DiscussMormonism.com

Posted: **Thu Oct 02, 2025 10:12 pm**

Morley wrote: ↑
Thu Oct 02, 2025 10:10 pm

MG 2.0 wrote: ↑
Thu Oct 02, 2025 5:17 pm
My point is that it makes it difficult to respond when a poster creates a list that is a mix of subjective elements mixed with what may be objective fact even if cherry picked. It would be awfully time consuming to separate fact from fiction (subjective elements). In my original response to malkie's list I responded to several of his concerns. It became evident to me that I was responding to this "mix" I've referred to and that as such we would continue to go around in circles.

You're right, many of these discussions do bounce back and forth intermingling fact with fiction (subjective elements). That's what makes it so hard for a believer to enter in and have the 'steam' to continue when subjective is mixed with objective facts that may be contextually independent of the 'larger story'. In my response to malkie I was simply pointing out the fact that subjective elements might skew the overall objective value of what is being said.

I admit, as has been said, that I also construct my posts not without subjective 'opinion' and belief. Critics do have the advantage because they take the position that only 'rational' conversation can rule the day. That which can be readily confirmed/proved through either the natural senses and/or that which has received overall consensus by those that consider themselves to be materialists and/or secular humanists. I see that as a limited way to view the world.

There will be conflict and disagreement as a result.

Again, my point is that critics, materialists, and secular humanists are just as prone to either consciously or unconsciously throw in subjective elements to the conversation that muddy the waters and make it difficult to respond especially when a large volume of text/lists are thrown in.

Beyond that, I don't think I was trying to make any other point.
I'm reading this as you saying all arguments have subjective portions. Yours, mine, theirs, ours, everyone's. Everything is subjective. Even objective truth is open to subjective interpretation, which makes even that which is objective somewhat subjective.

Res is reading it a little differently. Care to weigh in?

My money’s on “you’re both wrong” and a pivot.

Posted: **Thu Oct 02, 2025 10:15 pm**

MG 2.0 wrote: ↑
Thu Oct 02, 2025 8:39 pm
...Disparity is not evidence for the nonexistence of God. Conclusions that different folks come to, generally speaking, lead towards good works an and moral behavior and recognition of ‘sin’. When a person is living their religion and/or their eight fold path, in the case of Buddhism, or any other system that leads towards goodness, empathy, charitable works…they are growing closer to the Creator of all things.

Although the entire statement above by MG is technically subjective, I highlighted the part that I find most egregiously subjective. After several pages of arguing that 'critics' (his word) are overly subjective, it's difficult to imagine that MG doesn't see his subjectivity here.

People can be reaching for and succeeding in their efforts to do good and live according to their goals, but it is purely MG's subjective opinion and belief that this has anything to do with the god HE believes in. I have no problem with a personal statement of faith that HE believes his works help him grow closer to the god HE believes in, but he didn't state it that way, he stated itas though it's a given for all humans.

This brings the argument back around to his first statement that "disparity (of belief) is not evidence for the nonexistence of god." In one sense, it's a trivial argument, because nothing constitutes "evidence" for the existence of god, especially not beliefs, disparate or otherwise. In another sense, a subjective one, he is profoundly wrong, because, by definition, each different belief in a different god, type of god, set of gods, no god, supreme power, etc., subjectively supports what that particular person believes in, and nothing more.

It's a bit of a convoluted argument, but let me try to explain my opinion this way. It's as if one person told everyone else not only that their subjective belief was the only right one, but also that other types of belief are lesser, but are on the right path, and eventually other beliefs will realize the one person's belief is the only right one.

That brings us back to the Mormon belief that they are 'the one and only true religion.' It's subjective and, in my opinion, more than a little condescending.

Posted: **Fri Oct 03, 2025 4:22 am**

Morley wrote: ↑
Thu Oct 02, 2025 5:01 pm

malkie wrote: ↑
Thu Oct 02, 2025 2:30 pm
Thank you, especially Morley, Chap, Marcus, IHQ, and Res.

I have to admit that I've been extremely disappointed in the way in which MG has taken what appears to be an extreme concept of "subjectivity" and tried to turn it into a tool or weapon - or perhaps a silver bullet.

Normally I would not have pursued the line of dialog that I did past a couple of back-and-forth exchanges, but this time I felt that I really had to dig my heels in and, in effect, force the issue.

I appreciate those who have jumped in from time to time to emphasize points that I let slip, and those who, for me anyway, helped to put the matter to rest.
It's a painful process, but thank you for you pursuing this. It seems that sometimes MG's goal is to make the discussion so tedious that everyone drops it.

