Interpreter and the Mopologists Take Aim at "Inclusiveness"

The catch-all forum for general topics and debates. Minimal moderation. Rated PG to PG-13.
dastardly stem
God
Posts: 2259
Joined: Tue Nov 03, 2020 2:38 pm

Re: Interpreter and the Mopologists Take Aim at "Inclusiveness"

Post by dastardly stem »

Did you guys really read through that pile of words? I started just because it was linked by the impervious Scratch, but got hung up as soon as I noticed he was going on for pages about how treating the skin cursing thing as metaphorical exonerates the book of it's exclusive and racist sentiments. My eyes rolled realizing how lame the god in their minds is. He allows racism and even "hints", if you will, at it's divine mandate in scripture, but he officially is opposed to it, after having supported it for so long.

Alright, on that way of thinking I suppose we can squeeze plenty of good things out of any pile of writing. Let's all be nice to each other now.
“Every one of us is, in the cosmic perspective, precious. If a human disagrees with you, let him live. In a hundred billion galaxies, you will not find another.”
― Carl Sagan, Cosmos
Lem
God
Posts: 2456
Joined: Tue Oct 27, 2020 12:46 am

Re: Interpreter and the Mopologists Take Aim at "Inclusiveness"

Post by Lem »

dastardly stem wrote:
Mon Feb 08, 2021 8:03 pm
Did you guys really read through that pile of words? I started just because it was linked by the impervious Scratch, but got hung up as soon as I noticed he was going on for pages about how treating the skin cursing thing as metaphorical exonerates the book of it's exclusive and racist sentiments. My eyes rolled realizing how lame the god in their minds is. He allows racism and even "hints", if you will, at it's divine mandate in scripture, but he officially is opposed to it, after having supported it for so long.

Alright, on that way of thinking I suppose we can squeeze plenty of good things out of any pile of writing. Let's all be nice to each other now.
:lol: You did better than I did. I couldn't even get through the abstract. Does this sound to anyone like the Book of Mormon they studied in Seminary or Institute? Or even Gospel Doctrine class? Or read on your own dozens and dozens of times?
Abstract: Attitudes of superiority lead to societal conflict. The racial interpretation of a few Book of Mormon verses has contributed to these attitudes and conflicts, yet hundreds of inclusive messages are found in more than half of the book’s verses. God’s message, love, mercy, and justice are for all people. Righteous people did not think themselves above others, nor did they persecute others or start wars. War is tragic and is caused by wickedness. Conspiracies are a great evil. Righteous people were kind in their attitudes and actions, regardless of others’ social status or ethnicity. Some Book of Mormon people even gave their lives or put their lives at risk to act kindly, and some of these went from hating others to giving up their lives on behalf of others. The inclusive messages in the Book of Mormon are consistent with the position advocated by current Latter-day Saint leaders condemning all racism and disavowing racist hypotheses such as those derived from a few Book of Mormon verses (i.e., that skin color is related to righteousness). The inclusive messages also are consistent with the view that skin color in the Book of Mormon is not literal but is metaphorical. The Book of Mormon instructs us that the right way to interact is with love and respect, through examples of people respecting and reaching out to others, promises to all people, condemnation of unkindness and anti-Semitism, calls to all people to repent, and emphasizing the flaws of one’s own group and not those of others.
Come ON. it's like someone told the guy, write an abstract that says exactly what is NOT in the Book of Mormon. Oh, and define cutting off Laban's head as a kindness. :roll:
User avatar
Gabriel
Deacon
Posts: 232
Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2021 10:20 pm

Re: Interpreter and the Mopologists Take Aim at "Inclusiveness"

Post by Gabriel »

Moksha wrote:
Sun Feb 07, 2021 8:06 am

by the way, at Sic et Non, Dr. Peterson issued a new mantra that is capable of lulling apologetic practitioners into a stupor of thought, "Wright, Sorenson, Clark, Hull, Gardner". Not sure how many times the apologetic practitioner is supposed to repeat the mantra, but I am assuming his stupor of thought will improve with repeated use.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?reload=9&v=NY5X6-pjpzs
You are of course referring to The Five, those wise men sent from the East to correct the mischief being done by those whom Interpreter refers to as The AMVHJ. Their names are are only to be used sparingly (and I think this is entirely appropriate).

