DiscussMormonism.com

What a fun and illuminating experience it was for me to attend DCP’s class on Friday!

My first observation was one that has pertinence to any critic. I have wondered why DCP would expend the time and energy to interact with critics of the church on these online message boards. DCP never seemed much like an evangelical personality to me, so I doubted his presence was an effort to rehabilitate belief in the disaffected crowd.

It’s not. In the 54 minutes that he spoke, DCP referred to critic/exmormon/antimormon a whopping 22 times. I didn’t intend on counting, but it became obvious from the very first few minutes that DCP intended on bolstering his comments by inviting the power of the us vs them "we're right and they are dead wrong" mentality to fall over the audience. So this is my critic beware speech.

These boards are the places where he goes to collect snippets that he can pass on to the mass believers (at least in this class) of the “ridiculous” arguments made against the church. The more absurd sounding the better. He mentioned the Abraham/Abacadabra as a dismissive attempt for critics suggesting Abraham was nowhere in egyptology. Many of these comments were in a snide context and designed to make either the critic or the argument so absurd that it was presented as a joke…and elicited laughter from the audience. Either that, or he would mention a critic that turned to the light…and this would become a faith promoting example for the audience. Critical intellectuals took a direct hit via a comment suggesting it was “progressive voices – intellectuals who originally suppressed doctrine in the early Christian church.” It was they that caused these valuable, precious truths to be lost.

I note that this is not just an offline habit of making light of critics against the church. He has documented this snide mockery here:

http://www.fairlds.org/Humor/Apologetics_by_the_Numbers.html

His class presentation had the same feel as the content on the link. Perhaps you can enlighten me, DCP as to your motivation for this. Do you see yourself as an apologetic comedian? Do you think that if you mock critical questions long enough you will diminish any legitimacy to the question?

Second observation. Before DCP ever entertained the auditorium, there were lots of whispers about him from the audience. “He’s an expert at muslim.” “ He’s an expert at islam.” “They’re both the same.” “Well he’s an expert of all of them.” “What an excellent person he will be to bridge the gospel to those people.” “He’s amazing!” “He knows so much about ancient texts.” At one point in the lecture, DCP mentions that he “likes to tell lots of stories” when an audience participant not far behind me shouts out “and we like you!” It was bizarre. And odd. And did I mention bizarre? (observation to DCP….the stories are good, and do much to keep your material interesting)

It would appear that recent world current events have turned DCP into somewhat of a demigod in LDS circles. People may not have any idea what he does, but they clearly revere the idea of it. And DCP clearly was very comfortable perpetuating his importance among the religious elite. There was a lot of name dropping about the Syriac Orthodox Church officials, and chatting with catholic cardinals (not just regular ones, the 3rd highest Cardinal Cassidy, etc and so forth). Correct me if I am wrong, DCP, but it felt like you see yourself as some LDS ambassador bridge into the muslim world. I wonder if you see this as your higher “calling” in the church.

With this second observation I’d like to talk about the audience demographic. The Varsity theatre was packed. There were an amazing number of youth/young adults, and I was actually quite surprised by this. The front row was comprised of nearly all males between the ages of 16-24. A good 50% of the audience were older…45 and over. I felt like a minority falling in between these two groups.

DCP spent a good deal of time talking about temple connections to early Christian practice. He even threw in nonchristian stories like legends of Mohammed that clearly carried a connection to modern LDS temple ceremony. Every time he did this, the endowed members in the audience would gasp and oooh and ahhh, as if the mysteries of the kingdom were being revealed. DCP states that he is thinking about writing a book showing temple ordinances in ancient text and not mentioning LDS at all with the understanding that those Mormon members “in the know” would recognize the pearls within those ancient pieces and recognize and reaffirm their own truth within the LDS temple context. And I am not lying about the ooooh’s and ahhhhh’s.

Regardless, DCP deliberately and consistently talked over the audience’s head. I think they oohed and ahhhed because these were the only parts they were familiar with in the lecture! This demographic has no idea what Athenacian soteriology is. They know nothing of jewish midrashic text. They have no idea what coptic or theosis means. They are not likely to speak latin or arabic, so I have no idea why you were throwing this language into your lecture. There may be a few who were familiar with the Nicene creed or its authors, but I doubt they were the majority. I do understand your time was limited and it is quite impossible to give a full rundown on the evolution of early Christianity. However. I suspect your intent was to impress them with your knowledge rather than to enlighten them on early Christianity/Joseph Smith connections because of your deliberate use of unfamiliar language. I know they were unfamiliar to your audience. I was sitting amongst them. “Who’s Justin Martyr and how do you spell it?”

