All of this has, once again, gotten me thinking about the way that LDS theology intersects with Mopologetics. So, I think we can safely say that the apologists really and truly believe that there is an afterlife. They believe that this is a real thing, and believe that they've had to suffer through sacrifices (not unlike President Nelson's nasty and unforgivable encounter with a snotty, party-animal type). In fact, there was recently a YouTube video featuring Dr. Peterson talking about the heaven depicted in Added Upon, and, while it's sort of a bummer that it's "unfashionable" and that "you could accuse it, justly, of being slightly racist," it's still an extraordinary rendering of the plan of salvation! If social stratification carries over into the next life, where you get to be the God and all these other losers have to kiss your feet? That's right up the Mopologists' alley. DCP calls the books a "catalyst" and says that "he just knew it was true." You'd almost think he was discussing scripture, the way he rhapsodizes about this.
But given that--i.e., the Mopologists sincerely believe in heaven--does it therefore follow that the thought of having it taken away is terrifying? And I don't mean just any terror; I mean think of the most horrific existential terror you can imagine. Think of Kierkegaard, contemplating the story of Abraham and Isaac in Fear and Trembling, and marveling at its horror and its simultaneous beauty. *That* is the kind of terror I mean. Seriously: try to put yourself in the shoes of John Gee, or Midgley, or Greg Smith, or any of the Mopologists. If you are them, how scared would you be if your eternal salvation could somehow be taken away from you? I get the rebuttal involving free agency. There is this certain arrogance where you think: "Whatever. I'm totally fine so long as I go to the temple, pay my tithing, and check all these boxes." Basically: so long as you stay on the straight-and-narrow, you'll be fine.
But what if that's not what you want to do? What if, instead, you're tempted by the lure of wealth, power, fame, respect, or whatever else? And what if you doing that puts you in conflict with the Brethren? What I'm ultimately asking here is: How scared do we assume the Mopologists are of the Brethren? There have been clear instances of them being incredibly disrespectful and arguably engaging in full-blown insubordination (I think of Midgley getting in that GA's face; or the whole expulsion of FARMS), and yet, have they fallen out of favor completely? I don't think there are any rumors about Givens being on the chopping block for excommunication: she's not openly pointing fingers at the Brethren, but then again, the Mopologists didn't do that either, despite the fact that Holland was one of the main people behind them getting kicked out of the MI. And then there is the whole issue of doctrine. *Have* the Mopologists contradicted the Brethren on the issue of, say, the location of the Book of Mormon? I would say "Yes." I think the Heartlanders criticisms are, in part, valid, and we can't forget the lessons of the 2nd Watson letter. That whole fiasco was a consequence of the Mopologists actually trying to *change* doctrine.
What I'm getting at here is that there seems to be a real sense of fear operating behind the scenes, pulling strings and so forth. I think this fear is actually motivating Midgley's comment, and his characterization of what happened as a "scolding"--like what a parent does to a child. If that's the case though--that the Brethren are basically like parents--then that means that the rank and file are "kids." Midgley's glee is thus the glee of the kid who enjoys seeing his sibling take the punishment for a change. But that would mean that the Mopologists have been punished, too, and I believe they have. Is there anybody left at this point--besides the Mopologists themselves--who think that their expulsion from the MI *wasn't* motivated by a GA? Sure: there are factions. There are some of the Brethren who have favored Mopologetics, but there have also been some who didn't. And I've always thought that there were signs that the key Mopologists were really trying to be on their best behavior. And that may be the best way to describe this stunning nugget:
Whoa! Is he publicly denying the LGT here? I think he is! It's worth noting that Dr. Peterson failed to include this crucial bit of CS's original post:CS: "DanielPeterson, it looks like you are currently scheduled to host an LDS Tour Cruise to visit several Mayan ruins.
https://www.cruiselady.com/..."
Yes. We'll see whether it carries.
CS: "Is it your opinion that these ruins are somehow related to the Book of Mormon? What do you plan on telling your tour group about these ruins and their relationship to the Book of Mormon?"
No. Probably nothing.
Why would he seemingly contradict himself? If he's "comfortably inclined toward a limited Mesoamerican model," then why wouldn't he react more favorably towards the Mayan ruins? So, why are they going there, then? Just because touring is fun? Okay. But this is meant to be a frankly LDS tour, no? After all, DCP went ballistic over Everybody Wang Chung's teasing him about going on the cruise because he--DCP--didn't like the idea of Everybody Wang Chung "mocking" them while they were bearing their testimonies!Chapstick wrote:DanielPeterson previous wrote, “Truth be told, I’m not overly interested in questions of Book of Mormon geography at all. That is to say, I have opinions — I’m comfortably inclined toward a limited Mesoamerican model, although I’m not wedded to it.”
In any case, I consider this a watershed moment in the history of Mopologetics--DCP is publicly denying the LGT. Plus, someone he thinks is a sock puppet of Jonathan Neville has turned up to needle him in the "Comments" section. Does this mean that the Heartlanders have scored a victory, and now DCP has been told that he needs to get in line? Was a "scolding" delivered to him?
And that returns me to my original question. I honestly wonder: how much of the Mopologists behavior is motivated by a fear (whether it is fully conscious or not) that the Brethren could theoretically take the Plan of Salvation away from them? I mean, you see someone like Fiona Givens. Do you think she was aware that she was doing something "wrong"? Yes, people have gotten into trouble for openly talking about this before, but there've been no clear commandments from the pulpit lately, have there? I bet she was surprised to be given her walking papers by the MI. It could be that she personally wanted to walk away for some reason (and I predict that either that will be the story that is given, or that they will remain silent), but the SL Trib article depicts it as a "booting." As a "scolding," as Midgley would have it.
So, yes: the Brethren are pulling the strings, but just how authentic are the Mopologists' beliefs about the afterlife? And do they think that, if they made a wrong move, that their eternal salvation could get taken from them?