For well do I remember those troubled times when at the Council of Elrond, Gandalf had the audacity to stand up, shouting, "AshmentMetcalfeVogelHauglidJensen!" It was not pleasant. And no one sat with him at the dinner table that night.
User avatar
Doctor CamNC4Me
God
Posts: 8979
Joined: Wed Oct 28, 2020 2:04 am

Re: Interpreter and the Mopologists Take Aim at "Inclusiveness"

Post by Doctor CamNC4Me »

Looks like Dan was dropped by the DN.

The Church is moving on from apologetics?

- Doc
Hugh Nibley claimed he bumped into Adolf Hitler, Albert Einstein, Winston Churchill, Gertrude Stein, and the Grand Duke Vladimir Romanoff. Dishonesty is baked into Mormonism.
User avatar
Doctor Scratch
B.H. Roberts Chair of Mopologetic Studies
Posts: 1161
Joined: Wed Oct 28, 2020 7:24 pm
Location: Cassius University

Re: Interpreter and the Mopologists Take Aim at "Inclusiveness"

Post by Doctor Scratch »

Doctor CamNC4Me wrote:
Tue Feb 09, 2021 10:07 pm
Looks like Dan was dropped by the DN.

The Church is moving on from apologetics?

- Doc
I guess the Church's notion of "inclusiveness" doesn't include a noted Mopologist, eh? LOL! The timing of this does seem meaningful, in any case. I wonder how much longer it'll be until the hammer gets dropped on "Interpreter"?
"If, while hoping that everybody else will be honest and so forth, I can personally prosper through unethical and immoral acts without being detected and without risk, why should I not?." --Daniel Peterson, 6/4/14
User avatar
Moksha
God
Posts: 5810
Joined: Wed Oct 28, 2020 3:13 am
Location: Koloburbia

Re: Interpreter and the Mopologists Take Aim at "Inclusiveness"

Post by Moksha »

Doctor Scratch wrote:
Wed Feb 10, 2021 4:13 am
I wonder how much longer it'll be until the hammer gets dropped on "Interpreter"?
Are you thinking of Drs. Peterson, Midgley, and Kiwi having a 'final episode of the Jerry Seinfeld Show' experience?

I hope the Deseret News gave Dr. Peterson a gold watch at the retirement party.
Cry Heaven and let loose the Penguins of Peace
dastardly stem
God
Posts: 2259
Joined: Tue Nov 03, 2020 2:38 pm

Re: Interpreter and the Mopologists Take Aim at "Inclusiveness"

Post by dastardly stem »

Lem wrote:
Mon Feb 08, 2021 9:33 pm
dastardly stem wrote:
Mon Feb 08, 2021 8:03 pm
Did you guys really read through that pile of words? I started just because it was linked by the impervious Scratch, but got hung up as soon as I noticed he was going on for pages about how treating the skin cursing thing as metaphorical exonerates the book of it's exclusive and racist sentiments. My eyes rolled realizing how lame the god in their minds is. He allows racism and even "hints", if you will, at it's divine mandate in scripture, but he officially is opposed to it, after having supported it for so long.

Alright, on that way of thinking I suppose we can squeeze plenty of good things out of any pile of writing. Let's all be nice to each other now.
:lol: You did better than I did. I couldn't even get through the abstract. Does this sound to anyone like the Book of Mormon they studied in Seminary or Institute? Or even Gospel Doctrine class? Or read on your own dozens and dozens of times?
Abstract: Attitudes of superiority lead to societal conflict. The racial interpretation of a few Book of Mormon verses has contributed to these attitudes and conflicts, yet hundreds of inclusive messages are found in more than half of the book’s verses. God’s message, love, mercy, and justice are for all people. Righteous people did not think themselves above others, nor did they persecute others or start wars. War is tragic and is caused by wickedness. Conspiracies are a great evil. Righteous people were kind in their attitudes and actions, regardless of others’ social status or ethnicity. Some Book of Mormon people even gave their lives or put their lives at risk to act kindly, and some of these went from hating others to giving up their lives on behalf of others. The inclusive messages in the Book of Mormon are consistent with the position advocated by current Latter-day Saint leaders condemning all racism and disavowing racist hypotheses such as those derived from a few Book of Mormon verses (i.e., that skin color is related to righteousness). The inclusive messages also are consistent with the view that skin color in the Book of Mormon is not literal but is metaphorical. The Book of Mormon instructs us that the right way to interact is with love and respect, through examples of people respecting and reaching out to others, promises to all people, condemnation of unkindness and anti-Semitism, calls to all people to repent, and emphasizing the flaws of one’s own group and not those of others.
Come ON. it's like someone told the guy, write an abstract that says exactly what is NOT in the Book of Mormon. Oh, and define cutting off Laban's head as a kindness. :roll:
lol...good observation. At least he tried.
“Every one of us is, in the cosmic perspective, precious. If a human disagrees with you, let him live. In a hundred billion galaxies, you will not find another.”
― Carl Sagan, Cosmos
Lem
God
Posts: 2456
Joined: Tue Oct 27, 2020 12:46 am

