DiscussMormonism.com

Philo Sofee wrote: ↑

Wed Mar 10, 2021 12:27 am

The church probably paid them to skim over their involvement.......

Naw, professor. For Netflix, it's a true crime drama. The writers had to cut the entire production down from 6 hours to 3. If I had to do that, the first thing I'd cut is the role of the LDS church beyond that of victim. That part is factually complicated and detracts from the star of the show -- the harmless looking master forgerer and mad bomber. You and I may find the church's role interesting, but I doubt we're the demographic Netflix wants to attract.

Gadianton wrote: ↑

Sat Mar 06, 2021 5:17 am

Probably the most revealing part of the documentary for me, looking at the Hoffman episode as an interpretive framework for Mormonism in general, was a sentiment by Turley. Commenting on the fact that Hoffman grew up in a militant TBM family, but had from a young age abandoned his beliefs and set out on a forging career and "nobody suspected" he said something like: Hoffman grew up in a time when we go along with our parents and don't show it if we have a difference of opinion. I thought, "wow", that's one heavy apologetic. It has nothing to do with growing up in a particular era, and everything to do with growing up in a cult.

Hoffman abandoned his explicit Mormon beliefs, but everything about his life was thoroughly Mormon, beginning with the expectation to lie about everything and play your role in the Church.

As of tonight, this mini-series is #2 on Netflix, which means it's totally eclipsed the Witnesses film. And what timing. Watch the Witnesses, and then watch this and see how much credibility there could ever possibly be to eye-witnesses testimony in regards to historical documents. Thank God Mark Hoffman wasn't born in Smith's day, or the Book of Mormon might actually be believable.

I think your remarks here are spot-on, Dean Robbers. I enjoyed the documentary quite a bit: I read one of the Hofmann-related books years ago (A Gathering of Saints, perhaps?), and thought that the film captured the story well. And you are absolutely right to compare the success of this documentary to the Witnesses movie. There is no way that Witnesses will come anywhere near this doc in any way. Probably the closest it will come is in terms of similarities to that flashback where a young Mark Hofmann is burying a jar of coins so that he can later lead his friend to the "treasure" (gee, who does that remind you of?). Bear in mind, the filmmakers of MatM *intended* for that to look like it was rather amateurishly filmed on a home movie camera.

And then there is the whole issue involving popularity or "success," and there's no way that the apologists' movie will reach anything like #2 on Netflix. Forget about it. Dr. Peterson himself has said that "success" will be enough box office take so as to bankroll a second movie. So, if there is no sequel (directly using money from Witnesses; a brand-new fundraiser doesn't count), then "Witnesses" will be a failure, plain and simple. June is right around the corner!

Still, there are other vital similarities here. You cite the moment with Turley. Well, aren't the Mopologists still doing this? They absolutely "go along with" the Brethren and don't show when they "have a difference of opinion." Mostly, anyhow: I can't help but think of Midgley yelling at that G.A., or Midgley announcing on SeN that they waiting for Mark E. Petersen to *die* so that they could unveil the LGT. (They haven't even bothered to try and deny that one.) And then you mention "the expectation to lie about everything and play your role in the Church." Remember how one of the chief apologists was allegedly "ordered" to do Mopologetics via his patriarchal blessing? Play the role, but then, when no one’s looking, maybe a sip of Pappy Van Winkle? Sneak a peek at some porn?

Perhaps most predictable and hilarious of all: the Mopologists have seized on Mark Hofmann's alleged atheism in the film as a mean to go after Gemli and prove how their brand of theism is superior to the sociopathy of Hofmann. They quote Hofmann's confession tape, where he says, "I think life is basically worthless." Naturally, Dr. Peterson has to insert himself into the story, so he mentions how he's "friends" with two LDS historians to "should have" been interviewed. Right. Sure.

But the punchline comes later, with DCP's patented, iron-clad logic:

Obviously, I’m not claiming — and would never claim — that all atheists are murderers or even that they condone murder. Such an accusation would not only be offensive and unjust to very many decent people but manifestly absurd and demonstrably false. I know and respect a number of agnostics and atheists, and I can’t imagine any of them committing homicide. But I can understand Hofmann’s reasoning, such as it is, and I find it very difficult to imagine on what basis a thorough-going atheistic naturalist could possibly argue that Hofmann was “wrong.” What would it even mean to claim that he was wrong?

