Pissing on "Frenchy"'s Grave?; Or, a Case Study in Mopologetic Selfishness

[Dr. Shades]

Indeed. And you know what is hilarious in all of this? He will *never*--not ever, in a million years (and let him prove me wrong!)--abandon his blogging/Mopologetics/busy travel itinerary in order to perform service for the Lord.

I actually applaud him for this. He's too smart to serve a mission: He metaphorically has the church's number; he's figured out, like so many others haven't, that senior missions are nothing more than the church exploiting free labor out of retired specialists that it would otherwise have to pay top dollar to non-retired specialists to perform.

I wish every senior couple would / could figure out what DCP has.

[Philo Sofee]

Indeed. And you know what is hilarious in all of this? He will *never*--not ever, in a million years (and let him prove me wrong!)--abandon his blogging/Mopologetics/busy travel itinerary in order to perform service for the Lord.

I actually applaud him for this. He's too smart to serve a mission: He metaphorically has the church's number; he's figured out, like so many others haven't, that senior missions are nothing more than the church exploiting free labor out of retired specialists that it would otherwise have to pay top dollar to non-retired specialists to perform.

I wish every senior couple would / could figure out what DCP has.

Yep. His actions have so much more punch than his words. He doesn't see it that way, but he is on the inside and so the blind spot is his to enjoy.

[Doctor Scratch]

In a rather hilariously titled new blog entry (it's called "What Persists?" Gee, dare we answer that question?), Dr. Peterson is clearly incensed over our discussions here, and he apparently spent a rather large chunk of time looking up the various marriage vows from different religious denominations. Why did he do this, you might ask? It's because he's a Mopologist, of course! Here is his strange explanation:

One of the charges against the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints that invariably surprises and puzzles me runs more or less along the following lines: “The Mormon Church separates people at death. It teaches that families won’t be together in the afterlife, and it divorces husbands and wives. But then it offers to permit spouses and families to be together again if and only if they submit to it and fork large chunks of money over to it.”

Note that, while he's including text in quotation marks, this isn't a verbatim quote. Instead, it's him inventing things that "critics" have said, or something along those lines. ("What Persists?" Dishonesty, maybe? Disingenuousness? A cowardly refusal to simply link to the original comments that one is responding to?) Recall, though, that it was Dr. Peterson himself who said that Frenchy and his wife would no longer be married in the next life. In this latest blog entry, though, he's spending a lot of effort to blame this situation on all the other religious denominations:

This charge surprises me because it seems to presume that the default setting in Christendom is, and has historically been, that families will continue as families in the world to come, and that marriages will continue (unless, of course, they’re somehow broken up by malign Latter-day Saint interference). Amazingly, I’ve even seen indignation on this front from atheistic naturalists — as if they themselves believed that such relationships continue beyond the grave in any meaningful way. (If, as naturalistic materialism typically insists, human consciousness and personality cease at death, it’s difficult to see how family relationships or marriage would be very likely to persist in their absence.)

I’ve encountered this charge again over just the past few days. But here are some examples of Christian (and other) marriage vows that I’ve easily located online. They demonstrate that the default assumption among Christian denominations is that marital (and, therefore, family) relationships terminate at death, if not before.

I admit that I don't get the "if not before" addendum here. But an interesting tactic, no? Mopologetics by way of "blaming" all the other denominations? Interesting? Or merely typical? I will let you be the judge.

But, naturally, he is still missing the point. The point all along has been that Frenchy's has been put in a disadvantageous position in the afterlife thanks to Dr. Peterson's laziness/selfishness--his apparent unwillingness to do the requisite temple ordinances. (Is *that* what persists? Self-interest "uber alles"?) Yet another vacation to the Swiss Alps or to Hawaii takes precedent over a few minutes helping to make sure that Frenchy can stay married in the afterlife? Maybe so--since, you know, Frenchy has already served his purpose: DCP was able to squeeze at least two Easter-themed blog posts out of Frenchy's death and subsequent "celestial divorce."

And here is some additional food for thought: from the standpoint of Mopologetics, it does not matter one iota what all the other denominations believe about "beyond-the-veil divorce," since, from an LDS perspective, only LDS theology is true and correct. So DCP can blame the other belief systems all he wants, but when push comes to shove, he ultimately believes that LDS theology is what's truly responsible for dissolving Frenchy's marriage.

Furthermore, he once again is painting himself into a corner:

Latter-day Saints didn’t introduce the notion that marital and family relationships end at the grave. They introduced a cure.

Okay.... So if this is true, then why didn't he--DCP--hit "Pause" on the endless vacations and horsing around in order to provide this "cure" to Frenchy?

[Gadianton]

Thanks for the update, Doctor Scratch. You are absolutely right, he's shifting the goal posts from the accusation being against his own lack of diligence within his own doctrine to the accusation being against LDS doctrine.