Third observation and this goes to my own personal reflections on the subject content. DCP spent a good chunk of time going over the concept of deification of man. (Note to DCP: I think you should run this entire lecture up to President Hinckley because President Hinckley doesn’t “know that we teach that.”) This link contains, in almost entirety, what DCP covered for this segment of his time:

http://www.fairwiki.org/index.php/Deification_of_man

I had previously not read much of DCP’s FARMS articles. But I immediately picked up on the Nibleyesque style he incorporates while trying to connect dots between Mormonism and early Christianity.

It speaks to a certain arrogance, in my opinion, for one to sift through the relics of religions that one has previously dismissed as “having had truth and lost it” or “never had the truth” and then retrieve theological corollaries to reinforce their own view of truth. (DCP class comment: The catholics had the truth but lost it, and the protestants never had it." ) Do they think it is intellectually honest to reconstruct the LDS “truth” from documents that were primarily produced by the very apostates whom they’ve previously attacked as being lost, misdirected or untrue? By what measurement are they using, other than the one that says “my way is truth and anything that agrees with that truth is the only truth and the rest is corrupt.” This is cherry picking at its finest and does nothing, from my point of view, of reinforcing anything other than ones desperate attempt to connect dots from any angle possible.

Particularly with the quotes introduced to support the idea of theosis(apotheosis). Many of these early Christian writers had strong Platonic leanings….which dabbles in theosis. Others had gnostic or marcionic influences. Surely we should begin looking at greek and roman mythologies to retrieve truths that were lost but then found again by Joseph Smith. Or perhaps paganism. Does this mean Gnosticism is true? Or Marcionism? Or Platonism? Or Neoplatonism? Where does one draw the line? How does one draw the line? And should one be perpetuating truth from their end of the spectrum by establishing corollaries to these roots that have been previously called into question?

And what responsibility does an LDS apologist assume by representing or insinuating these unproven, undoctrinal propaganda items to the believing LDS masses? Has an ethics rulebook been drawn up by the church for apologetic behavior?

Those were my questions at the end of the lecture. I pondered them while walking out amongst the comments of "I just can't believe that story about Mohammed, it gives me the chills!"

Thanks for that synopsis Trinity.

Observations like these only help confirm my own suspicions about the glory of being an apologetic savior. I found it quite odd a couple of months ago when David Bokovoy went over to the FAIR board and tried to make sense of the fact that some apologists fall away to the "dark side."

His reasoning was that people like me love the attention we get from the critics. I found this bizzare.

The reason is because 1) the attention I received as an apologist was far more gratifying, frequent and intense than it is now as a skeptic, and 2) David's comments reflect his own motives for arguing theology. He loves the attention and that is why he does it - so he assumes all things are equal on both sides. If he does it for the attention then so must his counterparts.

And you make a good point about name dropping and throwing out words in languages nobody in the vicinity will understand anyway. What's the point if not to try to impress your audience about how smart you are.

Related to this, I saw a photo of Bokovoy online. He was wearing a T-shirt with a word written in Hebrew on the front. The chances of anyone knowning what the word meant was slim. It is as if he just can't get enough of the attention. Like he has to constantly let people know, "Hey, this white boy knows Hebrew!" So when he accuses me of leaving apologetics for "attention", he is merely projecting. He loves to be the guy who goes around giving talks, ridiculing the critics and strengthening testimonies of the ignorant. And yes, they are generally ignorant. Few if any have the background knowledge to judge whether or not the apologetics these guys are pushing is sound.

He even tried to pass himself off as an expert on Romance languages until I asked him to translate a very simple phrase in Portuguese. He then fled the scene. This should have been an easy task for someone who claims to have given talks in Portuguese. The trio over there (Hamblin, Peterson, Bokovoy) just can't get enough of the self-congratulatory tom foolery. They act as if they bring up their accomplishments as a back-handed response to the anti-Mormons who say LDS apologetics is void of true scholarship, but the extent to which they constantly advertise their accomplishments seems overboard.

Every once in a while DCP will dodge a discussion, but not before sharing his itinerary with the forum for about a paragraph or two, detailing all the talks he is scheduled to give in the various places around the world in academic settings, and of course, any prominent figures he is scheduled to meet or even have dinner with, he will be sure to tell you. Because you see, it is important to view him as the greatest cultural ambassador the world has ever seen. Even if his arguments don't pan out the way he likes, at least he can fall back on the image he has created for himself; an extremely intelligent guy who is extremely well liked around the world.

I mean that has to count for something, and Bokovoy is only tagging along on his coat tails, learning from the best. Their biggest hiccup is John Gee. They are doing theor best to spin him into some kind of respectable scholar by talking about how they hear other scholars speak highly of him - you know, stuff you cannot confirm or contrast with those who think he is an idiot. Anything Ritner says cannot count.

by the way, I am curious about the story DCP told of Muhammed. Care to share.

