Interpreter Takes Aim at Givens, Hardy, and Mason

[_consiglieri]

Oh, but it's not ad hominem.

[_Philo Sofee]

LOL! Why yes, anyone at all who disagrees with an apologist is intellectually dishonest and a spiritual hack.

[_Gadianton]

Incredible how things are progressing. Several of us found it odd back in 2003 on ZLMB that DCP and others were so optimistic about the Yale Conference where a bunch of LDS academics introduced their Yale peers to Mormonism as a trendy postmodern religion. Well, as long as it paints Mormonism as academically important, the Mopologists were okay with whatever you've got. Some of us were thinking, are you sure this what you want? I mean, you've got to consider at least a little bit the end game of the positions you're supporting. Well, i guess now they wish they took my warning more seriously back then.

In response to Shades: Yeah, it looks like whatever is left of Mopologetics is scrambling to repent and accept at least some of the restored gospel they were taught in the Chapel.

Funny enough, I think that Boyce just might be the most important figure of the resistance. I was deeply impacted with a sense of importance for his work when I first learned of it via this article:

https://www.mormoninterpreter.com/a-vit ... es-on-war/

In the post-Mopologetic world, I seriously believe the "paradigm" has shifted from the Limited Geography Theory, which is dead, to the sacred doctrine of the preemptive strike. I kid you not, the divine-mandated "sneak attack" as a gospel principle is good as a one-question Bishop's interview to determine, in the minds of the remaining mopologists, whether or not an LDS person is friend or foe.

[_consiglieri]

After working hard to winnow quotes from church leaders about the daily occurrence of revelation from God, the author now needs to back pedal a bit to work into his next argument, introducing it with this somewhat strange segue:

In light of so many statements regarding the ongoing nature of revelation in the presiding councils of the Church, it is important to note that just because revelation occurs frequently, even daily, does not mean it is constant and that the Lord gives revelation on every matter faced by the presiding Brethren.

Of course all the quotes the author has just given from church leaders that revelation comes daily does not mean they are constant.

Who on earth would think such a thing?

I would consider this a weak link in part one of this piece.

[_consiglieri]

The author cites numerous church leaders to the effect that revelation is received daily by the church, but then goes to Elder Oaks who appears to say something very different:

On this topic Elder Dallin H. Oaks remarked (regarding the experience of all members) that “we are often left to work out problems without the dictation or specific direction of the Spirit. That is part of the experience we must have in mortality.” Thus, he said, “revelations from God . . . are not constant.

Strange the author doesn't detect a bit of a contradiction going on here.

it reminds me of Zeranus saying dead is not absent.

[_consiglieri]

Here is the author's main thesis, but unfortunately he doesn't seem to be able to find any church leader who actually says this, so he sort of has to pull it out of his arse:

Often, on matters the Lord leaves to his leaders’ judgment in governing the Church, any number of options might be acceptable. Even though the alternatives might still vary in quality, they are all sufficiently satisfactory that he would actually restrain none of them. Nevertheless, there are always limits to what the Lord will permit — options that would not be acceptable — and thus, even on matters primarily left to mortal judgment, he prevents what goes beyond those limits. This would seem to be the purport of the remarks of Elder Oaks and President Packer as applied to the Church.

It is easy to imagine that the Lord exercises such varying degrees of direction and control based on the importance of the issues under consideration.

This guy is supposed to be telling us how the Lord leads his church?

Even though the guys he is leading it through haven't said it?

And he has to "imagine" scenarios in order to make his ideas work?

I am not sure why this author's "imaginings" are to be accorded more deference than the "imaginings" of Givens, Hardy and Palmer.

[_Philo Sofee]

Consiglieri

This guy is supposed to be telling us how the Lord leads his church?

Even though the guys he is leading it through haven't said it?

And he has to "imagine" scenarios in order to make his ideas work?

I am not sure why this author's "imaginings" are to be accorded more deference than the "imaginings" of Givens, Hardy and Palmer.

This is simply NOT what I was taught as a youth in the church. Give me a REAL apostle who spits out just what Jesus Christ wants us to know in a LeGrand Richards anyday to this milktoast slop.

[_Philo Sofee]

Consiglieri

Strange the author doesn't detect a bit of a contradiction going on here.

it reminds me of zerinus saying dead is not absent.

There is never a contradiction if one is defending the leaders. It's that simple in Z's mind. He can't see past that.

[_Kishkumen]

Our friend churchistrue has also come out as critical against this piece. Seems like it is not getting a lot of love.

[_Kishkumen]

And a lack of actual revelation. I just can't help but think that if anytime an actual and real revelation was needed, today is that day, but none comes. The prophets won't prophesy, the apostles won't teach what they say Jesus tells them in person. And with the literally tens of thousands leaving the church (I joined Reddit when the ex-Mormon group had 19,000. Now it has over 50,000 in just over two years) I would wonder why Heavenly Father doesn't make it a priority to do something about it. I mean holy cow, what will it take to get God to talk, let alone actually show up and do something yet?! Of course, I assume the actual existence of said deity for the sake of the argument. It's a question faithful LDS and doubting LDS are going to have to work out for themselves, I've already done it for myself.

I'm telling you, Philo: the man with the gift and calling for Mormon revelation was slain in the summer of 1844. You will not soon hear a great revelation in Mormondom, just as no one has heard one since his lifetime.

But everything is upside down in Mormondom now. Joseph Smith used to feel the pressure to prove to his followers that he truly was God's prophet. This pushed him to translate more ancient scripture and preach more deep doctrine. These days the leaders say nothing and dare the members to question their calling. We are simply to assume it is so because they say it.

These are some of the fruits of consiglieri's apostolic coup.