How Do Mopologists Explain the Holocaust?

[Analytics]

I wondered that, too. If anything, the notion of "life being finite" renders the Holocaust in a far more horrific light than the Mopologists' beliefs, which tend to trivialize things like this.

You and Billy Shears both make some great points. The irony of ironies is DCP's adoration for free-market economics. Remember the bust of Adam Smith that he has on his desk, displayed just a little more prominently than his bust of Joseph Smith?

The basis for all theories about markets is scarcity. There is no scarcity in his Mormon theology. "Eternal round" should be "eternal bubble". Imagine a bubble in the housing market, or electric vehicles. In "Added Upon", these kinds of bubbles just continue on forever. If a 200k$ house is now 400k$ in just a few years, its price just keeps climbing like that without ever correcting. Glory heaps upon glory forever.

You'd think at some point DCP would sit back and wonder if all this is too good to be true.

That's a really good point.

I normally don't like ganging up on Peterson, but using holocaust victims as a club against atheists? That's low and I'm going to make an exception.

What's always bothered me about Peterson's economics (and politics, and religion) is that his conclusions aren't so much the result of really deep study and deliberation, but rather a somewhat arbitrary choice he made as a teenager. When he was a teenager he happened to read a copy of National Review, and just decided that he liked it--these where his people. He decided he was going to be a National Review guy, and that was that.

As Emerson said, "If I know your sect, I anticipate your argument. I hear a preacher announce for his text and topic the expediency of one of the institutions of his church. Do I not know beforehand that not possibly can he say a new and spontaneous word? Do I not know that, with all this ostentation of examining the grounds of the institution, he will do no such thing? Do I not know that he is pledged to himself not to look but at one side,--the permitted side, not as a man, but as a parish minister? He is a retained attorney."

That describes Peterson, to a T.

If he really understood the theoretical basis of classical economics, I don't think he'd mock the concept of scarcity increasing value.

[Doctor Scratch]

Ah Dr. Scratch and Dean Robbers! There you two are, I’ve heard back from that particular seller and they have accepted the University's generous offer. We’ve finally managed to secure a first edition of Franciso de Alvarado’s ‘Castilian-Mixtec Dictionary’, the catalog for our upcoming ‘Indigenous Languages of the Americas Initiative’ continues to grow.

Thank you very much for this update, Dr. Stak--I'm very glad to see this project moving forward.

While some might find “the implications, entailments, and disclosures of the Restored Gospel radical and utterly, breathtakingly, profound”, I can’t help but feel what makes the “Restored Gospel” so “radical” is that it more or less presents a nearly fatalistic universe where everything works out for the best because eventually all moral ambiguity is thought to be dispelled and every agent is given more than ample opportunity to accept the Gospel, especially postmortem when it’s truth will have been overwhelmingly demonstrated.

If one were to “strongly suspect” that the “factors in recently declining conversion rates” and “some retention problems among young Latter-day Saints” can be attributed to “our failure to adequately exhibit the exciting and radical depth of Mormonism” than you have a major problem on your hands, because the actual world people live in is ambiguous and just trying to live one’s life in even the most conventional fashion will result in innumerable instances of moral ambiguity and personal confusion.

Nothing taught by LDS Churches helps a person navigate the vagaries of the world and how could it? The loudly consistent theme from the Book of Mormon is that if one is humble, meek, and clings to God’s covenants, then they shall be richly rewarded by heavenly blessings and if they become arrogant and ignore those same covenants, it shall be to their ruin.

How can the “Restored Gospel” actually appreciate the scope and meaning of genocide? Where is the loss? What of culpability? What does this mean for us? To these questions, I feel any Latter Day Saint who only has recourse to Latter Day Saint scripture can only respond in the most spiritually tepid of manners.

Yes: you're exactly right, and the Mopologists have no answer for this. A few snide comments directed at Fred Kratz, plus the daily litany of mockery directed at Gemli, and then the "Kingpin" pushes his chair back from his desk, a solid day's work done!

[The Stig]

I’m still stuck at how the Holocaust is any sort of refutation of the opening sentence. Life can still be precious even under horrendous circumstances. Is this a Sic et Non sequitur?

I wondered that, too. If anything, the notion of "life being finite" renders the Holocaust in a far more horrific light than the Mopologists' beliefs, which tend to trivialize things like this. Not only will the victims be resurrected, but, if they accept the teachings of the Restoration (so the argument goes) they will also get to become gods. It occurs to me that the Mopologists don't really need a valid version of theodicy. Rather, they need to explain how the Plan of Salvation creates space for a meaningful and impactful mortal life. Midgley often says that this is a "mortal probation," meaning that all earthly experiences--including Stalinist Russia, the Spanish Inquisition, 9/11, the Crusades, and, yes, the Holocaust--are all little more than a "waiting room" type of experience--at least, per the apologists. It's a test, and even if you don't "get it" the first time around, then you'll have a chance after you die to accept the teachings of the Restoration. But the effect is the very seriously undercut the seriousness of all these tragic historical events. It's no wonder that the Mopologists are so flippant about so much of this stuff.

Might also be why they approach the Mountain Meadows Massacre with a notable lack of compassion for the victims.

[Doctor Scratch]

I see that Dr. Peterson has posted a new blog entry in which he extols the significance of the Jews. But it’s disingenuous. If he felt Judaism was legitimate, he’d convert. And his quotes from Mark Twain (nice pick, by the way—what does he think of Mormons???) do not to absolve him of the fact that he’s used the Holocaust in a flippant way, to score points against atheists.

Look: if he’s really serious about treating the Holocaust in a serious way, then let him answer this question: Which kingdom are the Holocaust victims in now? Where, per LDS teachings, will they end up? And, in the grand scheme of things, how does their being there render the seriousness of their deaths?

[drumdude]

Most of them were cremated, which is very unfortunate. We all know that is not recommended. I wouldn't be surprised if God throws up his hands trying to perfect all those ashes into bodies.

[Doctor Scratch]

Good point, drumdude. And I think that, in a strange way, this also might merit yet another entry in the increasingly fattening Daniel C. Peterson Squirrely Financial Behavior File. He probably wants to recruit Jews to Mormonism, because then—of course—they’d pay tithing, which would put him (DCP) in the good graces of the Brethren, which in turn means they’d be more likely to funnel money to Interpreter (and also to pay for his travel, which the Church has done in the past.) maybe the reason why there’s no transparency for “Witnesses” is because the Church kicked money into it?

[drumdude]

He's trying to save face after the debacle in his under-moderated comment section. I wonder if Dan has a favorite concentration camp, like his friend Midgely does.

[Dr. Shades]

He's trying to save face after the debacle in his under-moderated comment section.

Please give us a run-down of this debacle of which you speak.

[drumdude]

viewtopic.php?f=4&t=154567