The Six Million Dollar Man

[_Gadianton]

There you go again. In what way is my post "garbage"? For what reasons do you feel "put on"? I'm just trying to help you build your credibility here. If you're going to have your opinion count for something, you'll need to learn how to come up with an argument.

[_Ray A]

I don't think you can expect it to take over the world at its current pace. But consider this, Christianity began on the underground and look at what it was able to do? Thanks to the right merger with a world power.

Catholicism was eventually tamed, but not before centuries of almost theocratic rule, burning of heretics, Inquisitions, and opposition to science. The French Revolution was inspired by the writings of the philosophes, Rosseau, et. al. It didn't take the same hold in England, and the monarchy presided over an Empire of which it was said that "the sun never set", but the French also did their share of colonising. Colonisation was based on the idea of a superior race of "enlightened" people. All of this was eventually eroded by slowly gathering opposition. Slavery was brought to an end by opposition, and occurred in British colonies before it occurred in America. No one can, though, doubt the eventual positive benefits of colonisation.

Imperial powers, whoever they are, are eventually tamed by opposition. David Bigler, Forgotten Kingdom: The Mormon Theocracy in the American West, 1847-1896 gives a good outline of what could have occurred without opposition. The result was a Mormonism which became even more American than Americans, so to speak. Quinn has also written a lot about this. A virtue of Mormonism is its propensity to accommodation - it (eventually) listens to dissenting voices.

While Gad's ideas may seem wild and provocative, I do think the "gist" of his thought has some substance. Joseph Smith said that he founded a religion which "will revolutionise the world", but not by the sword. The "revolution" is one of ideas, but without oppositional thinking any religion could evolve into a theocracy. I don't think this will happen with Mormonism. There is too much opposition for this to occur, and some of it quite fanatical. The good that it possesses should be adopted, and the fanaticism should be opposed, at both ends of the spectrum.

[_Gadianton]

]Still, as far as I know, Bushman was appointed as a "Visiting" Professor, right? In other words, they are looking to start off with a well-seasoned, respectable scholar, perhaps with the intention of later inserting a more hardcore apologist? Perhaps even a Bokovoy, or somebody from the new guard?

That's a good question. Certainly, a bait and switch wouldn't be beneath the GAs. But Bushman's job is huge. He needs to show how the truth about Smith more or less can be told and still have that story compatible with Smith as a modern-day prophet. I think unearthing Zerahemla might be easier. So in a way, he's as "hardcore" or harder, than any apologist before him. But it's really hard to compare because he's reinventing the whole enterprise. I'm going to suggest, no, the brethren won't put someone more "hardcore' as in traditional, in his place, because it won't work.

Think about David as a candidate, as bright as he may be, are the professors at Claremont going to sit around and take his highly technical expositions on parallels between ancient Israel and his own re-working of LDS beliefs seriously? Do you think they're going to say, "Oh you know what, you might be right, the universe might be filled with humanoid God-men when you really split hairs on that verse in Leviticus..."

There might be one more "hardcore" to replace him. But, that "hardcore" will be in the grain of his new kind of scholarship. I don't see any within the crowd of specialized experts who are going to find proof of the Book of Mormon, Book of Abraham, or Mormon beliefs as standing a chance.

[_harmony]

Who needs a paltry 6 million $$$ man when you have a $180 Million Ogden ScamMan who pays his tithing?

?

[_Pa Pa]

I have never been paid a dime. Wait, I not an apologist. I'm just right all the time.

[_Jason Bourne]

I think Hunter's vision of an enslaved human race that answers only to the General Authorities is very right-wing.

You keep referring to this. Where do you get this idea? Can you give me some references so I can educate myself about this?

[_Gadianton]

Sorry, didn't see this one. I think the evidence in the thread speaks for itself. I think that merely accepting church doctrine brings one 90 percent there anyway.

[_harmony]

I think Hunter's vision of an enslaved human race that answers only to the General Authorities is very right-wing.

You keep referring to this. Where do you get this idea? Can you give me some references so I can educate myself about this?

This brings to mind a story from the missionary report I heard on Sunday. The young missionary was working with a member who was quite gung ho. The member was working with a work partner to get him to take the discussions. The work partner was resisting. When finally the work partner got frustrated, the member told him, very exasperated, "I'm trying to save you!" I think this is the way HHH saw the LDS church's influence in a global vision, not as enslaving the human race. He was simply trying to save them all. That he was using Satan's plan just shows his lack of the spirit. The idea's good, but the "saving"s already been done. Mankind's already been saved; it doesn't need the LDS church in order to accomplish that.