More Travel and Dining Expenses for "Bowdlerizing Brigham"?

[Everybody Wang Chung]

There is something very obsessive and bizarre about a Mopologist allegedly dedicated to his own faith’s exclusive truth, yet reduced to treating an apostate Anglican pew like a holy relic in the desperate hope that some secondhand theological greatness might rub off on his trousers by osmosis.

Folks, you really can't make this stuff up.

[Gadianton]

It's crazy when you think about the level of "Trek" frenzy in play here while still requiring a gob of artificial colors and flavors to make it worth it. It really does reveal the core of what being a Mormon is apparently all about. I remember the formula from the time I was a kid. Family home evening starts with scripture reading and lessons, then moves into games, and finally, desert! And it was the same with doing baptisms or going to priesthood session -- Mormon activities always end with desert, or sometimes a meal and then desert.

The conclusion one is forced to draw is that most of what counts as "spiritual" activity for Mormons is so thoroughly depressing and soul-sucking that it takes bribery to ensure that it gets done. What's surprising is how far some have taken this broken psychology, imagine this:

going to go to the same church (from an "apostate" sect, I might add) that Lewis used to attend, and he's going to sit in the exact same pew that Lewis used to occupy--right near the so-called "Narnia window."

Right, totally extreme. I get it. I mean, who is this much of a fan boy for anything? Not even Will has saved his pennies for a trip to Red Square. But imagine how dangerous it would have been to have been standing in the isle of that church when somebody calls from an open door at the back, "we're going for ice cream, better hurry! The clotted cream and blackcurrant goes fast!"

Holy crap! If you'd been in the isle at that point you'd have been screwed!

But it shouldn't add up so easily. At the level of sycophancy we're talking about, wouldn't you expect a response like, "hey, you guys go on, who knows if I'll have this chance again and I want to make the most of it." But no, it's like, did somebody say ICE CREAM! . The Russian neurologist Ivan Pavlov explained this behavior very well. The activity is packaged to take the place of a "bell" such as to secure the treat. And the crazy thing is this is exactly the kind of thing CS Lewis had issues with in the quotes the Afore supplies constantly about blind materialism. It's all the worse that the ice cream we're talking about sounds like a geriatric health condition.

If you want to make a damning case against CS Lewis and his belief that people are something more than blind globs of molecules satisfying their innate urges, then exhibit A is the life of his number one fan.

[I Have Questions]

I doubt CS Lewis would have found Mormonism an attractive proposition, given the sentiments he expresses and which are quoted here

Lewis wrote in Surprised by Joy:

“As soon as I became a Theist I started attending my parish church on Sundays and my college chapel on weekdays; not because I believed in Christianity, nor because I thought the difference between it and simple Theism a small one, but because I thought one ought to “fly one’s flag” by some unmistakable overt sign. I was acting in obedience to a (perhaps mistaken) sense of honour. The idea of churchmanship was to me wholly unattractive… though I liked clergymen as I liked bears, I had as little wish to be in the Church as in the zoo. It was, to begin with, a kind of collective; a wearisome “get-together” affair. I couldn’t yet see how a concern of that sort should have anything to do with one’s spiritual life. To me, religion ought to have been a matter of good men praying alone and meeting by twos and threes to talk of spiritual matters. And then the fussy, time-wasting botheration of it all! The bells, the crowds, the umbrellas, the notices, the bustle, the perpetual arranging and organizing. Hymns were (and are) extremely disagreeable to me. Of all musical instruments I liked (and like) the organ least. I have, too, a sort of spiritual gaucherie which makes me unapt to participate in any rite”

Not exactly a glowing endorsement of organised religion. Does Peterson see himself as having a sort of spiritual gaucherie perhaps? Hence why a senior mission is still absent from his resume…

[Doctor Scratch]

Does the Afore deserve credit for exercising restraint? I.e., by *not* announcing that he ate? Well, there is a difference between telling the whole wide world *that* you ate, versus admitting to *what* you actually ate. And omitting both? That is another, very telling admission.

We win again, in other words.

[Gadianton]

Does the Afore deserve credit for exercising restraint? I.e., by *not* announcing that he ate? Well, there is a difference between telling the whole wide world *that* you ate, versus admitting to *what* you actually ate. And omitting both? That is another, very telling admission.

We win again, in other words.

It's blown off lately as baiting the crazies on a message board elsewhere, but let's not forget the commentary didn't arise out of a vacuum. It had been noticed by many that an individual who claims that materialism trivially amounts to nihilism is himself living for nothing beyond materialistic goals. Materialism was preached to Gemli regularly. Gemli was to know that the afterlife will be filled with the material pleasures of this life and this is so important that an immortality with unbounded consumption is necessary to even make this life meaningful at all. In other words, the entire time, he was more of a materialist than Gemli ever was. Gemli claimed that one day our consciousness could be uploaded to a MacBook so he technically wasn't a materialist.

It was just odd, way back then, to see somebody so opposed in theory to materialism to be motivated so heavily by materialistic goals. People used to talk about testimonies that were "travel logs", but that was largely metaphorical. Yes, older people in the ward seemed to mention trips to St. George frequently, but a lot of it was about trips to doctors and medical problems if not financial problems. Whereas the Afore runs a similar game of the travel log testimony, but it's one of materialistic gospel prosperity. I mean, it's literally the "This was your Life" Chick pamphlet of travel, socializing, and dining, just was minor substitutions -- instead of wine it's ice cream.

