Naw, Rev, I’m sure he loved those parts. He just can’t take being confronted with how detached from reality much of the right has become. He’s practically the poster child for the latter part of the article.
“The ideal subject of totalitarian rule is not the convinced Nazi or the dedicated communist, but people for whom the distinction between fact and fiction, true and false, no longer exists.”
― Hannah Arendt, The Origins of Totalitarianism, 1951
Kishkumen wrote:Good point, and I think you are right. I don’t know that I will ever be free of the siren’s call of the secret or special truth. I try to satisfy it with better tools, but I’ll always have the itch for the inside scoop.
It’s tough to lash yourself to the mast every day, but worth it I think.
“The ideal subject of totalitarian rule is not the convinced Nazi or the dedicated communist, but people for whom the distinction between fact and fiction, true and false, no longer exists.”
― Hannah Arendt, The Origins of Totalitarianism, 1951
FairMormon Conference Speaker Identifies a Spiritual Threat (Mormon Gnosticism)
I don't know really how to parse the article out, but the Church advises against esotericism or gnosticism. They basically say the only way to know Jesus is through LDS-approved correlation.
This calls to mind Symmachus’ famous quote: “all religion is silly, like all sports.”
That being the case, why not go for interestingly silly over drably pointless?
It seems to me that Hedelius—one of a long list of tedious apologists—is criticizing Snufferites. I am not a big fan of Snufferism, but I do note that it gives people something to seek after, a vibrant experience of the divine, as opposed to the lifelessness of LDS, Inc. bromides and assignments.
"Petition wasn’t meant to start a witch hunt as I’ve said 6000 times." ~ Hanna Seariac, LDS apologist
Res Ipsa wrote:Naw, Rev, I’m sure he loved those parts. He just can’t take being confronted with how detached from reality much of the right has become. He’s practically the poster child for the latter part of the article.
I hope not. I would like to think not. It troubles me that so many Republicans have gone so far off the rails that they can’t see a just internal critique. The guy who wrote this struck me as rather justifiably critical of liberal thought. Is it impossible to accept criticism?
"Petition wasn’t meant to start a witch hunt as I’ve said 6000 times." ~ Hanna Seariac, LDS apologist
Res Ipsa wrote:Another piece of that, I think, is the notion of what I think of as special truth or secret truth. The LDS church teaches that there accessible truth that explains the big questions common to existence. This is a special truth that only they have, and they will share it with you. I think there is something atteactive, even seductive, in this notion of having special or secret truth. Brains seem to be suckers for it.
When a person gives up mormonusm, they don’t necessarily give up all the ingrained concepts and notions. Their brains can still be seduced by other “special truths” pedaled by contrarians.
Something like that.
Interesting thoughts. I googled 'Mormon + gnosticism' and got this weird hit:
FairMormon Conference Speaker Identifies a Spiritual Threat (Mormon Gnosticism)
I don't know really how to parse the article out, but the Church advises against esotericism or gnosticism. They basically say the only way to know Jesus is through LDS-approved correlation.
Hoo boy. This ain't the church I grew up with. That's for sure.
- Doc
I've heard Maxine Hanks describe herself as a Gnostic.
I think the idea of "Secret Knowledge" is a marketing ploy of crafty old frauds in robes. Real knowledge is peer reviewed, spread and deployed. In the real, not the "secret" world.
Res Ipsa wrote:Naw, Rev, I’m sure he loved those parts. He just can’t take being confronted with how detached from reality much of the right has become. He’s practically the poster child for the latter part of the article.
I hope not. I would like to think not. It troubles me that so many Republicans have gone so far off the rails that they can’t see a just internal critique. The guy who wrote this struck me as rather justifiably critical of liberal thought. Is it impossible to accept criticism?
I thought his criticisms of liberal thought were well-stated and well founded, I thought. I think WD’s reaction is the kind of tribalistic rejection of any criticism that I see everywhere these day.
“The ideal subject of totalitarian rule is not the convinced Nazi or the dedicated communist, but people for whom the distinction between fact and fiction, true and false, no longer exists.”
― Hannah Arendt, The Origins of Totalitarianism, 1951
Maksutov wrote:I think the idea of "Secret Knowledge" is a marketing ploy of crafty old frauds in robes. Real knowledge is peer reviewed, spread and deployed. In the real, not the "secret" world.
I dunno, Mak. It’s so pervasive that I’ve gotta believe there is hard wiring of brains involved.
“The ideal subject of totalitarian rule is not the convinced Nazi or the dedicated communist, but people for whom the distinction between fact and fiction, true and false, no longer exists.”
― Hannah Arendt, The Origins of Totalitarianism, 1951
Maksutov wrote:I think the idea of "Secret Knowledge" is a marketing ploy of crafty old frauds in robes. Real knowledge is peer reviewed, spread and deployed. In the real, not the "secret" world.
I dunno, Mak. It’s so pervasive that I’ve gotta believe there is hard wiring of brains involved.
Yep, there's a certain portion of every human population of any size reserved for shamans. Some did some good. All pretended to powers they didn't have, but that's what their tribe wanted. Sound familiar?
Real knowledge is peer reviewed, spread and deployed. In the real, not the "secret" world.