Ep 477 – Seven Deadly Heresies: The Smackdown, Part 2

Panel Discussion

Posted April 22nd, 2018

Mike Tannehill makes his triumphant return to defend Bruce R. McConkie as Glenn, John, and Bob’s take on evolution; the 2nd of McConkie’s 7 Deadly Heresies.

Bob

Glenn

John

  • Melissa

    I’d love to have John give an introduction to the way he understands God and scripture. He references and partly explains his views but I don’t totally understand where he’s coming from.

    • Hi Melissa,

      John gets into this in much more detail back in episode we did together in 2014. I hesitate to bring it up because I’m not particularly proud of myself here (I can’t remember the particulars, but I’m pretty sure I come across as an asshole ex-mo trying to make sense of John’s perspective).

      Anyway, I think you might find it interesting:

      http://infantsonthrones.com/the-christmas-jesus-and-stuff/

      Cheers,

      Bob

      • Melissa

        Thanks. I’ve been going through the old episodes featuring John. They’re good, but I’d still like John to do an intro to the philosophy of religion episode, or more than one.

  • Charles Evans

    I would also be interested in that as well, Melissa. He seemed to not to understand why Mike would not be interested in a religion founded on myths and stories about people who never existed. I don’t believe in Adam was a real person and because of that I don’t really find a lot of meeting in the Adam and Eve myth. If others do, I have no problem with that and wish them the best, but I certainly don’t.

    • Melissa

      I’m still not sure what meaning can be found in Biblical myths or how to find it, other than the techniques used in the Harry Potter and the Sacred Text podcast. Although, I did find the Eve story inspirational as I made my way out of the church. To me it symbolized a woman rightly saying no to an authoritarian jerk God. I’d like to have a book club reading novels as sacred texts. It could be fun.

  • Ron Hill

    Thank you John for “whispering” Randy about the elephant in the room here. I also appreciated Glenn’s point about the usefulness of myth and narrative, even if completely lost on its intended audience.

  • Andrea Kate Mason

    What’s with the “Adam story” stuff? Eve was clearly the star of that story. Lol.

  • Hannah

    Preach, John, Preach! 🙌 (This is my first post on here but I wanted to say that your discussion on the Historical Jesus, ages ago, helped me to deconstruct the Bible and become an atheist!) I have always loved learning more from you about religion and the historicity of ancient texts. However, this episode was at moments difficult to listen to as it seemed a bit harsh towards Mike at points. I hope Mike’s okay, even though I do struggle with the logic of his mental gymnastics (que Jonathan Haidt!)
    I am wondering if you were saying that all opinions should not be valued equally? Or respected equally? Was this the critique of modern society/social media that you were making? Or did I misunderstand that?

    (Thanks for everything that you all do! This podcast has seen me through some tough times xx)

  • Larry

    About resurrecting one’s family members as a priesthood ordinance, I definitely heard this, probably from my father-in-law, who was a temple worker. I’m not sure of the reference either.

  • Rude Dog

    I was so cheering for Mike. Mike has been the only consistent one through the years. Mike describes the Mormon church as it really is. I agree with others that I’m surprised John and Glenn are surprised that Mike doesn’t take the myth and allegory route. I mean especially you Glenn, I remember when you were snot nosed and believing, are you that far removed from the church as to forget what the tenets really claim? Or do you finally find yourself through your journey on a ground you’re comfortable with only to turn around to ask Mike what color immortal blood is? The reason you have the luxury of seeing the stories of the Bible as allegory is because the Bible first came to us as a collection of writings that were not intended as allegory, but as literal historical account, of real events, involving real people, accomplishing real things. Mike said it over and over and was the only one that made sense. Of course Adam and Eve are real, because Jesus is real, and he had real blood come from real pores and real nails hammered with real mallets on a real cross, to be put in a real tomb to literally resurrect, whose offer has real effect on the souls of man throughout time. Glenn knows this, John knows this, yet on and on you went. I totally respect Mike, Glenn, I don’t even know what led you out of the church, most likely one of the many subjects batted about, polygamy, BoM problems, BoA, all of which are valid, but small potatoes to the subject at hand. I too found the above subjects troubling, but the one thing that took me straight out, and makes all of the other Mormon historical problems pale in comparison is the subject of evolution. I completely and utterly became a non believer after a few nights reading in Dawkin’s book “The God Delusion”, and not when Dawkins goes after belief, but in the chapter “Climbing Mnt. Improbable” where he simply, logically and eloquently lays out the evidence for evolution. I realized there and then that we are indeed evolved bi-pedal hominids on a branch of a beautiful bush without favor, advantage, nor special-ness, and that became my overarching worldview that dwarfed even Joseph’s polygamy or BoA. It not only sweeps Mormonism into pastures of irrelevancy, but all mono theistic religion, and most religions throughout the world are suddenly to be found in the trashbins of Darwinian comprehension. We have no special purpose other than what we create for our pocket of existence, we are no better or worse than any other species, most of whom are extinct, and we come and go without the slightest notice by the universe. This was powerful in its profundity, and suddenly my meaningless existence took on urgent meaning. Not even proponents of evolution completely understand the underlining meaning of it’s understanding. Certainly religion gets it, as Bruce and Mike are right, taking Adam and Eve off the table gets rid of Christ, and that goes beyond and counter to your metaphorical Christ, for most Christians, to guffaw at Mike’s hayseed literal view of Christ I think is beneath you Glenn and John, especially since we were all there not too long ago, and no thank you, please put the allegorical worldview of the Bible in the garbage, the only reason we deal with it is again because it is there as literal account for most Christians first. John hinted about his views on evolution. Hope it’s not some psuedo post modern Christian tripe about it being used as a tool to bring to pass God’s design. Gag. Exuse my grouchy.