses/

[_Runtu]

You know it's bad when even Juliann Reynolds is disappointed in the "The Doink":

I am extremely disappointed that he displayed so-called quotes from Blair, one of which I couldn't find in the blog he claimed to have gotten it from. I don't expect to hear FM speakers belittling other LDS scholars' work. When one has to go to blogs to find something to criticize, it ends up looking more like a grudge than anything else. Is anyone familiar with the work of the other scholars he critiqued? Was he more accurate in those instances?

http://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/680 ... ity-loses/

I find it amazing that, in his presentation, he acknowledges that Blair thinks he is misrepresenting Blair's position. The arrogance of saying, "I'm not going to let Blair explain himself because I know better than he does what he meant!"

What a dick.

[_consiglieri]

Besides his overall dickishness, here is what stood out to me from the transcript (thanks for the link!):

Of course the statement itself ("love for one another") is incontrovertible, but the whole question concerns the status of particular commandments and principles in relation to the great and ultimate idea of love.

I agree this is the fundamental question.

The problem for me is that Hancock appears to believe that there are instances where "particular commandments and principles" can compete with, or even trump, the "great and ultimate idea of love."

My reading of the New Testament is that this is precisely the idea that Jesus spent most of his ministry fighting against--that there were instances where religious orthodoxy could trump the love we should have for our neighbor.

From Jesus's point of view, it seems that the "status of particular commandments and principles in relation to the great and ultimate idea of love" is that at any point where the two intersect, the latter must always trump the former.

No exceptions.

Jesus didn't excoriate the commandment breakers, but the commandment keepers--at least when such commandment keeping was done at the expense of the fundamental law of love.

[_Doctor Steuss]

Of course the statement itself ("love for one another") is incontrovertible, but the whole question concerns the status of particular commandments and principles in relation to the great and ultimate idea of love.

I agree this is the fundamental question.

That question is sure one tough nut to crack.

If only Jesus had said something, about the status of commandments and principles in relation to love. If only someone had though to ask Him what the greatest commandment was.

Oh well. I guess we'll never know.

[_consiglieri]

That question is sure one tough nut to crack.

If only Jesus had said something, about the status of commandments and principles in relation to love. If only someone had though to ask Him what the greatest commandment was.

Oh well. I guess we'll never know.

After all these years, you are still making me laugh, Herr Doktor!

Brilliant!!!!

[_Cicero]

The meat of the talk is a long series of deconstructions of "Liberal" LDS writers, all of whom are advocating Christlike discipleship: treating others with kindness and respect; being open to alternative points of view; and perhaps most pointedly, not seeking to drive people out of the Church. At heart, it seems to me that this is what is most at stake for the Mopologists at this point in time. Though they loathe having to admit it or having it pointed out to them, the truth seems to be that the view their ability to kick people out of the Church--the ability to ostracize--as one of the principal things that they are in danger of losing.

Said another way, mopologists are lamenting the perceived loss of their ability to define orthodoxy for purposes of Mormon Studies. What continues to amaze me is that they EVER felt it was their role to do so in the first place.

[_Johannes]

That question is sure one tough nut to crack.

If only Jesus had said something, about the status of commandments and principles in relation to love. If only someone had though to ask Him what the greatest commandment was.

Oh well. I guess we'll never know.

Great point.

There may be some institutions in the world that are too tolerant and inclusive. With all due respect, the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is not one of them.

[_Gadianton]

Said another way, mopologists are lamenting the perceived loss of their ability to define orthodoxy for purposes of Mormon Studies. What continues to amaze me is that they EVER felt it was their role to do so in the first place.

Right, but a small quibble. When Jesus chased the money changers from the temple, did it follow this linear trajectory :define orthodoxy, perceive the infraction, become angry over the infraction, and then chase them away with righteous justification? Or did he become angry, define orthodoxy, perceive the infraction etc..?

Because the money changer story is the only one of its kind in the Bible, it seems like the first.

We seem to find a lot of "driving the doubters off the message boards" and so I think the problem is anger is at the root of the tree. and if that's the case, we can expect orthodoxy to be defined such that there will be plenty of infractions, and plenty of work to do bringing the hatchet down.