Anyway, in a very deep sense we have won and precisely because of this point. The Afore can't sell the gospel as anything beyond a cheap, systematic approach to maximizing worldly pleasure, albeit with a handful of rules about what pleasures are allowed and what ones aren't. And of course all the ones that are allowed line up with what he happens to like anyway.

I don't know much about CS Lewis and much of what I've read I don't care for, however, I did recently learn that he answered some 50,000 letters and sometimes that would mean holed up cranking out responses all day because he considered it his duty. What is the Afore's duty, aside from living the good life? We've recently learned that he "can't do much about" racism (so no point trying, right?) and apparently he couldn't do much (or didn't want to be bothered trying?) helping his own guy who is a major Bush-era team player.

[Doctor CamNC4Me]

“Eat, drink, and be merry, for on the morrow we die; wherefore then wilt thou eat, drink, and make merry for evermore?”

[Gadianton]

Yep, it turns Adam Smith economics on its head. Normally, value is a function of scarcity. What we are being told is that value cannot exist the least bit unless it is infinite. Unless I have a job making a trillion dollars a year, the most logical option is suicide.

[Doctor Scratch]

(My addiction to eating every single day has reduced me now to shamelessly accepting donations of food from others, invading their homes to get my daily fix.)

I am assuming that *part* of this is true. I think that he very likely *was* given food by others. Did it feed his “addiction,” though? I’m inclined to doubt it. Was he fed deep-fried, high-sugar foods? If not, then “No”—his “addiction” was not being propped up by these other Latter-day Saints.

Instead, I’m inclined to believe that he was as forced to choke down an extremely unpleasant meal that included vegetables. And that he had to pretend to like it in order to avoid offending his hosts.

He’s free to contest my interpretation of the limited facts that he’s offered. I doubt he’ll do that, though.

[Doctor Scratch]

Your post is excellent, Dean Robbers. Mopologetics seems to be bereft of authentic spiritual meaning. And what is the theological reward that they are offering?

Here is a thought experiment for you. So, apologists cannot drink the great wines of Bordeaux, Burgundy, and Champagne (etc). And there is obvious resentment about this. Like, if you are someone who measures your self-worth via your experience with “worldly” things, and yet, you’re deprived from tasting something that Alexandre Dumas said should only be drunk while one is “on one’s knees,” how are you supposed to feel about that?

And can this be “fixed” theologically? Sure: you become a god, but how can you recreate something you never experienced? A Mormon god is actually going to be totally clueless about all kinds of experiences.

So in a sense, “SeN” is an extended complaint about limitations. It’s an attempt to prove to everyone that that the confining aspects of Mormonism aren’t actually a bummer after all. Except that, no—when you really think about it, it *IS* a major bummer.

[Tom]

I doubt CS Lewis would have found Mormonism an attractive proposition, given the sentiments he expresses and which are quoted here

Lewis wrote in Surprised by Joy:

“As soon as I became a Theist I started attending my parish church on Sundays and my college chapel on weekdays; not because I believed in Christianity, nor because I thought the difference between it and simple Theism a small one, but because I thought one ought to “fly one’s flag” by some unmistakable overt sign. I was acting in obedience to a (perhaps mistaken) sense of honour. The idea of churchmanship was to me wholly unattractive… though I liked clergymen as I liked bears, I had as little wish to be in the Church as in the zoo. It was, to begin with, a kind of collective; a wearisome “get-together” affair. I couldn’t yet see how a concern of that sort should have anything to do with one’s spiritual life. To me, religion ought to have been a matter of good men praying alone and meeting by twos and threes to talk of spiritual matters. And then the fussy, time-wasting botheration of it all! The bells, the crowds, the umbrellas, the notices, the bustle, the perpetual arranging and organizing. Hymns were (and are) extremely disagreeable to me. Of all musical instruments I liked (and like) the organ least. I have, too, a sort of spiritual gaucherie which makes me unapt to participate in any rite”

Not exactly a glowing endorsement of organised religion. Does Peterson see himself as having a sort of spiritual gaucherie perhaps? Hence why a senior mission is still absent from his resume…

I am reminded of lines that Lewis wrote in 1955 letters:

It is right and inevitable that we shd. [should] be much concerned about the salvation of those we love. But we should be careful not to expect or demand that their salvation shd. conform to some ready-made pattern of our own. Some Protestant sects have gone very wrong about this. They have a whole programme of conversion etc. marked out, the same for everyone, and will not believe that anyone can be saved who doesn’t go through it ‘just so’. But … God has His own way with each soul. There is no evidence that St. John had the same kind of ‘conversion’ as St. Paul…. I’m afraid I am not going to be much help about all the religious bodies mentioned in your letter of March 2nd. I have always in my books been concerned simply to put forward ‘mere’ Christianity, and am no guide on these (most regrettable) ‘inter-denominational’ questions. I do however strongly object to the tyrannic and unscriptural insolence of anything that calls itself a Church and makes teetotalism a condition of membership. Apart from the more serious objection that Our Lord Himself turned water into wine and made wine the medium of the only rite He imposed on all His followers), it is so provincial (what I believe you people call 'small town'). Don't they realize that Christianity arose in the Mediterranean world where, then as now, wine was as much part of the normal diet as bread? It was the 17th Century Puritans who first made the universal into a rich man's luxury.

Posted from Crumbl Cookie Creek, Utah