So, I am going to spice things up a bit by critiquing critics and apologists. In the first episode, I critique aspects of an episode of BYP responds in which he discusses Elder Holland's use of Paul.
In this new series, Kish critiques the arguments and approaches of critics and apologists. This particular episode critiques BYP's response to Elder Holland on the apostle's use of Paul. Is there another way to think of what Elder Holland was doing? Find out. See if you agree with BYP or my take on Elder Holland's use of the Bible.
"I have learned with what evils tyranny infects a state. For it frustrates all the virtues, robs freedom of its lofty mood, and opens a school of fawning and terror, inasmuch as it leaves matters not to the wisdom of the laws, but to the angry whim of those who are in authority.”
So, I am going to spice things up a bit by critiquing critics and apologists. In the first episode, I critique aspects of an episode of BYP responds in which he discusses Elder Holland's use of Paul.
In this new series, Kish critiques the arguments and approaches of critics and apologists. This particular episode critiques BYP's response to Elder Holland on the apostle's use of Paul. Is there another way to think of what Elder Holland was doing? Find out. See if you agree with BYP or my take on Elder Holland's use of the Bible.
Cool, Philo! It is done in a spirit of friendliness to promote conversation.
"I have learned with what evils tyranny infects a state. For it frustrates all the virtues, robs freedom of its lofty mood, and opens a school of fawning and terror, inasmuch as it leaves matters not to the wisdom of the laws, but to the angry whim of those who are in authority.”
Cool, Philo! It is done in a spirit of friendliness to promote conversation.
Just finished watching it and left ya a response in the comments. Great stuff! Looking forward to more discussions and refutations of my ideas as well. It helps keep me sharp, since there is just no way on God's green earth I can possibly be right about everything, nor would I ever present myself as being such.
The Cassius student comment box is overflowing, and every comment card is addressed to the rectory. Wow! We haven’t had this much buzz about a new course offering since Dean Robbers’ graduate field study on the application of A.I. in scrying expeditions. This is truly an incredible treat!
I see Philo’s point as being that the LDS church leaders often step on or ignore the biblical context to make whatever point they want. But they can do that within Mormonism because they define scripture to be whatever they say.
Catholicism has kind of the same mechanism, but I think it’s a little more formal. Mormon doctrine seems to me very off the cuff, shoot from the hip, say whatever to make the speech sound good.
Within the Mormon context it’s appropriate but from any other outsiders perspective it doesn’t make much sense.
Since Mormonism has said old prophets don’t matter, old doctrines don’t matter, the authority of the church is really just whatever the current apostle is speaking at the moment. And that’s kind of strange.
Just finished watching it and left ya a response in the comments. Great stuff! Looking forward to more discussions and refutations of my ideas as well. It helps keep me sharp, since there is just no way on God's green earth I can possibly be right about everything, nor would I ever present myself as being such.
Thank you for the thoughtful comments, Philo! Your viewing and support mean a whole lot to me. In some ways my commentary is more my own reaction to what you said than an attempt to refute it.
"I have learned with what evils tyranny infects a state. For it frustrates all the virtues, robs freedom of its lofty mood, and opens a school of fawning and terror, inasmuch as it leaves matters not to the wisdom of the laws, but to the angry whim of those who are in authority.”
The Cassius student comment box is overflowing, and every comment card is addressed to the rectory. Wow! We haven’t had this much buzz about a new course offering since Dean Robbers’ graduate field study on the application of A.I. in scrying expeditions. This is truly an incredible treat!
Thank you, Dr Moore! Anything a humble man of the cloth can do to stimulate students’ thoughts!
"I have learned with what evils tyranny infects a state. For it frustrates all the virtues, robs freedom of its lofty mood, and opens a school of fawning and terror, inasmuch as it leaves matters not to the wisdom of the laws, but to the angry whim of those who are in authority.”
I see Philo’s point as being that the LDS church leaders often step on or ignore the biblical context to make whatever point they want. But they can do that within Mormonism because they define scripture to be whatever they say.
Catholicism has kind of the same mechanism, but I think it’s a little more formal. Mormon doctrine seems to me very off the cuff, shoot from the hip, say whatever to make the speech sound good.
Within the Mormon context it’s appropriate but from any other outsiders perspective it doesn’t make much sense.
Since Mormonism has said old prophets don’t matter, old doctrines don’t matter, the authority of the church is really just whatever the current apostle is speaking at the moment. And that’s kind of strange.
You are right, in my opinion, to contrast the methodical nature of official Catholic discourse compared to the more freewheeling LDS leaders. Still, I think there is a kind of tradition and consensus that informs their words. The process is kind of opaque, though. Unless you watch the leaders really closely, you have a hard time picking this out. It is true that enough leeway has existed that talks had to be walked back.
"I have learned with what evils tyranny infects a state. For it frustrates all the virtues, robs freedom of its lofty mood, and opens a school of fawning and terror, inasmuch as it leaves matters not to the wisdom of the laws, but to the angry whim of those who are in authority.”
I see Philo’s point as being that the LDS church leaders often step on or ignore the biblical context to make whatever point they want. But they can do that within Mormonism because they define scripture to be whatever they say.
Catholicism has kind of the same mechanism, but I think it’s a little more formal. Mormon doctrine seems to me very off the cuff, shoot from the hip, say whatever to make the speech sound good.
Within the Mormon context it’s appropriate but from any other outsiders perspective it doesn’t make much sense.
Since Mormonism has said old prophets don’t matter, old doctrines don’t matter, the authority of the church is really just whatever the current apostle is speaking at the moment. And that’s kind of strange.
You are right, in my opinion, to contrast the methodical nature of official Catholic discourse compared to the more freewheeling LDS leaders. Still, I think there is a kind of tradition and consensus that informs their words. The process is kind of opaque, though. Unless you watch the leaders really closely, you have a hard time picking this out. It is true that enough leeway has existed that talks had to be walked back.
It's a legacy of that frontier "we'll do it ourselves" spirit. I love that spirit. But I think it's been a bit of a disaster for LDS theology. You end up with a situation where people like Robert Boylan are doing the heavy lifting trying to make sense of nonsense. I mean come on!
I'd love to see some really serious LDS theologians come out of this mess.