Interesting. I've often wondered why some folks act as if DCP is the premier apologist now that Nibley is gone. His performance on the internet boards I've been on has been less than stellar, and largely limited to one-liners designed to demonstrate that critics attack him personally (which they do), instead of actually dealing with the serious arguments that critics also present.

But now I understand, because your desription makes him sound very much like Nibley - someone obviously impressing his audience with his vast knowledge of details of ancient cultures, but who was limited as an actual teacher due to his tendency to speak over the audience's head. For this to happen so consistently led me to believe this was deliberate on Nibley's part, and the main purpose of his apologia was not to actually address specific details, but instead to reassure believers that a really, really, smart person who knows a lot believes in the LDS church, so it's ok that you do, too.

The legend of Mohammed. Apparently Mohammed ascended up into heaven, visiting the seven heavens which are separated by partitions which, when one approaches it is asked "who is there" or "what is wanted" At the last one, God is on the other side and accepted Mohammed after he had travelled through all the previous heavens. He also talks about how there is a reenactment of the birth of the earth culminating in the birth of Adam and his evolution through the garden of Eden and being thrown out, etc. I've never heard of it before, and DCP was clear that it was a legend.

I'm sure you understand what I mean when I see these attempts to connect to remote snippets in past religions as some type of "evidence" that Mormonism is true are irrelevant unless you are suggesting that the original source is tapped is also "true". And you have exactly the same tools you are using to assert that Mormonism is tapped into the divine....faith and speculation.

Show me a barometer. Otherwise it just look like sifting through a haystack in the hopes you can find two that look alike. And if you do find them, it still has no bearing on the importance of either pieces of straw.

I just thought of another thing that was odd about this class. It began by prayer, ended by DCP's testimony about his knowledge that Joseph Smith was tapped into the divine...ended with an amen. And then there was class applause.

Interesting. I've often wondered why some folks act as if DCP is the premier apologist now that Nibley is gone. His performance on the internet boards I've been on has been less than stellar, and largely limited to one-liners designed to demonstrate that critics attack him personally (which they do), instead of actually dealing with the serious arguments that critics also present.

What bothers me about DCP is that he claims he has no time to deal with debates online about real issues with capable opponents, yet he'll spend forever and a day scrolling through the arm pit of anti-Mormonism (RFM) just for the purpose of digging up ridiculous commentary so he can then use it as fodder for his next strengthening the members speech. One of the most effective techniques and popular past times of LDS apologetics involves lampooning the opposition while trying to pretend you are still a victim.

But now I understand, because your desription makes him sound very much like Nibley - someone obviously impressing his audience with his vast knowledge of details of ancient cultures, but who was limited as an actual teacher due to his tendency to speak over the audience's head. For this to happen so consistently led me to believe this was deliberate on Nibley's part, and the main purpose of his apologia was not to actually address specific details, but instead to reassure believers that a really, really, smart person who knows a lot believes in the LDS church, so it's ok that you do, too.

I am not sure they went into this with this particular goal in mind; well maybe Bokovy and Gee, but not DCP. Being constantly asked to give talks on these subjects just comes with the territory in Mormonism because there is a tremendous need to quell the concerns of a doubting membership. People like Peterson and Bokovoy try to meet that demand, but they do it with flattery and comic relief for the most part because their positions lack the basis to persuade with evidence.

The legend of Mohammed.

Well this is another pet peeve of mine that I have with Dan. When it comes to discussing Islamic terrorism and its connection to true Islam, or the extent by which Islamic teaching condones violence we prefer to believe condemned, he tells me that the evidence used to support these claims is just folklore. Meaning, the hadith, which are authoritative writings in Islam, second only to the Quran, is just a bunch of collected stories so they are not binding on Islam – even though the majority of Muslims disagree with him.

Yet at the same time he and Hauglid dig up these tales which originated by God knows who, that don’t even merit entrance into the most authoritative selection of hadith, and then uses them to paint a romantic view of Muhammed. And now in this case, another “plausibility” that perhaps Muhammed was really a true prophet after all, since he had a Mormonesque experience.

I agree with a lot that has been posted. I never understood why someone would give his schedule, list books or degree's while mocking someone elses thoughts that ask some serious questions about LDS history. I first found MA&D while doing some research on church discipline. I then thought wow - these guys are fighting back. Then after about three months I saw responses that seemed to mock and laugh at serious questions about the church. It caused me some concern.

