Murder among the Mormons

[Gadianton]

Hilarious. Chapstick is kicking Dan's ass.

It's not Chapstick who doesn't understand the issue.

Here's the fork you can put DCP in and watch him squirm; unable to answer:

Suppose there is a God and he created the world, and he authored the Ten Commandments as absolute moral law. Ignore the glare from the Euthyphro dilemma for the moment. Now suppose he also created man fully mortal. There is no afterlife. Is it morally wrong to kill?

[Doctor Scratch]

Hilarious. Chapstick is kicking Dan's ass.

Indeed.

It's not Chapstick who doesn't understand the issue.

Here's the fork you can put DCP in and watch him squirm; unable to answer:

Suppose there is a God and he created the world, and he authored the Ten Commandments as absolute moral law. Ignore the glare from the Euthyphro dilemma for the moment. Now suppose he also created man fully mortal. There is no afterlife. Is it morally wrong to kill?

Yes: if the reward of the afterlife is everything, where does it leave them? This makes them horrifically evil people, when you think about it: especially when it comes to cases where they have worked to get people excommunicated or disfellowshipped. This can include people like Dehlin and Grant Palmer, who were targeted in print by the Mopologists, but who later left the Church; or it can include faithful members like Taylor Petrey or Brian Hauglid. The point is that the Mopologists are actively and publicly trying to make it so that these folks cannot have the "reward" of the Celestial Kingdom: they'll be demoted down to a lower kingdom, with all that such a "punishment" entails.

I bet that they (i.e., the Mopologists) would respond by saying, "No, no: we're just the messengers. These people had free agency and the *chose* to do the things that they did." Well, even if that's the case, why nudge someone over the cliff? Remember: in LDS theology, there is no way (as far as I know) that someone can get out of the kingdom they've been assigned to. So, if you blow your shot at the Celestial Kingdom (or someone like John Gee intervenes to get it taken away from you), then you are going to be a permanent "exile" in one of the lower kingdoms.

I've always thought that the Mopologists had a vicious streak, but this really raises things to a whole new level.

[Gadianton]

Yes: if the reward of the afterlife is everything, where does it leave them? This makes them horrifically evil people, when you think about it: especially when it comes to cases where they have worked to get people excommunicated or disfellowshipped.

Well yes, if you want to get technical, imagine that God is a pirate, and the Mopologists are his ghostly crew. Basically, God either provides the loot or it's mutiny. It's a murderous arrangement. He doesn't earn the label of 'God' unless he's terrorizing the seas and filling their pockets with the goods they covet.

I bet that they (i.e., the Mopologists) would respond by saying, "No, no: we're just the messengers. These people had free agency and the *chose* to do the things that they did." Well, even if that's the case, why nudge someone over the cliff?

Right. In the pirate analogy, they're just the crew carrying out the orders of the head pirate, which is God. But recall, they wouldn't be acknowledging God as such unless God were giving these kinds of orders.

Remember: in LDS theology, there is no way (as far as I know) that someone can get out of the kingdom they've been assigned to. So, if you blow your shot at the Celestial Kingdom (or someone like John Gee intervenes to get it taken away from you), then you are going to be a permanent "exile" in one of the lower kingdoms.

I've always thought that the Mopologists had a vicious streak, but this really raises things to a whole new level.

Well, some Mormon intellectuals have believed in "kingdom hopping", but Bruce R. lambasted the idea as one of the "deadly heresies". I'd bet the Mopologists wouldn't entirely rule out kingdom hopping. I mean, they might conceive of it as possible for Hitler, but certainly not for John Dehlin or any known enemies. Imagine if somebody went to the Telestial Kingdom, however, and became convinced there were two Cumorah's?

See, it's an utterly materialist philosophy where they deserve the biggest rewards, while dominating over their enemies. But as long as they get the respect or adoration of people on the Internet that they think they deserve, perhaps even if delayed until the next life, there are no real set standards or divine rules as absolute. Everything is relative, so long as it's in service of their dominance.

[Gadianton]

Challenging me has really helped me progress my ideas on Mopologetics and morality, professor. Well, Symmachus pointed out something important on another thread; that the apologists aren't very original. They aren't the first ones to say "without God all is permitted" and push lawlessness onto disbelief. It's a pretty longstanding point by religious authorities universally, and I've mentioned specifically to Mormonism, Neal A. Maxwell was famous for quips about disbelief and relativism. So why is it so much more annoying when the apologists make these points than when other church leaders make them?

I kid you not, I woke up this morning an hour earlier thanks to PDT with the answer. Maxwell's thoughts on relativism were pretty shallow, the point was basically: look, without God as the lighthouse to guide your ship, you're left navigating the sea of relativism and who knows where you'll end up. I took a quick peek at a typical Maxwell talk that takes on secularism and I think my point is going to stand. His article is in fact, childish, to be honest, but he appears to hold the theme that out there on the seas of relativism, it's hit and miss. There are good people who have had good ideas, but not the full picture. They try to do good but ultimately end up getting something wrong. In contrast, God, the great lighthouse, has guided a Church that has never failed in any of its ideas.

