Sic et Non, this time Non.

[_moksha]

I think this blog allows us to see more of Daniel Peterson the person, rather than someone responding in anger to the many barbs he is subjected too. On his blog he does not have to be consistent or correct. He can be himself. I realize some of you may find that self wanting, but he is not out to please anyone other than like minded individuals within his circle.

While I can respect DCP's intellect, I find his ethics terribly wanting.

Dan does not need no stinking ethics. He is an apologist extraordinare.

[Guest]

If ever there were any question concerning Dr. Peterson's continuing attention to this board and its collection of contentious malefactors, I think the issue has been settled once and for all here.

The Good Doctor's response to my criticism of his histrionics over Michelle Obama's rhetoric (is a wife not allowed to be enthused about her husband?) is to point out that he is morally bound to exaggerate wildly the ruler cult being paid to Barack Obama at this very moment since it is unacceptable in a free society to pay hommage of this sort to a living person.

I am certain that generations of Romans living under the Caesars felt comforted that their emperors were only officially deified as gods of the state worthy of public cult after their deaths, and only with the sanction of the Senate, but surely Dr. Peterson sees that this distinction does not save the veneration of living leaders in his own culture from criticism.

In any case, this could easily develop into one of those endless debates over trivialities. Doubtless Dr. Peterson would claim that the fawning adoration of General Authorities is mere respect for prophets and apostles of God; the fact that people automatically rise in their presence; that their images hang in every LDS chapel and temple in the world; that the LDS president's every conference pronouncement and Ensign message becomes the Gospel word that guides members of the faith and the measure against which they will be judged in the hereafter; none of this is as disturbing as the fact that Michelle Obama made a biblical allusion in reference to her husband's leadership.

None of it is in any where near the shock of having a new president enthuse in his propaganda speech about the anticipated historical significance of his administration wherein he dares to predict that the negative direction of the country will turn around under his leadership. Surely the fact that he would dare hope that his anticipated tenure in office will actually have a positive impact on the world in much needed ways is justifiably interpreted as a claim to be the Messiah. Or not. Yeah, not.

You see, I would share Daniel Peterson's deep concern about the Obama ruler cult, if any such thing happened to exist. As things stand, the habit of gushing over Obama as the return of JFK and King (which is really what this is all about, by the way) is no more, and perhaps less, disconcerting than the fact that St. Ronald Reagan has become the deity that every Republican politician must genuflect before, quote chapter and verse, and claim to be the Second Coming of.

Why has Dr. Peterson not shown due outrage over this troubling trend? Personally, I find it more worrisome that Ronald Reagan has been deliberately deified, his name has been plastered all over the land, and his historical actions have been conveniently distorted in order to add authority to the worst kinds of fringe political lunacy. Was Cicero comforted by the altar of the god Caesar placed on the spot where his pyre once burned brightly, or did he rejoice when it was torn down? Who, after all, promoted the cult of the divine Julius and why?

Rome's first emperor for obvious reasons.

[_Carton]

The irony is pretty deep in all of this.

Peterson is not nearly as bothered by the hero-cult that has formed around him, let alone Mormon prophets and apostles.

[_just me]

Does Michelle Obama own an article of clothing that has sleeves attached?

Would you if you had arms that cut?

She really has amazing arms.

[_Sophocles]

Shortly after I had arrived in the country, in the latter half of 1972, I asked a good, solid, bright Swiss bürger who the country's president was. He thought for a while and said that he believed that the president's name was Nello Celio, and that he was an Italian-Swiss from the canton of Ticino. Or maybe the name was Celio Nello. He wasn't really sure.

I loved it.

You might get the same kind of response if you asked a Jehovah's Witness about the president of his church's governing body.

It's a good thing that DCP assures us that hero worship is bad in politics but good in religion, else we might think the JWs have the right idea.

[_Blixa]

Thanks Kish. Although we all have have blindspots, just like we all have buttocks, some people's are bigger than other's.

[_asbestosman]

Why has Dr. Peterson not shown due outrage over this troubling trend? Personally, I find it more worrisome that Ronald Reagan has been deliberately deified

Possibly because Ronald Reagan is dead.

From his blog:
I don't even object, too much, to the apotheosis of certain dead political leaders. George Washington and Abraham Lincoln, for example, may actually deserve it, in my judgment.

[_Yoda]

Thanks Kish. Although we all have have blindspots, just like we all have buttocks, some people's are bigger than other's.

LOL! Love this!!!

[_Kishkumen]

Possibly because Ronald Reagan is dead.

From his blog:
I don't even object, too much, to the apotheosis of certain dead political leaders. George Washington and Abraham Lincoln, for example, may actually deserve it, in my judgment.

If you can't be troubled to read my post, why waste your good time responding to it? You just look like an idiot, and I know you are not an idiot.

[_Fence Sitter]

Thanks Kish. Although we all have have blindspots, just like we all have buttocks, some people's are bigger than other's.

Does my blindspot make me look fat?