Joseph Smith--the best 'wing man' Brigham Young ever had

[MG 2.0]

[
[*]Are you really denying that your god could raise up the FLDS (or any other organization he chose) according to his timeline and needs? Sure, the LDS church is bigger today, but surely your god could work through whichever organization he chose. You seem to want to limit him to your choice based on present-day size, without any good reason.

Subjective elements:
Are you really denying?
your god.
Surely your god could...
You seem to want to limit him...
without any good reason...

Of course, you are free to believe that it could not.

Subjective elements:
Of course
you are free to believe...

[*]size etc - "brushed off", not quite. I've dealt with this in a later point

Subjective elements:
brushed off
not quite
I've dealt with this

[*]LDS is the largest of the restoration churches - you think I'm illogical for not seeing this as being as important as you do.

Subjective elements:
you think I'm illogical
as important as you do

Again, I have to point out that you're choosing criteria that fit your pre-conceived views, without, apparently, considering if this is also the view of your god. That strikes me as illogical. Of course, you have no special access to your god's PoV, and his ways, apparently, are not your ways.

Subjective elements:
pre-conceived views
strikes me as illogical
you have no special access
his ways, apparently, are not your ways

[*]You refer to "scriptural prophesy" that seems to support point [4] - so merely your interpretation

Subjective elements:
seems to support
merely your interpretation

[*]You say that there should be a church upon the earth with an international influence before Jesus returns, but you have no idea when that will be, or what may happen between now and then - assuming for the sake of argument that this is a real thing.

Subjective elements:
you have no idea
assuming...this is a real thing

But if were looking at this time for such a church, I don't understand why you're not a Roman Catholic. When the Pope speaks, almost the entire civilized world stops to listen. When the LDS leader speaks, what he says is mostly a footnote outside of Utah.

Subjective elements:
I don't understand why
almost the entire civilized world
mostly a footnote outside of Utah

[*]A few million people believe that the Mormon god spoke to Joseph Smith, so your "If" is very significant, and what follows in your comment is purely hypothetical, by the way you frame it. So what if the LDS church "fits the bill"? Even I wouldn't be surprised that you think that the church based on the claim of that communication seems to fit!
However (without elaborating here) I think that the LDS may not be true to its roots from Joseph's time, so I also would not be totally astounded if it doesn't conform.
And, by the way, we've talked about this before: there are significant gaps in the First Vision story that call into question the whole idea that anyone really spoke to Joseph.
[*]Was Jesus the son of the Mormon god, and does he live today? As you yourself say: "Views on this range all over the place.", and you are simply selecting the one that most fits your needs. I think you're pretty much outnumbered in this point, if size matters to you.
[*]Your claim that "God has called prophets and directs His work through them" is (to quote you) just a claim. Even if true, to suggest, as you seem to do, that that makes your god a good communicator is laughable. Did you not read, or do you disagree, that these men are fallible? I believe you have accepted in the past (even to the point of using it to defend them) that these men are products of their respective time, and have normal human biases, right? How does filtering his message through such "noisy" channels make for good communications? Sorry, I don't see it.
[*]Communication doesn't happen in the fashion/way that I would like/dictate or think it ought to ... - to an extent that's true. But I haven't just chosen an arbitrary faulty means of communication. Knowing what we mere humans do about how to communicate an important message clearly, it seems perverse that a god would not avail himself of known reliable means to send out his message.
Anyway, am I not every bit as entitled to "think" or opine as you or anyone else? Your thinking seems, as always, to be tied to your specific religion's teachings. I'm more inclined to think that if there is a god, and if he has a message for humans, it would make much more sense, in general, to choose a direct and unequivocal way to communicate, rather than through fallible men, and ambiguous feelings which muffle and distort the message. [/list]