It should be apparent, and I'm sure it is apparent, that for the sake of argument, we're assuming that LDS doctrine is correct. If LDS doctrine is correct, can his actions be reasonably explained by a sincere belief in that doctrine? The answer is "no". The answer is, he's not living the gospel beyond the most superficial elements: doesn't smoke and goes to Church every Sunday. Maybe he pays tithing, but he's also smart enough to know that "tithing" can mean just about anything the member interprets it to mean. And so if he's not paying on gross, including the gross proceeds for any properties sold, then it shows a serious lack of commitment. I'll give him the benefit of the doubt that he's in the ball park on tithing. Beyond wow, tithing, and going to church on Sunday (unless travel schedule conflicts)? Basically zero.

As for the new goal post he introduces, he's unfairly portraying that as well. The rest of Christianity doesn't believe that we exist in the same way we do here that we do there, so there isn't the same need. Even his go-to source C.S. Lewis made fun of the idea of having physical bodies that ingest food and have mortal needs. No other Christians believe that we're going to be raging testosterone-fueled bulls in the next life but Mormons, and so there is no need for sexual relationships to fix the problem. The problem doesn't exist for a solution to be required.

But again, that's not what's on trial. What's on trial is his own level of effort within the beliefs that he advocates for tirelessly on his blog.

[Everybody Wang Chung]

[drumdude]

Having never known nor even met any other member of Frenchy Morrell’s family, and having met Frenchy himself only once, briefly and years ago, and being neither his undivorced spouse nor his adult child nor his father or mother or brother or sister, I had no right under the rules of the Church to submit his or his late wife’s name for temple work. Moreover, I’m not only not among his closest living relatives, I don’t even know any of his closest living relatives. My contacting them out of the blue as a stranger seeking permission to perform an unfamiliar religious ritual on behalf, essentially, of two total strangers wouldn’t have made much sense to them even if I were somehow able to find those closest currently living relatives.

Temples are springing up around the globe. I’m confident that the work for Frenchy and Wanda will be done, and in the not too distant future.

This is just more disingenuous silliness from my Malevolent Stalker and his small claque over at the POB. And, of course, my response won’t make any difference to them. They’ll simply (and shortly) open up a new angle of attack. But I thought it worthwhile, at the least, to confirm my understanding of Church rules regarding the submission of names for temple ordinances. So it wasn’t a waste of time at all.

This is a surprising reversal of his previous position. If you’ll remember, his infamous opinion for which he caught so much flack, was that we should baptize Holocaust victims in spite of their families wishes that they not be done.

[Philo Sofee]

Having never known nor even met any other member of Frenchy Morrell’s family, and having met Frenchy himself only once, briefly and years ago, and being neither his undivorced spouse nor his adult child nor his father or mother or brother or sister, I had no right under the rules of the Church to submit his or his late wife’s name for temple work. Moreover, I’m not only not among his closest living relatives, I don’t even know any of his closest living relatives. My contacting them out of the blue as a stranger seeking permission to perform an unfamiliar religious ritual on behalf, essentially, of two total strangers wouldn’t have made much sense to them even if I were somehow able to find those closest currently living relatives.

Temples are springing up around the globe. I’m confident that the work for Frenchy and Wanda will be done, and in the not too distant future.

This is just more disingenuous silliness from my Malevolent Stalker and his small claque over at the POB. And, of course, my response won’t make any difference to them. They’ll simply (and shortly) open up a new angle of attack. But I thought it worthwhile, at the least, to confirm my understanding of Church rules regarding the submission of names for temple ordinances. So it wasn’t a waste of time at all.

This is a surprising reversal of his previous position. If you’ll remember, his infamous opinion for which he caught so much flack, was that we should baptize Holocaust victims in spite of their families wishes that they not be done.

Ah yes......... the apologetics chameleon strikes again! They are always right and always justified no matter how ridiculously contradictory their multitudinous stances on issues are.

[Rivendale]

People do temple work for non-relatives all the time. From Adolf Hitler to Zsa Zsa Gabor. Tangeta must be a relative.

[Doctor Scratch]

Ah, so now it’s the *Church’s* fault that he didn’t do the ordinances for Frenchy! First he tries to shift blame onto every other religious denomination on the planet, and now it’s the actual LDS Church, with its mean, stringent rules getting in the way! Except these are rules from 2020, no? And when was it that he was jubilant over learning that Frenchy had died? Spring of 2013? As others have already pointed out, doing ordinances was basically a free for all; the Church only changed its policies after controversies connected to the proxy baptisms of Holocaust victims.

So the basic point—about Mopologetic selfishness—still stands. It would seem that Dr. Peterson had somewhere on the order of 7 years to help Frenchy out. It’s hard to avoid the obvious point about skewed priorities here—gladly milking Frenchy’s death for clicks on his blog while making endless excuses about why he couldn’t be bothered to help Frenchy out with eternal salvation.

[drumdude]

The church released this guidance in 2012:

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/chu ... s?lang=eng

The clear message is “don’t get us into hot water by baptizing Holocaust victims or celebrities.” The request to work on your own line only, is basically just a request. They have since made it a very specific rule, as Daniel posted.