Page 6 of 7

Re: Interpreter 2.0?

Posted: Sat Mar 30, 2024 1:43 am
by Gadianton
Christ is Risen! Truly, He is Risen!"
Tom, correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't this the very definition of blasphemy? Remember when the Nephites got in trouble for too frequently using the name of Christ?

If you're going to write an article about something as important as the resurrection, then shouldn't it be a soul-paining experience? a week of barely eating and throwing out draft after draft because one just isn't able to bring the proper reverence to the table that the subject deserves? Why doesn't Dan just have an AI write a thousand different articles about how Jesus rose from the dead and is so awesome?

This isn't the subject that one is supposed to re-hash old material in service of. Celebrating the atonement isn't supposed to be the spam production contest that Dan is making it. I think it's blasphemous.

Re: Interpreter 2.0?

Posted: Sat Mar 30, 2024 2:03 am
by Tom
Gadianton wrote:
Sat Mar 30, 2024 1:43 am
Christ is Risen! Truly, He is Risen!"
Tom, correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't this the very definition of blasphemy? Remember when the Nephites got in trouble for too frequently using the name of Christ?

If you're going to write an article about something as important as the resurrection, then shouldn't it be a soul-paining experience? a week of barely eating and throwing out draft after draft because one just isn't able to bring the proper reverence to the table that the subject deserves? Why doesn't Dan just have an AI write a thousand different articles about how Jesus rose from the dead and is so awesome?

This isn't the subject that one is supposed to re-hash old material in service of. Celebrating the atonement isn't supposed to be the spam production contest that Dan is making it. I think it's blasphemous.
Excellent points. It’s surprising to see this. Doesn’t the Proprietor devote long hours each day to writing apart from his blog? At the very least, I suspect he could have published a short essay closely paraphrasing resurrection apologetics by Gary Habermas or Stephen Davis.

Re: Interpreter 2.0?

Posted: Sat Mar 30, 2024 2:47 am
by Doctor Scratch
You are so very right, Dean Robbers. How much do the Mopologists and Interpreter really care about Easter and the Resurrection? The way DCP has described this on his blog, it’s essentially like, “Oh, yeah: Easter. Let’s get someone to do an article.” But this year has proven how little thought they put into Easter. Consider this: how much planning do you think they put into the FARMS Review issues that were devoted to slamming Grant Palmer and Brent Metcalfe? How much energy was expended trying to get the John Dehlin smear piece into print? Do you think that a “personal emergency” would have gotten in the way of those publications? And yet here we have what the Interpreter President himself says is the most important day in the universe, and they have to offer up some crappy retread? You really have to laugh at this and acknowledge that Bond was right, because the President’s zeal to have *some*thing published every Friday has resulted in them putting up second-hand crap on a weekend that is allegedly the “most important” commemorative day in the universe.

This is incredibly revealing and it says everything you need to know about the extent to which the Mopologists actually value Christ’s atonement.

Re: Interpreter 2.0?

Posted: Sat Mar 30, 2024 2:55 am
by drumdude
Christ’s resurrection is small potatoes compared to completing the feature film that celebrates the bigamist racist Brigham Young.

Re: Interpreter 2.0?

Posted: Sat Mar 30, 2024 5:40 am
by Philo Sofee
drumdude wrote:
Sat Mar 30, 2024 2:55 am
Christ’s resurrection is small potatoes compared to completing the feature film that celebrates the bigamist racist Brigham Young.
They love to talk of Christ, Lo! He is here! But they don't like to actually live how he taught them to.... THAT is a bridge too far.

Re: Interpreter 2.0?

Posted: Tue Apr 02, 2024 9:15 pm
by Doctor Scratch
I noticed that Dr. Peterson posted an update on 3/30, containing what appears to be original content. So I guess the new material is suitable for the blog, but not worthy of "Mormon Interpreter" (which, come to think of it, is also a blog...)? In any case, the message this time around is all about resurrection. He tells the story of a high school acquaintance who was killed in a motorcycle-train collision, and he gives his reason for relating the story: "Easter says, however, that his story and our stories continue. Wonderfully."

Maybe so. What does this mean, though? Basic LDS theology--which I assume DCP accepts as dogmatic truth--says that there are three separate and distinct Kingdoms, and, of course, only those who complete the full set of "requirements" will make it to the Celestial Kingdom. So does he mean that it's "wonderful" even if someone only manages to get to one of the lesser kingdoms? Or, instead, is this a kind of subtle gloating, where it is "wonderful" precisely *because* there are separate kingdoms, and he will get to "Lord" over all those who failed to "make the cut"? Is that "wonderful"?

He continues with the entry and tells the story of an aging widower who, it turns out, has a burial plot all set up next to his wife's grave, and what do you know? It happens to be right next to the graves of Dr. Peterson's parents. DCP and his wife pick the guy up and chat with him, learn that he's very lonely and badly misses his late wife. Dr. Peterson admits, somewhat morbidly, that he hopes for the guy's death, so that he can (possibly) be reunited with his wife:
DCP wrote:We’ve returned, and I’ve come back alone, many times since then. Whenever I’m in southern California, if I can do it, I visit the cemetery. Every time for years, I looked to see whether Frenchy had finally gotten his wish.

Visiting in the spring of 2013, we immediately noticed that the grass next to my mother’s grave was fresh, and so, with some excitement, I hurriedly walked over to confirm what I suspected: Frenchy was gone. He had died on 30 August 2012.