For one thing, it would mean that Hofmann is a murderer and probably a sociopath, and thus you probably shouldn't be taking his advice on "philosophy," or probably much of anything, really. (Other than forgery and lying, I guess?) It's interesting how quick the Mopologists are to side with Hofmann, and to hold him up as an example of atheism. And I also have to ask: why is the Mopologists' belief system preferable? How many people actually want to go on to a stratified afterlife such as the one depicted in Added Upon? Let's see the Mopologists try to defend their actual beliefs. They won't do it.

I'll put Ho Chi Minh and Joseph Stalin and Enver Hoxha and Adolf Hitler and Fidel Castro and Mao Tsedong and Pol Pot up against the Spanish Inquisition and the Salem witch trials and the like any day of the week, CK4L.

I didn't disparage anybody's beliefs. I quoted something. Something that pointed to historical facts.

Oh! Mr. Peterson is playing the My Mass Murderer is Less Bad than Your Mass Murderer because Spirituality!

Weird how he forgot to include any of the Kahns, Caesars, Islamic conquerors, Greeks, Aztec rulers, Incan emperors, sub-Saharan African warlords, Indian Rajas, Tsars, Celtics, Scandanavian kings, or Japanese warlords.

Good Lord that man can be dumb as a sack of bibles.

- Doc

Just for yuks, I read the story from the Tanner’s point of view. He was the first of one of the first people to throw shade on the Salamander Letter. While Mormon leaders were scrambling to invent apologetics that would explain why the Salamander Letter was totally consistent with the official history, Jerry Tanner was arguing that the Letter had been cribbed from a known source and the finding of the Stonewall Letter and the Salamander Letter in such a short period of time was wildly improbable.

Jerry the famous anti-Mormon was more interested in the truth than in damaging the LDS church. I wish he’d been around to interview for the documentary.

Dr. Scratch wrote:But the punchline comes later, with DCP's patented, iron-clad logic:

Thank you for bringing this to my attention. I had intended to do a totally separate post on this very topic, anticipating DCP's predictable and unimaginative commentary. In fact, I had actually written the post, but I did not post it because it was too long. Now that Dr. Stack has earned a Phd and joined us, perhaps posting it wouldn't be a total waste?

Anyway, Hoffman's atheistic views as represented in the film are a dead hit for what the apologist imagine is the logical rational of atheism. Unfortunately for them, his sociopathology turns the situation around at once, and shows the bankruptcy of the Mopologists' Divine Command Theory. It shows the murderous underpinnings of Mopologetics.

Moral law exists among people and animals alike ultimately because of empathy. Dogs properly socialized can tangle themselves into a ball of chaos but then many times, once they're pulled away from each other, it turns out nobody got bit. Whether or not biological and cultural emergence of moral law is itself enough to ground morality philosophically is an open question; as is whether we can say with certainty that 2+2=4. Obviously, the Mopologists believe moral law has nothing to do with human or animal conventions or personal tastes, but rather, is through-and-through, a set of instructions from an ultimate authority.

Enter a sociopath.

It's one thing for the Mopologists, some of whom are not sociopaths themselves, to understand morality in the same intuitive way everybody else does, but then make grandstanding claims about its very fabric provided by the authority of their unique deity, without which, the whole structure collapses, and the world becomes Saw part 17 in 8K VR 3D.

Suppose a sociopath is raised in such a religion, has a perfect intellectual understanding of God-breathed moral law, scores perfectly at Celestial Pursuit in every game played, but has little if any feeling of connectivity to other people. Once such an individual begins to see through the silliness of The Book of Mormon and gospel claims, then the whole thing really does crumble.

A fascinating window into Hoffman's TBM-like villainhood comes near the end when they play back excerpts of tapes of his interviews post-trial. He is asked if he ever had any regrets about killing people. One of his responses was that at some point, he hesitated, and wondered -- what if he was wrong? what if there really was a God? Then he could be in real trouble!

The producers intended this to just show how selfish he was -- scared only of consequences. But far more revealing, is just how TBM it showed him to be. crap like that only happens in Mormon scripture and Chick tracts -- the brilliant atheist is suddenly struck by the possibility he might be wrong, and cowers.

Just like Gemli, Brent M., and others who grew up in fundamentalist religions don't need a fake set of Golden plates to make morality real for them, they don't suddenly wonder, years after leaving their faith, if maybe they are wrong, and the plates real, and then reason in a panic, if so, holy cow, they'll be in hot water!

Mark Hoffman is the result of a sociopath intellectually internalizing with perfect pitch, a bizarre religion that was baked into him by over-the-top fundamentalist parents.

