Toward a Theory of Mopologetics

[_Ray A]

I guess his version said "white and delightsome."

I'm sure. He's also the one who told me that "the Lord" had prepared 200 wives for him in the Celestial Kingdom.

[_Trevor]

I'm sure. He's also the one who told me that "the Lord" had prepared 200 wives for him in the Celestial Kingdom.

Well, in cosmic terms, off by 200 is not so bad!

[_Gadianton]

What, specifically, caused you to draw that conclusion?

Well, I guess I think if you're a hedonist and we assume hedonism is right, then the content of a belief that one should do x is not the same if "should" carries different metaphysical stock --- should is not the case of maximizing pleasure (for god or whoever) etc. So it doesn't really matter how Mormons define obligations, the way the world really is bears on the content of their beliefs.

[_cksalmon]

What, specifically, caused you to draw that conclusion?

Well, I guess I think if you're a hedonist and we assume hedonism is right, then the content of a belief that one should do x is not the same if "should" carries different metaphysical stock --- should is not the case of maximizing pleasure (for god or whoever) etc. So it doesn't really matter how Mormons define obligations, the way the world really is bears on the content of their beliefs.

I must say that your response is completely opaque to me, Gad. I have no idea how to respond to whatever you believe your point to be, because I'm not sure what it, in fact, is. Especially in light of anything I've personally suggested.

"Should" for the hedonist is exactly the case of maximizing pleasure (for me). Heck, let's call it "ought."

But, you haven't considered that in your response, I suppose, since you mistakenly suggest that I'm suggesting that "should is not the case of maximizing pleasure." Again, I just don't understand your point.

And, you don't appear to be tracking with me, at this point.

How do we fix that? How is it that I am being so poorly understood?

cks

[_LifeOnaPlate]

ck- i understand completely. I don't think the problem is in the messenger or message.

[_cksalmon]

ck- i understand completely. I don't think the problem is in the messenger or message.

Great! Thanks! Now, Gad is going to believe that I was attempting to endorse some African-American, hypoglycemic, CABGx2 (in 1987), LDS, pectus excavatum, apologetic truck driver thing.

[_wenglund]

Wade, the problem with your car company founding president analogy is that the value and viability of a car does not hinge on the credibility of the company’s founder, whereas a religion’s truthfulness that relies heavily on truth claims is subject to the credibility of its founder, given that much of the lore and teachings surround his own account of history (the first vision, for instance, or the authenticity of the Book of Mormon). That this escapes you is… well, not that surprising, actually.

With all due respect, you have made the rookie mistake of failing to consider the most critical component of the faith equation--i.e. the intent and purpose of the restored gospel of Christ. Had you considered it, and accurtely understood what the intent and purpose is, then you may have grasped that the restored gospel of Christ is a VEHICLE (like the car in my analogy) that is designed to take us to a given destination--i.e salvation and exaltation in Christ wherein we become like him in fulness of joy and love. (see the three-fold mission of the Church)

And, had you read and understood Alma 32, you may have realized that just like the car in my analogy, the value and viability of the restored gospel, as a VEHICLE, rests in it actually performing as designed and it taking us where it is designed to go. It rests on its own merits. Therein, ultimately, lay the "truth" of the restored gospel.

All other related "truths", as well as the credibility of the "founder" and others, are indirectly conditioned thereon. If the VEHICLE (that is the Church) fails to perform as intended (assuming it is being "driven" as designed and where intended), then so much the worse for the credibility of the "founder"--just as would be true with the founder in my car analogy. And, vice-versa.

So, in short, you got it exactly backwards.

Granted, having trust in the "founder" of the Church (in like manner to trusting the founder of the car company in my analogy) may give cause for investigators (or potential car buyers) to join the Church (or buy the car), as well as give reason for them as members to continue to utilize the VEHICLE as designed. However, this speaks to motivation, not merit (i.e value and viability). Apparently, you conflated the two.

Another thing for Wade: you said, “From considerable experience, I have found that all that is needed to envoke [sic] uncommon silence with critics, or ignite them into a flury [sic] of deflective dismissals or straw man constructions, is for me to ask them for a specific example of things the Church has done that has caused them emotional distress or some such thing.” I have no problem answering that question at all, as it has been my primary contention with the church.

I am please that you are willing to proceed. We'll see how far you are willing to go with this.

It teaches that families can only be together in the afterlife if all members are righteous, which causes unfounded grief and unnecessary burdens on parents with “wayward” children, not to mention the guilt and increased difficulty in expressing honest points of view on the part of children. In other words, while the church claims to be a “family first” organization, what they teach effectively breaks families apart. And what’s worse is that often, when you bring this up with a believer, they’ll blame the family itself rather than acknowledging the church’s culpability in the situation. Recovery for Mormonism? You better believe it.

I appreciate you sharing this with us. And, while I hear what you are saying, I think you, and others who may view the Church in this same way, are more than a little confused, and have a flawed perception of what is meant by "family first" or "family oriented" Church, and an incorrect grasp of what the intent and purpose of the Church really is.

To get a sense for your confusion, let's apply your "reasoning" to public schools and health institutions. Would it make sense to you for someone to say:

The education system in Japan teaches that students can only advance to graduate and post-graduate schools in this life if they satisfy the graduation requirements K-12, which causes unfounded grief and unnecessary burdens on parents with “dropout” children, not to mention the guilt and increased difficulty in expressing honest points of view on the part of children. In other words, while the education system in Japan claims to be a “student first” organization, what they teach effectively causes students to fail. And what’s worse is that often, when you bring this up with the professional educators, they’ll blame the "dropouts" rather than acknowledging the education system's culpability in the situation. Recovery from Japanese education system? You better believe it

Or, how about this:

Health professionals in the U.S. teach that people can only reach the pinnical of healthy during this life if they are vigilant in following perscribed health regimins and standards, which causes unfounded grief and unnecessary burdens on parents with “junk food and inactive and smoking” children, not to mention the guilt and increased difficulty in expressing honest points of view on the part of children. In other words, while health professionals claim to be a “patient/client first” organization, what they teach effectively causes people to become ill or unhealthy. And what’s worse is that often, when you bring this up with health professionals, they’ll blame the families of "junk food and inactive and smoking" children rather than acknowledging the health professionals' culpability in the situation. Recovery from health care? You better believe it.

I don't know about you, but this seems up-side down in its "reasoning".

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[_harmony]

Ok CK, since you've clarified that Mormons must be doing apologetics because they hope to acheive some kind of result, what results do you have in mind?

I'm going with prestige.

I don't think it's working, Plate. Well, maybe in Provo, but out here in the hinterland, a.k.a.: the real world, there's not much prestige for LDS apologists. Sorry.

[Guest]

With all due respect, you have made the rookie mistake of failing to consider the most critical component of the faith equation--i.e. the intent and purpose of the restored gospel of Christ.

Whereas many apologists are incapable of considering the crazy-as-bat-dung equation, for obvious reasons.



@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@

[_Gadianton]

But, you haven't considered that in your response, I suppose, since you mistakenly suggest that I'm suggesting that "should is not the case of maximizing pleasure.

I think we've found agreement CK, because I am not suggesting that you are suggesting that "should is not the case of..."!