Subjective elements:
your "if" is very significant
purely hypothetical
even I wouldn't be surprised
I think that the LDS may not be true
significant gaps...call into question
you are simply selecting the one that most fits your needs
I think you are pretty much outnumbered
just a claim
laughable
Sorry, I don't see it
seems perverse
am I not every bit as entitled
your thinking seems...tied to your specific religion's teachings
I'm more inclined to think
ambiguous feelings which muffle and distort

So, malkie, when your list has a tone of dismissive, skeptical, sarcastic, or heavy handed use of rhetorical strategy (appeal to logic, appeal to emotion, etc.) it is difficult to engage in any kind of ongoing conversation. Loaded language, presumptive tone, sarcasm and irony (erodes trust), circular reasoning and special pleading, ambiguity in argument structure, emotional distance and lack of empathy, and overuse of absolutes and generalizations, compound the difficulty.

Granted, other posters, including myself at times, engage in subjective language. Some folks, however, do it to the point of 'overkill'. I'm not saying that this is you necessarily. The thing is, the post that you seem intent on following up on does contain subjective elements that can move the conversation in a way that doesn't leave much room for me to actually respond. I would end up responding to a deliberate use of rhetorical strategy and/or persuasive framing/motivated reasoning.

This consists of:

1. Bias Reinforcement Strategy
2.Rhetorical Dominance
3.Selective Framing
4.Preemptive Dismissal
5.Appeal to Common Sense or Popularity
6.Tone Policing and Deflection

All in all, you and others are quite proficient in using these tactics to steer conversations to the conclusions that support your own preconceived biases and goals. That it, to convince others that the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is not the true church of God.

Some folks are a bit more transparent (lack of rhetorical skills) in their goals. Others are a bit more skilled at using rhetorical skills to try and get what they want.

Regards,
MG

[Chap]

When the Pope speaks, almost the entire civilized world stops to listen. When the LDS leader speaks, what he says is mostly a footnote outside of Utah.

Subjective elements:

[...]

mostly a footnote outside of Utah

Well, let's see ... it is claimed that, unlike the attention often given to statements by the Pope, little attention is paid (outside Utah) to public utterances of the prophet for the time being of the CoJCoLDS. The claim by MG is that the preceding statement is purely subjective and hence, no more than a matter of how one individual happens to feel rather than having any objective basis.

I have a subscription to the Washington Post. As I look at the main page for today I see the following list of hot news topics:

Trending: Shutdown vote count Pope Leo Ultra-processed foods Fujiwhara effect LeBron James

I asked the Post's AI bot when the Post last mentioned Nelson, before the report of his death. The answer was:

Russell M. Nelson was mentioned in a 2021 article, where he was quoted as saying "Judgment Day is coming for me pretty soon" and wondered how God might judge him. He also spoke about what he thought would be important in his judgment, such as his faith, virtue, knowledge, temperance, and kindness. This was prior to the report of his death.

Then I asked the Post how many times Pope Leo had been mentioned since his accession on May 8, 2025. The answer was, in effect, too many times to count, which certainly tallies with my own experience.

Is that perhaps non-subjective enough to count as evidence in favour of Malkie's claim? I suspect it would not be difficult to obtain more.

[malkie]

[
[*]Are you really denying that your god could raise up the FLDS (or any other organization he chose) according to his timeline and needs? Sure, the LDS church is bigger today, but surely your god could work through whichever organization he chose. You seem to want to limit him to your choice based on present-day size, without any good reason.

Subjective elements:
Are you really denying?
your god.
Surely your god could...
You seem to want to limit him...
without any good reason...

Are you really denying? - You're saying that for me to ask you a question is subjective on my part? Or, if you prefer, asking you to clarify something you said which is not clear?
your god - subjective because ... what? it contains the word "your"? OK - replace "your god" with "Mormon god", which., as you know, means the same thing. Still subjective?
Surely your god could... - again, how am I supposed to ask a question, or ask for clarification, if such common terms are not permissible?
You seem to want to limit him... - ditto
without any good reason... - what makes this subjective? The fact that I've noted that you have not provided a reason?

Skip to the end - there's no point in going through this kind of stuff.