There is a big difference between saying 'without God all is permitted', and 'without God, evil is logically required'. It's one thing to say (although horribly naïve in this context) that Hoffman, after abandoning God (at age 12) was on his own. He picked up very bad habits, unlike Gemli, and went down a bad path and see? It's another to say, Hoffman after abandoning God as a child, followed his disbelief in God to its logical conclusions of fraud and murder. It's one thing to say that Gemli, out there on his own as an atheist, has picked and chosen from the market of ideas, and while he's chosen some good ideas, surely he's messed up on others. It's too bad he doesn't have the big lighthouse so that he can be right all the time like Neal. A. Maxwell was. But it's another to say Gemli is probably a decent person, but not because he's picked up on some truth, but because he's systematically stupid and irrational, and does good despite the fact his beliefs require him to be a murderer. It's a whole new level of insult.

And there's one additional twist. This is a real cherry for the top. The same guy saying that materialism requires us to be selfish and that selfishness leads to murder and mayhem, is the same guy who says that spirituality requires us to be selfish, and that selfishness leads to optimizing consumption, and that the pinnacle of the truth of consumption maximization is embodied in "price gouging". Remember "three cheers for price gouging" at the beginning of the pandemic? If Mark Hoffman forged a document, that's bad. See what greed does? But if a boy scout buys all the toilet paper at the local convenience store during a pandemic, and then his father, who is a bishop, helps him set up a stand outside and sell it to his suffering neighbors at a 9000% price markup then "three cheers!" "Hurray!" If Mark Hoffman killed people to cover his tracks, look at what selfishness does! But if power companies in Texas charge 10,000$ per Kilowatt to a lucky few, while other suffer or freeze and die, then "three cheers for price gouging!" "Hurray for the market, that doesn't give a damn about equality, or your wittle feelings!"

We're not dealing with a well individual.

[Themis]

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.

It was surprising to me when I started to look at material the Tanners had prepared about Mormonism that they went to greater lengths then most others, including apologists, to create accurate information. They were supposed to be this evil dishonest couple.

[Themis]

Funny thing is, I think I can understand essentially how you arrived where you’re at, but I’m not sure that you can really understand me.

I suspect he understands you better then you understand him. One of the main problems people have in accepting good evidence against what they want to believe is their desire for the truth is less than their desire for a certain belief to be true. Until one's desire to know what is true is greater than their desire for their beliefs to be true they will always find excuses not to accept the obvious.

[Dr Exiled]

Funny thing is, I think I can understand essentially how you arrived where you’re at, but I’m not sure that you can really understand me.

I suspect he understands you better then you understand him. One of the main problems people have in accepting good evidence against what they want to believe is their desire for the truth is less than their desire for a certain belief to be true. Until one's desire to know what is true is greater than their desire for their beliefs to be true they will always find excuses not to accept the obvious.

Marvelous comment! If only the people of the world would paste this on their various refrigerators or some place where they could see it each day.

[Res Ipsa]

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.

It was surprising to me when I started to look at material the Tanners had prepared about Mormonism that they went to greater lengths then most others, including apologists, to create accurate information. They were supposed to be this evil dishonest couple.

That was a surprise to me as well. It’s hard to imagine how the church could have handled the situation with the Tanners more poorly than it did. One can quibble over their interpretation of facts of attack them for not knowing information in documents that the church withheld from them, but in terms of intellectual honesty and integrity, they were head and shoulders above the church at that time.

[Philo Sofee]

Res Ipsa
One can quibble over their interpretation of facts of attack them for not knowing information in documents that the church withheld from them, but in terms of intellectual honesty and integrity, they were head and shoulders above the church at that time.

Oh I think it continues to influence. When everyone realized the church got duped, and the Tanner's got it accurately correct and SAID SO from the BEGINNING, a lot of folk began saying hey the church needs to open up with full disclosure, which, well, now we have the Joseph Smith Papers Project showing EVERYTHING Joseph Smith ever wrote... The Tanner's honestly has virtually forced the Mormon arrogance into an open honesty and will continue to do so... without the Hofman's and Tanners the Joseph Smith Papers project would never have seen the light of day, and we would still be in Packer's agenda driven drivel of not trusting anyone except their own selves in mutually incestuous citing only "faithful disciple scholars in the church" in written works, because, forsooth, historians who want to tell it all cannot possibly be temple worthy, Packer's finest way to shut them up from the inside and control the narrative, not tell it.

[IHAQ]

I bet that they (i.e., the Mopologists) would respond by saying, "No, no: we're just the messengers. These people had free agency and the *chose* to do the things that they did." Well, even if that's the case, why nudge someone over the cliff? Remember: in LDS theology, there is no way (as far as I know) that someone can get out of the kingdom they've been assigned to. So, if you blow your shot at the Celestial Kingdom (or someone like John Gee intervenes to get it taken away from you), then you are going to be a permanent "exile" in one of the lower kingdoms.

I've always thought that the Mopologists had a vicious streak, but this really raises things to a whole new level.

You're quite right about the lack of movement between kingdoms according to Mormon theology. Which ensures that no family will be together forever, unless all related people are willing to drop to the kingdom of the family member that achieved the lowest. There isn't a single family group that will have everyone within even their immediate sphere (Grandparent through to Grandchild) that will have a 100% success rate of Celestial Kingdom attainment. Not one. If you have family that aren't members of the Church when they die, well, there goes the Celestial Kingdom for them. Imagine the dec vision that Mormon theology is going to present to people in the afterlife - Spend eternity with God, or spend eternity with your kids/grandkids....what's a righteous parent to do? What non 100% faithful child will you be prepared to jettison? In the case of differing levels of righteousness within a marriage - do you ditch the spouse?

In Mormonism's afterlife, families will not be together forever.