Agent V. wrote:Dr. Scratch, I am very interested in a commentary on the following post by DCP.
"Agent V." had in mind this very peculiar post:
Daniel Peterson wrote:I would love to have lived in Salem, too.
Fortunately, we have choices. Those who disdain the celestial kingdom can easily opt for the terrestrial or telestial (or for outer darkness).Jaybear wrote:One can strive to have personal integrity and accountibility, without embracing religion. Calling for the nation to embrace religion implies otherwise and is affront to those who don't believe in a personal God.
Of course it's possible. But if it's even marginally less likely, the cumulative effect upon a society could be catastrophic.
Virtue or morality is a necessary spring of popular government. We should indulge with caution the notion that morality can be maintained without religion. Of all the dispositions and habits that lead to political prosperity, religion and morality are indispensable supports. A person who works to subvert these great pillars of human happiness, the firmest props of human and civic duty, can scarcely be termed a patriot.
http://www.mormonapologetics.org/topic/ ... 1208903387
Clearly, a number of strange things are at play here. So strange, in fact, that one begins to wonder if DCP is celebrating an early Halloween. In any event, it is astonishingly peculiar that he would announce, in public, and "would have loved to have lived" in what was, in effect, a hardcore, patriarchal theocracy. Bear in mind that his comment is coming in the wake of others' admissions about wanting to live in a religion-soaked culture ala Salem. The other big problem here (ahead---paging Dr. Allusion) is Dr. P.'s suggestion that no religion = social and moral anarchy. This is a stupefying comment from an old Mopologist who really ought to know better.
Later, though, DCP clarifies---he didn't mean that Salem:
DCP wrote:Ah. That Salem.
Given your mention of Sodom, I was thinking of the biblical Salem -- under Melchizedek.
In other words, apart from the fact that he was being deliberately esoteric, DCP's position is essentially unchanged: he'd still "love to have lived" in a hardcore, religion-saturated patriarchy. One has to wonder: Why? I suppose he might try to wiggle out of this gaffe by saying that his interest is purely academic---i.e., that he's just interested in all of this as a scholar.
But we know better. One doesn't do that sort of thing in the midst of a discussion on Glenn Beck, of all things.