liz3564 wrote:This whole Simon thread got me thinking. Are people so blinded by their own ideas that they only see what they think will further their ideas?
A friend of mine has this video posted on his Facebook page:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/12/0 ... lp00000009The Huffington Post states that Michelle Bachman gave the mother of the child an "icy stare" as they left. I watched the video twice. I saw her handling the whole situation very gracefully. She waved and smiled at the little boy as they left and then went back to her book signing.
What am I missing? And do we do this in our debate wiith Mormonism? Simon seems to think that Darth does this. That is what the whole thread is about. Darth, on the other hand, states firmly that he is simply stating the truth.
Do our views affect how we can each view the same thing? Thoughts?
Maybe. I might for myself phrase it that we each have a handful of important principles we hold fast too. When we interact with others, whose handful of principles important to each of them differ from our own, we give different weight and importance to the topics at hand than those others do. The farther we drill down, the more defensive each of us may become.
For example, some on my side of the divide hold fast to the virtues of education. Open-mindedness is the touchstone, but they might not be as open minded to discuss say reducing funding for education in this time of economic sluggishness. On such a topic, the water leaked and the core of their nuclear reactor is now exposed and overheating.
When one party to the conversation holds fast to an entire bundle of ideas and notions, like Mormonism, as if an 'important principle', he or she begins defending some things that are part of the bundle, but not naturally appealing to that person. If he or she selected principles one by one rather than a bundle, he or she would be more clear in purpose and able to explain why a selected principle is appealing and deserving of merit by others. But with the bundle that might include what a person would select as core principles, comes baggage. That's where it gets funny.
For example, mak in that thread argues that in a religion that claims modern revelation, such has to be subordinate to what god said to prophets of old and has been canonized. So what God has to say today isn't as important as what he said in days of yore? God has never said that. There's no scripture that reads, "Thus saith the Lord, what my prophets told you long ago that I said Trump's what my prophets today might tell you I said." But mak points to Mike Ash for stringing together some quotes by these modern prophets to that effect. Wait, though, how can they tell us what is more important God-speak-through-prophets than other such God-speak? Wouldn't it have to be the olden times prophets, those that new ones defer to re their God-speak, for it to be authoritative? (As Kish put it, mak's position boils to this: doctrine Trump's policy, except when policy is defining what doctrine is.)
Many of my core principles about fairness can be described as 'due process' as that term is used in the law. However, I do not defend all the nuances and parameters of due process as has been carved out by American jurisprudence. For example, I find the notion of 'substantive due process' an oxymoron, not just in the label but in the mischief it unleashes.
But Mormonism teaches that you are either all in, defending it entirely, or Satan has gotten a hold over you and planted the seeds of apostasy. So TBMs defend some pretty indefensible crap, notions that standing alone would not be appealing to them.