Gadianton wrote: ↑

Fri Mar 12, 2021 5:07 am

The producers intended this to just show how selfish he was -- scared only of consequences. But far more revealing, is just how TBM it showed him to be. Crap like that only happens in Mormon scripture and Chick tracts -- the brilliant atheist is suddenly struck by the possibility he might be wrong, and cowers.

Just like Gemli, Brent M., and others who grew up in fundamentalist religions don't need a fake set of Golden plates to make morality real for them, they don't suddenly wonder, years after leaving their faith, if maybe they are wrong, and the plates real, and then reason in a panic, if so, holy cow, they'll be in hot water!

Mark Hoffman is the result of a sociopath intellectually internalizing with perfect pitch, a bizarre religion that was baked into him by over-the-top fundamentalist parents.

Precisely. I think there is a double-edged sword in Mormon theology (or, at least, the Mopologetic version of it) where, on the one hand, there's not really a convincing "punishment," and yet on the other hand, the "rewards" of obedience are vague and unsatisfying. I mean, correct me if I'm wrong, but the absolute worst thing that can happen to you is being a Son of Perdition, right? So, who has this happened to? The explanation I always heard was, "Well, this only happens if you literally see Jesus and then deny him." Now, granted: this was often relayed in the form of what I've sometimes heard referred to as "folk Mormonism," by which I mean, the people telling me this were not citing sources or quoting scripture. But that was clearly the understanding: this was the worst thing that could happen to you, and it was virtually impossible for it to happen to anybody. You had to be a full-blown Apostle or Prophet of the Church, in other words--you had to be that close to God, and then turn away.

And then you get to the reward, which is the three kingdoms. We've heard Midgley, DCP, and others talk about "going on to his reward," meaning they clearly expect something in return for their devotion to Mormonism. So, what is that? Just eternal life? Well, the people in the lower kingdoms get that, too. Is it the getting to be Gods part of it then? Like, the ability to create worlds and to have "endless celestial sex" (as Ed Decker would have it), and so on: to basically be able to acquire all the power they craved in mortality--is that sufficient for them?

I guess that's my point: the Mopologists embrace a theology that tries to balance out concepts of punishment and reward. They *think* that they are going to get a reward of some kind, but the specifics are hazy; and they also embrace the idea that the unfaithful will face a punishment of some kind, and it really does seem to be something that is *actually* punitive. And I don't mean in the sense of not getting to have something--i.e., like this is a race and you came in second or third place and are now bummed out that you didn't win. I mean a *punishment": like burning in hell for a stint, or, sure: the TK smoothie. You have to assume that the Mopologists have some kind of punishment or "justice" in mind, but of course, they are too afraid to defend their beliefs in public.

Doctor Scratch wrote: ↑

Fri Mar 12, 2021 5:29 am

Precisely. I think there is a double-edged sword in Mormon theology (or, at least, the Mopologetic version of it) where, on the one hand, there's not really a convincing "punishment," and yet on the other hand, the "rewards" of obedience are vague and unsatisfying. I mean, correct me if I'm wrong, but the absolute worst thing that can happen to you is being a Son of Perdition, right? So, who has this happened to? The explanation I always heard was, "Well, this only happens if you literally see Jesus and then deny him." Now, granted: this was often relayed in the form of what I've sometimes heard referred to as "folk Mormonism," by which I mean, the people telling me this were not citing sources or quoting scripture. But that was clearly the understanding: this was the worst thing that could happen to you, and it was virtually impossible for it to happen to anybody. You had to be a full-blown Apostle or Prophet of the Church, in other words--you had to be that close to God, and then turn away.

And then you get to the reward, which is the three kingdoms. We've heard Midgley, DCP, and others talk about "going on to his reward," meaning they clearly expect something in return for their devotion to Mormonism. So, what is that? Just eternal life? Well, the people in the lower kingdoms get that, too. Is it the getting to be Gods part of it then? Like, the ability to create worlds and to have "endless celestial sex" (as Ed Decker would have it), and so on: to basically be able to acquire all the power they craved in mortality--is that sufficient for them?

I guess that's my point: the Mopologists embrace a theology that tries to balance out concepts of punishment and reward. They *think* that they are going to get a reward of some kind, but the specifics are hazy; and they also embrace the idea that the unfaithful will face a punishment of some kind, and it really does seem to be something that is *actually* punitive. And I don't mean in the sense of not getting to have something--i.e., like this is a race and you came in second or third place and are now bummed out that you didn't win. I mean a *punishment": like burning in hell for a stint, or, sure: the TK smoothie. You have to assume that the Mopologists have some kind of punishment or "justice" in mind, but of course, they are too afraid to defend their beliefs in public.