Of course, you are free to believe that it could not.

Subjective elements:
Of course
you are free to believe...

[*]size etc - "brushed off", not quite. I've dealt with this in a later point

Subjective elements:
brushed off
not quite
I've dealt with this

[*]LDS is the largest of the restoration churches - you think I'm illogical for not seeing this as being as important as you do.

Subjective elements:
you think I'm illogical
as important as you do

Again, I have to point out that you're choosing criteria that fit your pre-conceived views, without, apparently, considering if this is also the view of your god. That strikes me as illogical. Of course, you have no special access to your god's PoV, and his ways, apparently, are not your ways.

Subjective elements:
pre-conceived views
strikes me as illogical
you have no special access
his ways, apparently, are not your ways

[*]You refer to "scriptural prophesy" that seems to support point [4] - so merely your interpretation

Subjective elements:
seems to support
merely your interpretation

[*]You say that there should be a church upon the earth with an international influence before Jesus returns, but you have no idea when that will be, or what may happen between now and then - assuming for the sake of argument that this is a real thing.

Subjective elements:
you have no idea
assuming...this is a real thing

But if were looking at this time for such a church, I don't understand why you're not a Roman Catholic. When the Pope speaks, almost the entire civilized world stops to listen. When the LDS leader speaks, what he says is mostly a footnote outside of Utah.

Subjective elements:
I don't understand why
almost the entire civilized world
mostly a footnote outside of Utah

[*]A few million people believe that the Mormon god spoke to Joseph Smith, so your "If" is very significant, and what follows in your comment is purely hypothetical, by the way you frame it. So what if the LDS church "fits the bill"? Even I wouldn't be surprised that you think that the church based on the claim of that communication seems to fit!
However (without elaborating here) I think that the LDS may not be true to its roots from Joseph's time, so I also would not be totally astounded if it doesn't conform.
And, by the way, we've talked about this before: there are significant gaps in the First Vision story that call into question the whole idea that anyone really spoke to Joseph.
[*]Was Jesus the son of the Mormon god, and does he live today? As you yourself say: "Views on this range all over the place.", and you are simply selecting the one that most fits your needs. I think you're pretty much outnumbered in this point, if size matters to you.
[*]Your claim that "God has called prophets and directs His work through them" is (to quote you) just a claim. Even if true, to suggest, as you seem to do, that that makes your god a good communicator is laughable. Did you not read, or do you disagree, that these men are fallible? I believe you have accepted in the past (even to the point of using it to defend them) that these men are products of their respective time, and have normal human biases, right? How does filtering his message through such "noisy" channels make for good communications? Sorry, I don't see it.
[*]Communication doesn't happen in the fashion/way that I would like/dictate or think it ought to ... - to an extent that's true. But I haven't just chosen an arbitrary faulty means of communication. Knowing what we mere humans do about how to communicate an important message clearly, it seems perverse that a god would not avail himself of known reliable means to send out his message.
Anyway, am I not every bit as entitled to "think" or opine as you or anyone else? Your thinking seems, as always, to be tied to your specific religion's teachings. I'm more inclined to think that if there is a god, and if he has a message for humans, it would make much more sense, in general, to choose a direct and unequivocal way to communicate, rather than through fallible men, and ambiguous feelings which muffle and distort the message. [/list]

Subjective elements:
your "if" is very significant
purely hypothetical
even I wouldn't be surprised
I think that the LDS may not be true
significant gaps...call into question
you are simply selecting the one that most fits your needs
I think you are pretty much outnumbered
just a claim
laughable
Sorry, I don't see it
seems perverse
am I not every bit as entitled
your thinking seems...tied to your specific religion's teachings
I'm more inclined to think
ambiguous feelings which muffle and distort

So, malkie, when your list has a tone of dismissive, skeptical, sarcastic, or heavy handed use of rhetorical strategy (appeal to logic, appeal to emotion, etc.) it is difficult to engage in any kind of ongoing conversation. Loaded language, presumptive tone, sarcasm and irony (erodes trust), circular reasoning and special pleading, ambiguity in argument structure, emotional distance and lack of empathy, and overuse of absolutes and generalizations, compound the difficulty.