His "Everything is subjective" has a certain banal nihilism buried in it. It projects a sort of dull, flattened worldview, where nothing is really worth debating, everything is arbitrary, and nothing ultimately matters. He's doing this in the area where he really believes that everything matters: whether or not the CoJCoLDS is "true."

I wonder if he will ever answer the questions left hanging. In a way it doesn't matter.

But I'd still like to see the process of turning 9 into 11.
Wait!!! I've got it! 9 (base ten) = 11 (base eight) - MG is running on octal hardware

But, seriously, though I cannot help wondering, I have to accept that I'll never know.

Posted: **Fri Oct 03, 2025 5:27 am**

Wing men? Hey, Mormons fully object to giving one trillion dollars of Obamacare benefits to illegal aliens from Mexico. Can't fool them!

Posted: **Fri Oct 03, 2025 7:52 am**

malkie wrote: ↑
Fri Oct 03, 2025 4:22 am
Morley wrote: ↑
Thu Oct 02, 2025 5:01 pm
It's a painful process, but thank you for you pursuing this. It seems that sometimes MG's goal is to make the discussion so tedious that everyone drops it.

His "Everything is subjective" has a certain banal nihilism buried in it. It projects a sort of dull, flattened worldview, where nothing is really worth debating, everything is arbitrary, and nothing ultimately matters. He's doing this in the area where he really believes that everything matters: whether or not the CoJCoLDS is "true."
I wonder if he will ever answer the questions left hanging. In a way it doesn't matter.

But I'd still like to see the process of turning 9 into 11.
Wait!!! I've got it! 9 (base ten) = 11 (base eight) - MG is running on octal hardware

But, seriously, though I cannot help wondering, I have to accept that I'll never know.

My thought is this: if you look at his post (I quoted it below) where he first put the paragraph numbers with counts, you'll notice that he left off the first part of your post, then quoted your 1 through 9, then included the last two paragraphs of your post.

Then he wrote:

"Unfortunately, when I brought over your original post your list didn't transfer. This is the list I am referring to with subjective words and phrases:"

I think that when he copied your post into his AI, the formatting was lost, and all he "brought over" was 11 paragraphs (1 through 9 and your final two comments). His AI then labeled them as Paragraphs 1 through 11, and merely counted things based on whatever his prompt was-maybe his AI interpreted the prompt as simply "count the number of subjects in these 11 groups."

Then, when he cut and pasted his AI generated responses back here, he attached them to your truncated post that included your list with the numbered formatting and the final two paragraphs. One would think one would notice that the AI-generated content made no sense because the AI was commenting on 11 paragraphs when he was pretending he wrote it in order to comment on 9 items, but maybe he doesn't read his AI cheatsheets that carefully.

That's my best theory on how 9 becomes 11 in a world where AI's hallucinate and gymnasts do apologetics.

Here's his post:

MG 2.0 wrote: ↑
Sun Sep 28, 2025 12:20 am
malkie wrote: ↑
Sat Sep 27, 2025 1:59 am

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

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

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

You refer to "scriptural prophesy" that seems to support point [4] - so 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.
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.

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.

I'm sure I've missed some points here, but I think it's enough of a response for now. I hope I matched up the numbering correctly

Like I said: I believe that your comments are full special pleadings that privilege your chosen viewpoint above all others; and unsupported conditionals, like "If god appeared to Joseph Smith..."
Unfortunately, when I brought over your original post your list didn't transfer. This is the list I am referring to with subjective words and phrases:

Paragraph 1: three
Paragraph 2: none
Paragraph 3: five
Paragraph 4: two
Paragraph 5: two
Paragraph 6: none
Paragraph 7: two
Paragraph 8: one
Paragraph 9: one
Paragraph 10: none
Paragraph 11: two

As I said, this makes it somewhat difficult to respond for reasons you might see.

Regards,
MG

Posted: **Fri Oct 03, 2025 9:40 pm**

Morley wrote: ↑
Thu Oct 02, 2025 9:50 pm
MG 2.0 wrote: ↑
Thu Oct 02, 2025 8:43 pm
I have no idea what you’re saying here and how it applies to everything I’ve said recently in this thread or what came before. I don’t see anything to engage with here. You really didn’t engage with anything I’ve said on the last page or two.

I suppose I can say, “Have a nice day!”

Regards,
MG
You're saying all arguments are subjective--both the critical and the apologetic, both malkie's and yours. You're using that as an excuse to avoid answering malkie.

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.