I see the Sons of Perdition/Seeing Christ as a No True Scotsman game of Schrodinger's Cat:

Everyone can have a testimony of Christ, a spiritual knowledge as sure as that of any prophet. If you are valiant in it, you will be exalted. If you fall away, you are either among the Sons of Perdition or you never really obtained that spiritual knowledge.

So the consequences of turning away from the church are either

1)You were never really faithful anyway

or

2)You are an apostate headed for Perdition.

It is a double bind. There is no way provided to leave with dignity, whether you leave loudly or silently.

Some takeaways for me

Did Rust get out of jail to do the interview- he and his son were apparently running a multimillion dollar ponzi a few years ago?

Also MH's father had a very wild eyes look in almost every scene he was in.

Shannon F. questioned and cried when he saw the interview of the elder saying he gave MH a blessing on the street and "commanded" him to live!

Shannon showed he was upset by saying the elder commanded "satan" to live if i heard correctly.

I cannot believe Dorie never opened the door to the forgery and bomb making room. She said she was just happy not to have to vacuum it!

The forensic experts eg throckmorton et al were the heroes who broke the case open imho.

The church leadeship should be happy they got away with "murder" by not being highlighted in the docudrama as they had been roughed up pretty badly in the books on the murders.

The homicide prosecutor de lia seemed to be a nice guy but hardly brilliant, not a perry mason type.

Brent M felt responsible for the murders and his life according to him had many dark days.

Why can second degree murder only get 5 years to life in utah? Better than a firing squad!

Why has not MH agreed to any interviews- they could help boost his power and control ego?

k

Dr. Scratch wrote:I guess that's my point: the Mopologists embrace a theology that tries to balance out concepts of punishment and reward. They *think* that they are going to get a reward of some kind, but the specifics are hazy; and they also embrace the idea that the unfaithful will face a punishment of some kind, and it really does seem to be something that is *actually* punitive.

Right: the carrot is supremely important, and actually contradicts everything that I was just saying. That's not my fault, that's theirs for being inconsistent. The way to counter atheism where Hoffman is the example is to say that he's being logical based on the assumptions of atheism, that everything is random and meaningless so might as well just go all-in for his own skin.

But switch the context to a secularist like Gemli, and that has limited mileage because secularists have convinced themselves to be supremely concerned about the welfare of others. Gemli is ready to "love they neighbor" independent of an externally created rule by a divine author that says he has to. In fact, going down this path in terms of argument, makes the apologists look like sociopaths themselves, because what, without a book of absolute law that tells them how to behave, they would go around beating people with chains for the fun of it?

So they focus on the impoverishment of the atheist who rejects the resurrection and therefore, can't continue to travel and go to dinner with friends forever. If this life is all there is, then the joys of consumption vanish in this life also. Like, if you have a fixed sum of money in your account that allows you to live well, but you can never have more than that, and you know it's going to run out, then as time passes as you eat that steak dinner, the joy fades as you contemplate the next year, when the account hits zero and you're on the street. Whereas for the apologist, the steak tastes even better knowing that they keep rolling off the assembly line forever.

So it's the exact opposite argument: unless you can go all-in for your own skin and consume an infinite amount of food, then you might as well not eat at all. This logic applied to Hoffman would be really weird, because it would say that as an atheist, he should have quit perpetrating fraud not because a divine law says it's wrong, but because it's not infinitely sustainable. He'll either get caught one day, or die, so what's the point of doing it at all?

Gadianton wrote: ↑

Sat Mar 13, 2021 2:08 am

But switch the context to a secularist like Gemli, and that has limited mileage because secularists have convinced themselves to be supremely concerned about the welfare of others. Gemli is ready to "love they neighbor" independent of an externally created rule by a divine author that says he has to. In fact, going down this path in terms of argument, makes the apologists look like sociopaths themselves, because what, without a book of absolute law that tells them how to behave, they would go around beating people with chains for the fun of it?

It turns out that you've been proven right yet again, Dean Robbers:

Chapstick wrote:"Or how does BS explain why theft, infidelity, arson, or anything is morally wrong?"

LouisMidgley, is your belief in god the only thing keeping you from participating in these activities? Your answer will probably answer your question.

Daniel Peterson wrote:It won't answer the question, Chapstick.

You don't seem to understand the issue.