I was deeply happy for him. After twenty-seven long years of sorrowful separation, he was with his wife again. And my faith tells me that he really is, not merely metaphorically.
Once again, though, we have to confront the basic facts of LDS theology. Even if Frenchy literally *is* with his wife, they are presumably in one of the lower kingdoms. And it may be useful to bear in mind that there are some amongst the Mopologists who believe that these people in the lower kingdoms will not get to keep their genitals.

So on the one hand, I applaud DCP for posting a message that wasn't simply a last-minute, lazy retread, and for actually trying to articulate the reasons why he values Easter so much. Then again, it's also impossible to detach these stories from the realities of LDS doctrine, and, coupled with DCP's long history of arrogance and condescension (such as in his endlessly dismissive remarks to Gemli), you can't help but think that part of the "wonderfulness" of Easter, from the Mopologists' point of view, is that they will get to sit up there on their thrones in the Celestial Kingdom, cackling with glee at all the "losers" who couldn't measure up, and who have to settle for a second-class version of glory (or worse) in the kingdoms down below.

Re: Interpreter 2.0?

Posted: Wed Apr 03, 2024 1:02 am
by Gadianton
Doctor Scratch wrote:Even if Frenchy literally *is* with his wife, they are presumably in one of the lower kingdoms. And it may be useful to bear in mind that there are some amongst the Mopologists who believe that these people in the lower kingdoms will not get to keep their genitals.
You make a good point, doctor, the situation is far more complicated. At the outset, there is no guarantee that both are in paradise or spirit prison. We don't know that they are on the same continent, so to speak. Frenchy could be in one and his wife in the other. And further, do you recall the incident from DCP's favorite book, Added Upon? The wife wanted nothing to do with the husband in the spirit world because he hadn't been active in church.

Perhaps she converted, and he wasn't interested, or he converted and she didn't. Just because one party or even both parties want to be together doesn't mean they will. I was at a gathering with Henry Eyring speaking a few years ago, and he went on and on about how hard the work is in the spirit world, and the success there isn't any greater than here. And so the the pair must BOTH convert and live up to their covenants in the spirit world, and then the temple work has to be done for them. Were there names submitted by the grave passerby? Doesn't sound like it. Basically, what are the odds that had they lived longer, that both would have converted to Mormonism in this life? pretty low. The same odds per Eyring that they'll convert there.
So on the one hand, I applaud DCP for posting a message that wasn't simply a last-minute, lazy retread, and for actually trying to articulate the reasons why he values Easter so much.
I'm not so sure this is the case. An "anonymous informant" passed on the following to me today:

https://www.patheos.com/blogs/danpeters ... union.html

Anyway, the odds are that now not only did Frenchy get to be away from his wife for 27 years, but if the stars don't align just right, he'll be away from her for eternity. Or as you say, if they are lucky enough to be in the same kingdom, they can be smoothed-out friends.

Re: Interpreter 2.0?

Posted: Wed Apr 03, 2024 2:32 am
by Doctor Scratch
Ah, well then. I guess that’s what I get for trying to see him in a positive light? I go out on a limb and assume he’s being authentic and actually posting something original in honor of Easter—but no! Yet another rehash.

Re: Interpreter 2.0?

Posted: Wed Apr 03, 2024 11:57 pm
by Doctor Scratch
Gadianton wrote:
Wed Apr 03, 2024 1:02 am

Perhaps she converted, and he wasn't interested, or he converted and she didn't. Just because one party or even both parties want to be together doesn't mean they will. I was at a gathering with Henry Eyring speaking a few years ago, and he went on and on about how hard the work is in the spirit world, and the success there isn't any greater than here. And so the the pair must BOTH convert and live up to their covenants in the spirit world, and then the temple work has to be done for them. Were there names submitted by the grave passerby? Doesn't sound like it. Basically, what are the odds that had they lived longer, that both would have converted to Mormonism in this life? pretty low. The same odds per Eyring that they'll convert there.
The more I think about it, the more that this story reveals about Mopologetic tendencies and beliefs. It’s quite remarkable when you consider what’s going on here, and the various reactions one might have. Yes: Frenchy is sad and misses his wife, and that’s easy to understand. But the Proprietor’s interpretation here is that Frenchy is doomed to endless agony for whatever time he’s got left, and so DCP actually prays for a swift death for this guy. This is downright sadistic. It’s reasonable for people to grieve the loss of loved ones, but normal people usually hope/expect that the bereaved will eventually move on and arrive at a place of peace. Not the Mopogists, though! Why bother with worthless mortal life when you can rush straight on to your spot in one of the lesser kingdoms? The Proprietor says he’s actually *excited* for Frenchy to kick the bucket! Why not instead pray that his heart be comforted by the Holy Ghost? Or that he meet and fall in love with a new wife? Or is that something that only Apostles get to do?

Regardless, I think that Easter 2024 will ultimately go down as one of the most definitively Mopologetic Easters of all time.

Re: Interpreter 2.0?

Posted: Sat Apr 13, 2024 12:53 pm
by Philo Sofee
Gadianton
I was at a gathering with Henry Eyring speaking a few years ago, and he went on and on about how hard the work is in the spirit world, and the success there isn't any greater than here. And so the the pair must BOTH convert and live up to their covenants in the spirit world, and then the temple work has to be done for them. Were there names submitted by the grave passerby? Doesn't sound like it. Basically, what are the odds that had they lived longer, that both would have converted to Mormonism in this life? pretty low. The same odds per Eyring that they'll convert there.
That... is... morbid. It lacks imagination and worse, actual information based on anyone's experience. It is literally loony. So the poor Mormons are going to spend many umpteen billions of more years on a mission tracking out people to convert. What, by knocking on heavenly doors? :roll: