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

[Morley]

It seems that...
sometimes...

My God, MG. Generally when a discussant uses terms like "it seems" and "sometimes," it's because they're trying not to be too dogmatic. Those are words that are used to soften the blow.

"It seems Melvin sometimes acts idiotically" is a lot softer than "Melvin is an idiot." Using "it seems" doesn't make the first sentence any more or less subjective (or objective) that the second.

You taught school. You should know this.

[malkie]

It seems that sometimes MG's goal is to make the discussion so tedious that everyone drops it.

It seems that...
sometimes...
MG's goal is...
to make the discussion so tedious...
that everyone drops it...

Rhetorical framing that casts my behavior in a negative light, using implication and tone rather than direct evidence. It raises a concern because it introduces a challenge that may affect the clarity or progress of the discussion. It is this challenge...mixing fact with fiction (subjective elements) ...that can impede conversation especially when posts are constructed, like I said, in a manner where it is very difficult to attack a "word wall" or flak coming in such amounts/volume that one is reminded of a cloud burst and the resulting flood.

This is a problem. And you wrote just one sentence! Granted, Morely, your one sentence response was a bit easier to handle than malkie's original post which might have been compared to a cloudburst.

Regards,
MG

Note: Sorry if this comment is too long for you: much of the length is made up of my quoting statements that you made, and which I'm now asking you to justify.

Since you're so concerned about subjectivity, can you please rewrite your comments at the following link to remove the "fictional" elements that you included: viewtopic.php?p=2909946#p2909946

This is at least the second time I've asked this.

Here's a summary, with only your statements, not the prompts you were replying to, on the grounds that, for the purpose of identifying "fictional" statements, the prompts are not relevant:

• I think He already has.
• Yes. I[t] makes sense for reasons I've already mentioned.
• I've given reasons for why I think He already has.
• They are views that I believe are substantiated by scriptural exegesis and prophecy. No one can 100% read the mind of God. We have to go on the evidence. I think at this point in time, size does matter in regard to looking at the growth in the CofJCofLDS since its inception.
• The language is rather clear in the scriptures. I would challenge you to find other interpretations that would better explain the scriptures in the Old and New Testament that refer to the latter-day work.
• I think you're right in saying that the "signs of the times" are open to interpretation and that people have different points of view.
• I'm not Roman Catholic because I believe that Catholicism doesn't make sense to me. Trinity, etc.
• I don't see the gaps. Thursday I went up on the Front Runner to Salt Lake with a friend. We visited a few places including the Church History Library. I read through the actual manuscript accounts of the 1832, 1835, and 1842(38) versions. They each made sense and I was able to dovetail the different accounts together. They fit.

It's very difficult to take seriously your complaints about subjectivity (or, as you now seem to prefer, "fiction") when you make so many fictional statements in such a small number of words.

And while you're about it, may I remind you that, in spite of several requests, you still haven't accounted for your replying to my 9 points with 11 responses. You've been ignoring this short and simple question for a while.

For the moment, how about just ignoring how cloudbursty my 9-point comment was, and tell us how you got from my 9 numbered points to your Paragraphs 1-11? If you feel like it, you might also explain why you claimed to have identified my subjective statements, but firstly gave only a count of such; and then, when challenged, gave "details" that didn't agree with your previous count. (Quite apart from the fact that some of the elements you claimed were subjective were demonstrably not so.)

[MG 2.0]

"It seems Melvin sometimes acts idiotically" is a lot softer than "Melvin is an idiot." Using "it seems" doesn't make the first sentence any more or less subjective (or objective) that the second.

The first sentence may be softer than the second, but they are both subjective/interpretive. They may both be absolute fiction. That's why I said much earlier in the thread that this sort of rhetoric makes it very difficult to separate fact from interpretation (which could be absolutely false). In that case, it IS fiction. When done in volume/frequency, such as in long bullet lists, it is very difficult and time consuming to untangle the Christmas lights.

That's pretty much ALL I've been saying.