Granted, other posters, including myself at times, engage in subjective language. Some folks, however, do it to the point of 'overkill'. I'm not saying that this is you necessarily. The thing is, the post that you seem intent on following up on does contain subjective elements that can move the conversation in a way that doesn't leave much room for me to actually respond. I would end up responding to a deliberate use of rhetorical strategy and/or persuasive framing/motivated reasoning.

This consists of:

1. Bias Reinforcement Strategy
2.Rhetorical Dominance
3.Selective Framing
4.Preemptive Dismissal
5.Appeal to Common Sense or Popularity
6.Tone Policing and Deflection

All in all, you and others are quite proficient in using these tactics to steer conversations to the conclusions that support your own preconceived biases and goals. That it, to convince others that the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is not the true church of God.

Some folks are a bit more transparent (lack of rhetorical skills) in their goals. Others are a bit more skilled at using rhetorical skills to try and get what they want.

Regards,
MG

OK - if common questioning techniques, and requests for clarification are subjective, I see no need to continue to attempt to reason with you on this. There's no conversation to be had.

[MG 2.0]

Subjective elements:

[...]

mostly a footnote outside of Utah

Well, let's see ... it is claimed that, unlike the attention often given to statements by the Pope, little attention is paid (outside Utah) to public utterances of the prophet for the time being of the CoJCoLDS. The claim by MG is that the preceding statement is purely subjective and hence, no more than a matter of how one individual happens to feel rather than having any objective basis.

I have a subscription to the Washington Post. As I look at the main page for today I see the following list of hot news topics:

Trending: Shutdown vote count Pope Leo Ultra-processed foods Fujiwhara effect LeBron James

I asked the Post's AI bot when the Post last mentioned Nelson, before the report of his death. The answer was:

Russell M. Nelson was mentioned in a 2021 article, where he was quoted as saying "Judgment Day is coming for me pretty soon" and wondered how God might judge him. He also spoke about what he thought would be important in his judgment, such as his faith, virtue, knowledge, temperance, and kindness. This was prior to the report of his death.

Then I asked the Post how many times Pope Leo had been mentioned since his accession on May 8, 2025. The answer was, in effect, too many times to count, which certainly tallies with my own experience.

Is that perhaps non-subjective enough to count as evidence in favour of Malkie's claim? I suspect it would not be difficult to obtain more.

The argument is still within the realm of subjectivity. The fact is, many major religious organizations that are now worldwide 'influencers' because of size, started small and/or with less influence. Using this as valid reason for the LDS Church not being 'True' is subjective because the great unknown is whether the LDS Church will continue to spread throughout the world and gain greater influence than it has. The actual truth is that the church has a significant influence for a church of its size.

By using this subjective statement as a 'proof' is a fallacy. Philosophical fallacy. Argumentum ad populum-that something is true or important because many people believe it.

Essentially, there is a degree of subjectivity being displayed here as well as through the rest of the post I responded to and have listed those subjective elements.

Regards,
MG

[Marcus]

MG's AI wrote:

when your list has a tone of dismissive, skeptical, sarcastic, or heavy handed use of rhetorical strategy (appeal to logic, appeal to emotion, etc.) it is difficult to engage in any kind of ongoing conversation. Loaded language, presumptive tone, sarcasm and irony (erodes trust), circular reasoning and special pleading, ambiguity in argument structure, emotional distance and lack of empathy, and overuse of absolutes and generalizations, compound the difficulty.

Unfortunately, in just trusting his AI, MG has quoted a section where his AI throws him under the bus. The above is MG's AI describing exactly the way MG posts.

The bigger point, however, is that it is absolutely clear MG is cut and pasting AI-generated lists and responses once again.

