Simplistic vs nuanced views of death

[drumdude]

A prominent Mormon apologist recently opined his views on death that some might characterize as simplistic.

https://latterdaysaintmag.com/facing-th ... out-death/


A few years ago Sam Harris published a very thorough podcast about death. Unlike the Mormon apologist, he produces hours of spoken text each week, and unlike the apologist his ideas are very complex and nuanced. It tends to make the Mormon views on death seem almost cartoonish in comparison.

Sam’s excellent podcast is available here:

https://youtu.be/-3xB0v8ejvw

[Rivendale]

My wife was talking about this today. In Utah we had a death from a rock slide which caused a hiker to fall over 700 feet to his death. It was a slide witnessed by many people and the victim obviously seen it coming. A recent sitcom actor was swimming in Costa Rica was drowned by a riptide that pulled him out to sea. Both victims were in midlife.We talked about their possible final thoughts which for both of us was centered on the absurdity of it. I know if I died in either way there would be a moment of ..oh crap and also a moment of REALLY? This is how the universe takes me out?

[MG 2.0]

My wife was talking about this today. In Utah we had a death from a rock slide which caused a hiker to fall over 700 feet to his death. It was a slide witnessed by many people and the victim obviously seen it coming. A recent sitcom actor was swimming in Costa Rica was drowned by a riptide that pulled him out to sea. Both victims were in midlife.We talked about their possible final thoughts which for both of us was centered on the absurdity of it. I know if I died in either way there would be a moment of ..oh crap and also a moment of REALLY? This is how the universe takes me out?

Death is often messy and unforeseen. Sometimes it's not messy and is foreseen. But no one gets out alive.

Regards,
MG

[Rivendale]

My wife was talking about this today. In Utah we had a death from a rock slide which caused a hiker to fall over 700 feet to his death. It was a slide witnessed by many people and the victim obviously seen it coming. A recent sitcom actor was swimming in Costa Rica was drowned by a riptide that pulled him out to sea. Both victims were in midlife.We talked about their possible final thoughts which for both of us was centered on the absurdity of it. I know if I died in either way there would be a moment of ..oh crap and also a moment of REALLY? This is how the universe takes me out?

Death is often messy and unforeseen. Sometimes it's not messy and is foreseen. But no one gets out alive.

Regards,
MG

A creator sets up this horror? Probably one of the few homonids that can forsee their demise and elohim is okay with that jump scare anticipation?

[MG 2.0]

Death is often messy and unforeseen. Sometimes it's not messy and is foreseen. But no one gets out alive.

Regards,
MG

A creator sets up this horror? Probably one of the few homonids that can forsee their demise and elohim is okay with that jump scare anticipation?

I'll leave it at that. If you want to expound some more and others have an itch to respond, great. Your line of questioning isn't interesting. It doesn't allow for deeper thinking and analysis and other moving parts that are apparently not within the range of your limited view.

Carry on.

Regards,
MG

[Rivendale]

A creator sets up this horror? Probably one of the few homonids that can forsee their demise and elohim is okay with that jump scare anticipation?

I'll leave it at that. If you want to expound some more and others have an itch to respond, great. Your line of questioning isn't interesting. It doesn't allow for deeper thinking and analysis and other moving parts that are apparently not within the range of your limited view.

Carry on.

Regards,
MG

Wait...and your argument Joseph was sealed to Fanny is interesting ? You have never responded to how the legality of marriages or the ethics of it is somehow justified. Moving parts is a thought stopping cliché.

[Marcus]

...I'll leave it at that. If you want to expound some more and others have an itch to respond, great. Your line of questioning isn't interesting. It doesn't allow for deeper thinking and analysis and other moving parts that are apparently not within the range of your limited view...

Wait...and your argument Joseph was sealed to Fanny is interesting ? You have never responded to how the legality of marriages or the ethics of it is somehow justified. Moving parts is a thought stopping cliché.

Yes it is, along with several other excuses like that. In my opinion it's because a lot of Mormon apologetics starts with some significant assumptions, like Muhlestein's approach that he actually announced in a presentation some years back.

When those assumptions become insupportable, the usual way to approach the discussion would be to consider that the assumption may be wrong, broaden the scope and work from there. You won't get that from simplistic apologetics, hence the thought-stopping cliches, the 'it's beyond our paygrade,' the switch to the 'something's obviously wrong with you if you don't agree with my assumption,' the variation on the true Scotsman argument that 'you obviously never knew the truth when you were in,' the 'you have limited vision', and various other illogical stances. They don't forward the discussion at all.

[Dr Exiled]

Simplistic or nuanced ... it seems to not matter at this point because no one knows what lies beyond. Even so, I would rather contemplate what a thoughtful person says rather than a person constrained by a mickey mouse religion. In the end, it's coming to all like it or not.

Tomorrow is July 24 - the holiday for all good pioneer stock to return to the Father/Mother land and pay homage to our relatives that came across the plains for ..... something .... All I know is that my how many ever great grandfather was sworn to secrecy about his Martin Handcart experiences. I guess the amazing story was too amazing for the Mormon population at large, at the time. Probably the propagandist class wasn't that organized at the time ....

[MG 2.0]

I'll leave it at that. If you want to expound some more and others have an itch to respond, great. Your line of questioning isn't interesting. It doesn't allow for deeper thinking and analysis and other moving parts that are apparently not within the range of your limited view.

Carry on.

Regards,
MG

Wait...and your argument Joseph was sealed to Fanny is interesting ? You have never responded to how the legality of marriages or the ethics of it is somehow justified. Moving parts is a thought stopping cliché.

Look over at the other thread, The Trolley Problem.

Regards,
MG

[I Have Questions]

Wait...and your argument Joseph was sealed to Fanny is interesting ? You have never responded to how the legality of marriages or the ethics of it is somehow justified. Moving parts is a thought stopping cliché.

Yes it is, along with several other excuses like that. In my opinion it's because a lot of Mormon apologetics starts with some significant assumptions, like Muhlestein's approach that he actually announced in a presentation some years back.

When those assumptions become insupportable, the usual way to approach the discussion would be to consider that the assumption may be wrong, broaden the scope and work from there. You won't get that from simplistic apologetics, hence the thought-stopping cliches, the 'it's beyond our paygrade,' the switch to the 'something's obviously wrong with you if you don't agree with my assumption,' the variation on the true Scotsman argument that 'you obviously never knew the truth when you were in,' the 'you have limited vision', and various other illogical stances. They don't forward the discussion at all.

That's right, they start with a conclusion and will not budge from that regardless of any evidence. They are only interested in things that confirm what it is they want to believe. They are not interested in discussing it. I have found that Mormon apologists aren’t really apologists, they’re actually denialists.