Then I posted some questions and out of the blue - came Selek attacking me. I started seeing a side I never saw before, something that is total opposite of the calm, blue suit, elderly man, sitting in General Conference. It made me start to look seriously into the early history of the Church. When I put questions up on the MA&D here comes Selek. I think his pager goes off when I post. I see other's have problems with others. One thing I did notice is that if you write something questionable and maybe not reasoned out that much they love that and will just beat that issue to a pulp. Recently there has been an attack on Christopher Hitchens book that just had no end to the bashing of it. I'm still researching the Church. I was a member from eight until nineteen. I came home early from my mission had some "moral" issues after I came home and was excommunicated. I was recently thinking about going back but I'm really in dispair about what I saw over at MA&D and the things I have learned in the last few months. I now think the church plays the P (persecution) card a lot and they don't want someone to learn the whole story.

I like sethbag and the dudes thoughts. They are always well thought out and give me things to think about.

Trinity---

Wow, thank you for posting this! Absolutely fascinating, and very revealing, in my opinion. I'll be interested in seeing the Good Professor's reply.

It never ceases to amaze me how LDS apologists will sift through anything, even religions they condemn as heretical, untrue or "abominations", to find even the tiniest, most irrelevant bit of information that they can spin to lend credence to their quasi-cult. It's absolutely hilarious!

It reminds me of a TV show I thought of once for a religious audience: Junkyard Apologetics Mega-Wars. Apologists from freaky religions like Scientology, JW's, Mormons, etc., meet to put together scraps of odd archaeological finds, ancient texts, Sci-Fi books, Oprah reruns - anything to prove their respective religions true. A little chiasmus here, an NHM there, and voilà! The Church is TRUE!

Thanks for your synopsis, Trinity! You took one for the team by attending the lecture and we thank you!

KA

thestyleguy wrote:I agree with a lot that has been posted. I never understood why someone would give his schedule, list books or degree's while mocking someone elses thoughts that ask some serious questions about LDS history. I first found MA&D while doing some research on church discipline. I then thought wow - these guys are fighting back. Then after about three months I saw responses that seemed to mock and laugh at serious questions about the church. It caused me some concern.

Then I posted some questions and out of the blue - came Selek attacking me. I started seeing a side I never saw before, something that is total opposite of the calm, blue suit, elderly man, sitting in General Conference. It made me start to look seriously into the early history of the Church. When I put questions up on the MA&D here comes Selek. I think his pager goes off when I post. I see other's have problems with others. One thing I did notice is that if you write something questionable and maybe not reasoned out that much they love that and will just beat that issue to a pulp. Recently there has been an attack on Christopher Hitchens book that just had no end to the bashing of it. I'm still researching the Church. I was a member from eight until nineteen. I came home early from my mission had some "moral" issues after I came home and was excommunicated. I was recently thinking about going back but I'm really in dispair about what I saw over at MA&D and the things I have learned in the last few months. I now think the church plays the P (persecution) card a lot and they don't want someone to learn the whole story.
I like sethbag and the dudes thoughts. They are always well thought out and give me things to think about.

I totally agree. I here it all the time from my Mormon's. But the "P" card works. It works for blacks. I works for Muslims. "Oh, nothing we have done deserves the persecution that we suffer." Most Mormons would not know real persecution if it bit them in the butt. Perpetuating the knowtion that Mormon's are persecuted help's the leaders of get their members to circle the wagnons, and to get the members not listen to anything a critic says. This has proved to be an effective strategy.

In a few years, it would not surprise me if DP writes a manual for Priesthood/Relief Society entitled something like "Prophet Mohammid - The pearls of trueth that he taught." Maybe, with something like this available the missionaries in Europe might be able to begin to get some Muslim converts. Don't you think a Muslim mind set would fit well in Morman theology?

KimberlyAnn wrote:It never ceases to amaze me how LDS apologists will sift through anything, even religions they condemn as heretical, untrue or "abominations", to find even the tiniest, most irrelevant bit of information that they can spin to lend credence to their quasi-cult. It's absolutely hilarious!

It reminds me of a TV show I thought of once for a religious audience: Junkyard Apologetics Mega-Wars. Apologists from freaky religions like Scientology, JW's, Mormons, etc., meet to put together scraps of odd archaeological finds, ancient texts, Sci-Fi books, Oprah reruns - anything to prove their respective religions true. A little chiasmus here, an NHM there, and voilà! The Church is TRUE!

Thanks for your synopsis, Trinity! You took one for the team by attending the lecture and we thank you!

KA

This is common among the few believing members who seem smart enough to think in their own and once they do think on their own, the faith promoting rumors/stories are to much to stomach.

So they venture out looking for ANYTHING that will support their world view which is sprinkled with logic.

I do pity such fools. It like every time they see a rainbow, they drop everything and run towards the end of the rainbow, just in case there IS a pot of gold. What a waste of a life. They will die like their deranged idol, the lunatic Nibley.