[MG 2.0]

Subjective elements:
Are you really denying?
your god.
Surely your god could...
You seem to want to limit him...
without any good reason...

Are you really denying? - You're saying that for me to ask you a question is subjective on my part? Or, if you prefer, asking you to clarify something you said which is not clear?
your god - subjective because ... what? it contains the word "your"? OK - replace "your god" with "Mormon god", which., as you know, means the same thing. Still subjective?
Surely your god could... - again, how am I supposed to ask a question, or ask for clarification, if such common terms are not permissible?
You seem to want to limit him... - ditto
without any good reason... - what makes this subjective? The fact that I've noted that you have not provided a reason?

Skip to the end - there's no point in going through this kind of stuff.

Subjective elements:
Of course
you are free to believe...



Subjective elements:
brushed off
not quite
I've dealt with this



Subjective elements:
you think I'm illogical
as important as you do



Subjective elements:
pre-conceived views
strikes me as illogical
you have no special access
his ways, apparently, are not your ways



Subjective elements:
seems to support
merely your interpretation



Subjective elements:
you have no idea
assuming...this is a real thing



Subjective elements:
I don't understand why
almost the entire civilized world
mostly a footnote outside of Utah



Subjective elements:
your "if" is very significant
purely hypothetical
even I wouldn't be surprised
I think that the LDS may not be true
significant gaps...call into question
you are simply selecting the one that most fits your needs
I think you are pretty much outnumbered
just a claim
laughable
Sorry, I don't see it
seems perverse
am I not every bit as entitled
your thinking seems...tied to your specific religion's teachings
I'm more inclined to think
ambiguous feelings which muffle and distort

So, malkie, when your list has a tone of dismissive, skeptical, sarcastic, or heavy handed use of rhetorical strategy (appeal to logic, appeal to emotion, etc.) it is difficult to engage in any kind of ongoing conversation. Loaded language, presumptive tone, sarcasm and irony (erodes trust), circular reasoning and special pleading, ambiguity in argument structure, emotional distance and lack of empathy, and overuse of absolutes and generalizations, compound the difficulty.

Granted, other posters, including myself at times, engage in subjective language. Some folks, however, do it to the point of 'overkill'. I'm not saying that this is you necessarily. The thing is, the post that you seem intent on following up on does contain subjective elements that can move the conversation in a way that doesn't leave much room for me to actually respond. I would end up responding to a deliberate use of rhetorical strategy and/or persuasive framing/motivated reasoning.

This consists of:

1. Bias Reinforcement Strategy
2.Rhetorical Dominance
3.Selective Framing
4.Preemptive Dismissal
5.Appeal to Common Sense or Popularity
6.Tone Policing and Deflection

All in all, you and others are quite proficient in using these tactics to steer conversations to the conclusions that support your own preconceived biases and goals. That it, to convince others that the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is not the true church of God.

Some folks are a bit more transparent (lack of rhetorical skills) in their goals. Others are a bit more skilled at using rhetorical skills to try and get what they want.

Regards,
MG

OK - if common questioning techniques, and requests for clarification are subjective, I see no need to continue to attempt to reason with you on this. There's no conversation to be had.

I agree. The conversation could not continue sitting on a foundation of subjectivity rather than being objective. And that is the problem with many of these discussions. I'm merely pointing it out this time around. Why? Because I've been subjected to similar rhetorical play frequently over time and have simply ignored or gone along with it because it's tedious to point out the fact that critics tend towards being subjective in what they argue/say as much as any religionist.

Regards,
MG

[Marcus]

The last several posts by the mental gymnast exemplify why I still consider MG to be nothing more than a troll. He was the one who started off arguing size and influence were evidence, when he was proven wrong, he adjusted the definition several times, and after Chap definitively and objectively proved him wrong, AGAIN, he simply defined Chap's argument as subjective and then completely changed his position.

And now, after malkie pointed out he was asking for clarification and using common questioning techniques, the mental gymnast has declared those two techniques subjective (!!!) also.

