DiscussMormonism.com

Did anyone else catch the most recent episode? There was a classic moment at the end, where Allen Lafferty explains to Pyre that his faith was unraveled thanks to a "big, red book," that he'd kept hidden away. Pyre digs it out of the evidence files, and it turns out to be the Tanners' classic, Mormonism: Shadow or Reality? LOL! Tears stream down Pyre's face as he reads, and his testimony unravels before our eyes. I imagine that the Mopologists are enraged over this. Will they do their usual schlocky summary of the episode, or will they skip it out of fear that mentioning the book might lead to more Chapel Mormons having an experience similar to Pyre's?

Tanner's book was forbidden in my mission. Apparently two missionaries were given a copy of it to read by an investigator, and it shook them. Enough that the mission president became involved.

Yeah the Tanners are outdated now, we have something much better, the Church Essays...

DCP has mentioned "Under the Banner of Heaven" on every single blog entry for the last week plus.


I think it really bothers him how it completely eclipsed his Witnesses project and its even smaller subsidiary endeavors.


Fortunately, he has lots of money stored in the bank from his decades working for the church, and can take a cruise or two to drown his sorrows.

Peterson attempting to do damage control? After all, this fruit of Mormonism isn't exactly from the Tree of Life and sweet and delicious to the taste... I haven't paid much attention to Peterson this last year, his colleague John Gee has been much more entertaining to discuss. Kerry Muhlestein has also received much attention. It must suck to be a mere third in importance these days.

Regardless of which is more accurate, the stronger conclusion would have to be behold! The fruits of Mormon Holy Ghost testimony. The Lafferty's are not fiction, they were not apostates seeking to tear down the church, but to actually live out Joseph Smith's vision. Either Mormonism has stepped away from it, or their version of what a testimony is and how the Holy Ghost works is all skewed. The Lafferty's testimonies were such that they literally followed the Spirit like Nephi in the Book of Mormon claimed to have done. And does anyone at all feel spiritual and commend them for their Spirit few "works righteousness" in apologetics? Of course not. So was this the devil playing them? Then where is assurance to be found he is also not playing all the other Mormons? This truly in the most startling way brings home to roost the weirdest issue in all The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints. WHOSE testimony is the true one, and just WHY is there any confusion about it?! Holy Ghost testimony can no longer be used and pointed to as the final assurance anymore can it? If so, HOW so? Apologists and Church Leaders have a lot to answer for in regard to the Lafferty's absolutely adamantine righteousness and fulfillment of the Holy Ghost revelations to them which they kept to the letter. If they were warped and misunderstood, that has to fall on the Holy Ghost whom they could hear. If they were right, then all the other church members who don't fulfill Joseph's vision is wrong aren't they? Just how literal is any of this supposed to be, and who now gets to determine it and on what basis? By the Holy Ghost? That is no longer a trustable option is it?

drumdude wrote: ↑

Sun May 29, 2022 1:42 am

DCP has mentioned "Under the Banner of Heaven" on every single blog entry for the last week plus. I

Makes me wonder whether the Church or FAIR ever tried to block John Krakauer's book or whether Kirton McConkie tried to assist the Lafferty defense.

This is a mega-concern on the MD&D board. It surprised me that they allowed the link to RFM's podcast of the 2000 Lafferty interview by Tom Barberi. Anyway, posters there have borne testimony against this TV program they have not seen.

Apologists probably perceive it to be their duty to throw as many barbs at this program as possible. Dr. Peterson could well assign Greg Smith to write an Interpreter article against Krakauer, his book, and the TV show.

Moksha wrote: ↑

Tue May 31, 2022 4:36 am

drumdude wrote: ↑

Sun May 29, 2022 1:42 am

DCP has mentioned "Under the Banner of Heaven" on every single blog entry for the last week plus. I

Makes me wonder whether the Church or FAIR ever tried to block John Krakauer's book or whether Kirton McConkie tried to assist the Lafferty defense.

This is a mega-concern on the MD&D board. It surprised me that they allowed the link to RFM's podcast of the 2000 Lafferty interview by Tom Barberi. Anyway, posters there have borne testimony against this TV program they have not seen.

Apologists probably perceive it to be their duty to throw as many barbs at this program as possible. Dr. Peterson could well assign Greg Smith to write an Interpreter article against Krakauer, his book, and the TV show.

Poor dumb testimonies demonstrate the brainwash of apologists exactly like it does the Lafferty's exactly like it does.... fill in any name that comes to mind... their testimony no longer works. The Lafferty's will certain cause alarming cognitive dissonance within Mormonism. They don't even have to see or listen to the evidence to know with testimony that the Lafferty testimony is wrong - lol... The Holy Ghost is a patch work quilt of testimony, to some saying this, to others saying that, all with no actual overall consistency in any manner whatever. Again, that's the evidence right there that testimony doesn't mean what the church has taught at all.

Hey, Drumdude: did you notice that Dr. Peterson has been insulting you?

An online non-fan of mine who goes by the name of Dumb-Dud, or something like that, seems to be trying to outbid my Malevolent Stalker on the matter of how angered I am by the FX/Hulu miniseries Under the Banner of Heaven. They’re both convinced — or, anyway, they’re both pretending to be convinced — that I’m absolutely incandescent with rage at the enormous success of this Lafferty Brothers production that stars Andrew Garfield. The spoofs of Under the Banner of Heaven that I’ve written under my pen name Jim Bennett apparently count as evidence of my jealousy and indignation.

Really? Who said that? It's interesting that DCP didn't post a "Jim Bennett" summary for the latest episode--and I'll note that I suspected this might happen. He's probably concerned that people might get a bit too curious about the plot point that involved the Tanners' book as a gateway to apostasy.

In any case: if you want evidence of his anger/indignation over the show, you needn't look any further than the blog. As you already pointed out, Drumdude, he's mentioned it repeatedly--to the point of obsession, I daresay. And isn't he in the middle of a European cruise? Is the cruise so uneventful and boring that he's got nothing better to do than foam at the mouth over Under the Banner of Heaven?

In any case, this tidbit was pretty great:

It’s true that the Church has rarely if ever devoted much time to the problem of religious violence. But then, I don’t think that Latter-day Saints are especially prone to religious violence. If anything, we tend to be nice to the point of seeming blandness. Isn’t that our image in the musical Book of Mormon? Aren’t we nice and harmless, but rather dim? Lovably simple and naïve? We don’t breed dangerous people.

Tell that to the kid that Midgley punched! Or tell it to Murphy, who had to deal with Tvedtnes trying to destroy his bid for tenure. Or the various attacks on Bradford, etc. Sure--you might complain that not all of these are *physical* violence, but the intent to do harm was clearly there. Mopologists have always been interested in hurting their perceived enemies. The attacks on Brian Hauglid and the Heartlanders and a couple of salient recent examples. And I found it richly entertaining that he typed this up immediately following a blog entry entitled "A purely defensive war only ever ends one way." LOL!

Bless his heart.