Regards,
MG

[Morley]

As I said earlier, the list was a bit long and somewhat overwhelming to sit down and go through the whole thing separating the subjective elements from the objective facts. I started to do so but tired of it. I've spent too much time trying to separate fact from fiction in longer posts and it does indeed get to be a bit tiresome. I would just as well when a critic has an issue to bring up that it isn't done in a manner which creates more or less a word wall.

malkie's post was long because he patiently and carefully addressed your concerns. You kept raising objections to his content and style, so he modified and worked through what you had to say. It was complicated because you made it that way when you would respond straight forwardly. It looked to me like malkie decided he wasn't going to let you sidetrack the discussion--so he responded point by point to your objections.

That's my read on it, anyway.

[MG 2.0]

Note: Sorry if this comment is too long for you: much of the length is made up of my quoting statements that you made, and which I'm now asking you to justify.

Nowhere have I said that my posts aren't subjective/interpretive in their nature at times. The difference is, I’ve consistently acknowledged that I’m working from belief, exegesis, and personal reasoning. You are being subjective in an interpretive fashion as you reconfigure either fact or partial facts (cherry picking) having to do with Mormon issues and then construct a narrative built around that. The interpretive nature attached to what not only you do but others also do muddy the waters.

As I've said, much earlier in the thread, and as Morley has said, this is what humans do. But the result is we are really never able to completely understand what the facts are in their entirety. We all have biases and subjective reasoning that sort of get in the way.

I think I'm done. You've made yourself clear, and I hope I have.

Regards,
MG

[malkie]

Still waiting for your explanation about the difference between 9 points and 11 responses.

Just the facts, please, MG.

[Limnor]

Still waiting for your explanation about the difference between 9 points and 11 responses.

Just the facts, please, MG.

Seconded. I’m interested in the explanation as well.

[malkie]

Still waiting for your explanation about the difference between 9 points and 11 responses.

Just the facts, please, MG.

Seconded. I’m interested in the explanation as well.

Marcus provided a theory/rationale (viewtopic.php?p=2910696#p2910696) for the discrepancy. Whether the theory is valid, we may never know. MG has not countered Marcus' description with facts that likely only he can provide - he seems to be rather resistant to giving his own explanation.

Marcus also provided evidence (viewtopic.php?p=2910563#p2910563) that MG has made objectively untrue statements which he seemed to have difficulty acknowledging. You made a similar observation (viewtopic.php?p=2906190#p2906190) early on.

[Marcus]

"It seems Melvin sometimes acts idiotically" is a lot softer than "Melvin is an idiot." Using "it seems" doesn't make the first sentence any more or less subjective (or objective) that the second.

The first sentence may be softer than the second, but they are both subjective/interpretive. They may both be absolute fiction. That's why I said much earlier in the thread that this sort of rhetoric makes it very difficult to separate fact from interpretation (which could be absolutely false). In that case, it IS fiction. When done in volume/frequency, such as in long bullet lists, it is very difficult and time consuming to untangle the Christmas lights.

That's pretty much ALL I've been saying....

Is the mental gymnast actually saying he cannot separate FACT from FICTION?? Not to mention the completely subjective analogy that he sees identifying objective statements and subjective statements as difficult as untangling Christmas lights. It's not.

We teach children in middle school the difference between objective facts and subjective opinion, and we gave them practice identifying such statements. We also teach them that opinions are what people think and feel, and in a really hard part of 6th grade, we might even explore the idea that telling other people their subjective opinions are FALSE is inappropriate. We teach them that we reserve concepts of FALSE and TRUE for properly evaluating objective statements.

It sounds like MG is admitting he has difficulty separating fact from fiction, and the more subjective and objective statements he encounters, the more he loses whatever limited ability he had to distinguish between them. That's very unfortunate. He might benefit from spending some time with a tutor.

[Marcus]

...Nowhere have I said that my posts aren't subjective/interpretive in their nature at times. The difference is, I’ve consistently acknowledged that I’m working from belief, exegesis, and personal reasoning.

MG's sentences here constitute an objective statement that is absolutely false. He does not consistently acknowledge anything of the sort. In fact, he frequently does exactly the opposite. He regularly states his religious opinions as though they were verified fact for every person on this planet.

You are being subjective in an interpretive fashion as you reconfigure either fact or partial facts (cherry picking) having to do with Mormon issues and then construct a narrative built around that. The interpretive nature attached to what not only you do but others also do muddy the waters.

MG is stating his subjective opinion here. In my opinion his level of projection is so obvious it is laughable.