MG has also fallen back on cut-and-pasting AI generated comments, in spite of Shades directing him at least 4 times to STOP. MG was even briefly suspended for this, but, he is back at it again.

In short, MG 2.0 disrupts, provokes, and derails. He does it by fabricating issues, breaking rules, flipflopping on what he says he believes, and exhibiting breathtaking levels of intellectual dishonesty. Why would a poster simply flipflop on a position? They would if they were a troll whose only intent is to disrupt.

[Chap]

Well, let's see ... it is claimed that, unlike the attention often given to statements by the Pope, little attention is paid (outside Utah) to public utterances of the prophet for the time being of the CoJCoLDS. The claim by MG is that the preceding statement is purely subjective and hence, no more than a matter of how one individual happens to feel rather than having any objective basis.

I have a subscription to the Washington Post. As I look at the main page for today I see the following list of hot news topics:

Trending: Shutdown vote count Pope Leo Ultra-processed foods Fujiwhara effect LeBron James

I asked the Post's AI bot when the Post last mentioned Nelson, before the report of his death. The answer was:



Then I asked the Post how many times Pope Leo had been mentioned since his accession on May 8, 2025. The answer was, in effect, too many times to count, which certainly tallies with my own experience.

Is that perhaps non-subjective enough to count as evidence in favour of Malkie's claim? I suspect it would not be difficult to obtain more.

The argument is still within the realm of subjectivity. The fact is, many major religious organizations that are now worldwide 'influencers' because of size, started small and/or with less influence. Using this as valid reason for the LDS Church not being 'True' is subjective because the great unknown is whether the LDS Church will continue to spread throughout the world and gain greater influence than it has. The actual truth is that the church has a significant influence for a church of its size.

By using this subjective statement as a 'proof' is a fallacy. Philosophical fallacy. Argumentum ad populum-that something is true or important because many people believe it.

Essentially, there is a degree of subjectivity being displayed here as well as through the rest of the post I responded to and have listed those subjective elements.

Regards,
MG

Oh, I see! At first you were claiming that it was subjective to say that, in effect, that "unlike the attention often given to statements by the Pope, little attention is paid (outside Utah) to public utterances of the prophet for the time being of the CoJCoLDS". Now we have seen at least some objective evidence tending to show that this is the case.

Now you seem to have switched to saying something different: it is subjective to claim that the failure of statements by the head of the CoJCoLDS to draw widespread attention shows that the CoJCoLDS is not 'True'. Since I don't think any religion is true, I won't follow you down that rabbit-hole.

[malkie]

Are you really denying? - You're saying that for me to ask you a question is subjective on my part? Or, if you prefer, asking you to clarify something you said which is not clear?
your god - subjective because ... what? it contains the word "your"? OK - replace "your god" with "Mormon god", which., as you know, means the same thing. Still subjective?
Surely your god could... - again, how am I supposed to ask a question, or ask for clarification, if such common terms are not permissible?
You seem to want to limit him... - ditto
without any good reason... - what makes this subjective? The fact that I've noted that you have not provided a reason?

Skip to the end - there's no point in going through this kind of stuff.

OK - if common questioning techniques, and requests for clarification are subjective, I see no need to continue to attempt to reason with you on this. There's no conversation to be had.

I agree. The conversation could not continue sitting on a foundation of subjectivity rather than being objective. And that is the problem with many of these discussions. I'm merely pointing it out this time around. Why? Because I've been subjected to similar rhetorical play frequently over time and have simply ignored or gone along with it because it's tedious to point out the fact that critics tend towards being subjective in what they argue/say as much as any religionist.

Regards,
MG

Can be ignored - full of unsupported assertions, opinions, and subjective value judgements.

Please try again, with only facts this time.

[Res Ipsa]

MG 2.0, you’ve obviously read or listened to something that has given you an epiphany about something to do with “subjective elements.” Would you please list your source so that the rest of us can understand what the heck you are talking about?