Re: Interpreter and the Mopologists Take Aim at "Inclusiveness"

Post by Lem »

Some of that 'inclusiveness':
DanielPeterson Mod Dr. Shades • 9 hours ago • edited

Given some of the folks for whom you provide a free public platform on your message board, Shades, you of all people cannot plausibly deny the charge that some critics "lie, cheat, distort and circumnavigate without regard to moral turpitude or basic honesty."

After all, your own board exhibits conclusive evidence that the accusation is true.

-----
Kiwi57 DanielPeterson • 7 hours ago

In fact, his board was established for no other purpose than that.

http://disq.us/p/2f1lk0q
Wow.
User avatar
Gadianton
God
Posts: 3842
Joined: Sun Oct 25, 2020 11:56 pm
Location: Elsewhere

Re: Interpreter and the Mopologists Take Aim at "Inclusiveness"

Post by Gadianton »

Wait, has the ban been lifted from Dr. Shades?
User avatar
Gadianton
God
Posts: 3842
Joined: Sun Oct 25, 2020 11:56 pm
Location: Elsewhere

Re: Interpreter and the Mopologists Take Aim at "Inclusiveness"

Post by Gadianton »

This thread is incredible. It's supposed to be about the Book of Mormon as a "type" of Christ -- in other words, in Mopologist voodoo, if you reject the Book of Mormon, you're rejecting Christ. If you burn the Book of Mormon; well, you get the idea.

But really, it turned out to be an opportunity to prove Doctor Scratch right about his theory of "Inclusiveness".

Check this out.

comment #1
M. Hogan wrote:Gregory L. Smith's articles about Denver Snuffer remind me of the importance of being humble about our own spiritual experiences.
In other words, "Look at this guy who's a member of the out-group, thank your lucky stars we aren't like him!"

comment #2 (this is the one Dr. Shades had responded to, resulting in an "unleashing of the hounds")
TimErnst wrote:From my perspective, even more eye-opening were the comments recorded after the article. As I thought about them, it was born upon my soul that those who attempt to discredit the church really have no moral compass from which to guide their lives.
In other words, "Look at these people commenting on that article who represent the out-group, they have no moral compass! I'm so glad that I'm not like them!"

The next sentences from Tim are quoted by Lem, to which Dr. Shades responded and brought the fury of DCP and Kiwi57 down.
Kiwi57 wrote:You realise, don't you, that that attempt at smearing by association is in every way parallel to the notorious "Argumentum ad Hitlerum?"
Not so, Kiwi. I think you will have to agree, Kiwi, that Dr. Shades was spot on. Notice that Tim has no reasoning behind his outlandish charge that people who dared criticize an article that he liked "have no moral compass" whatsoever. It was just how he felt about them, it was "born upon his soul" -- a knee-jerk reaction. Likewise, in Scientology, anyone who dares criticize is labeled a "suppressive person" and assumed to have all kinds of things wrong with them (in terms of engrams) that cause them to question their doctrines.

And from a single "zinger" from Dr. Shades -- a very well placed zinger -- Kiwi and his master then get months of pent-up frustration out about how evil this forum is that they've held back to a degree with Dr. Shades and others having been banned. They plumb the depths, "you created that board for hate! It's a hate board!! a cyber-stalking board!"
Post Reply