I suppose I could simply ignore the long posts consisting of listed items which are partly fact and partly fiction (subjective elements). The problem is, then the fiction plays a part in how the objective fact or partial facts might be interpreted by the 'honest bystander'. Again, it would be helpful to post smaller chunks of text/lists to make them more manageable by those that would like to respond without taking a whole day to do so.

Regards,
MG

Posted: **Fri Oct 03, 2025 9:48 pm**

Chap wrote: ↑
Thu Oct 02, 2025 10:12 pm
MG 2.0 wrote: ↑
Thu Oct 02, 2025 8:39 pm
That is the world which we see. Disparity is not evidence for the nonexistence of God.
That may be, but the unfortunate fact seems to be that all those religions can't be true at the same time. Thus the Abrahamic deity is a very poor fit with the Buddhist world view, in which deities are no more than beings (note the plural) above the human level, but still in need of release from the wheel of rebirth, desire and suffering. And, looked at closely, the Abrahamic deity is such a mess of contradictions that it is very difficult to see how there could be said to be any coherent evidence for his existence.

Conclusions that different folks come to, generally speaking, lead towards good works an and moral behavior and recognition of ‘sin’. When a person is living their religion and/or their eight fold path, in the case of Buddhism, or any other system that leads towards goodness, empathy, charitable works…they are growing closer to the Creator of all things.

The most scrupulously ethical, kind (and I may add socially and financially charitable) people I have met in the course of my life so far have been a family of completely atheist scientists, one of whose children once asked me "To what interesting question is the idea of 'God' supposed to be an answer?" The Confucian thinker Meng Zi (name often latinised as Mencius), active c. 320 BCE summarised the classic view of human nature held amongst most of the educated elite of China over many centuries: human nature is naturally good. People's original nature can be distorted if they are subject to rulers who terrorise or starve them, but if you let them live a normal human life in secure conditions they will be dutiful children, caring parents, loyal friends and good neighbours. No deity is needed to supply them with commandments from above. Decency and kindness are built in. I have to say that my experience in spending time in a number of different cultures has tended to incline me to the same view. Learn enough of the local language to be polite and express gratitude, behave respectfully in accordance with local ideas of what that means, and most people are glad to see you and happy to help.

Looking at the state of the world today, especially in the Middle East, it is by no means clear to me that the creation of the concept of the Abrahamic deity worshipped by Jews, Christians and Muslims has, on the whole, been on balance a good thing for humanity. I don't think I need enter into any details to make that point, do I?

Chap, no one is forcing you to be a religionist. Or a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints in particular. I would suggest, however, that you might want to reconsider spending too much extracurricular time in trying to dissuade folks from practicing their religious impulses. I do agree with you, however, that when fundamentalist religious folks plan/plot to carry out violent actions against others, including their own society...that should not be tolerated, and those people should be found out and stopped/punished.

Those that are simply practicing their religion and are doing good to others and taking care of business, so to speak, should be left alone in my opinion. I know, you are probably just doing that online and not in real life...but the fact is...you're preaching to the choir here.

Regards,
MG

Posted: **Sat Oct 04, 2025 12:07 am**

Morley wrote: ↑
Thu Oct 02, 2025 5:01 pm
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

Posted: **Sat Oct 04, 2025 12:40 am**

MG 2.0 wrote: ↑
Sat Oct 04, 2025 12:07 am

Morley wrote: ↑
Thu Oct 02, 2025 5:01 pm
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

As is your response. It's subjective, and that's okay and worthy of a reply. That a sentence is subjective is no reason to avoid responding.

I think that it was Res who asked earlier what you read that got you using this "subjective" vs "objective" framing. I'm wondering about that, too. Where the blazes are you getting this? It is beyond strange.

Posted: **Sat Oct 04, 2025 12:49 am**

Morley wrote: ↑
Sat Oct 04, 2025 12:30 am
2. Subjective does not equal fictional. Are you kidding? How the hell are you reduced to thinking that?

You're right. Subjective does not ALWAYS mean fictional. I stand corrected on that point. Interpretive framing, however, along with factual claims can make it more difficult to respond cleanly if done in volume and/or intensity. We might compare interpretations (subjective elements) and facts to Christmas lights that get tangled up. It's hard to know where to start untangling...and it takes a LOT of time (if you've ever had to untangle lights before putting them up).

One might even say, "What's the use?" That's why I'm suggesting, again, and again, that in discussions such as these it might be better/easier to present questions and issues in short little bite sized chunks so that they don't get all tangled up with the facts and interpretations (subjective elements) co-mingled.

I think that may be about all I have to say about it. I've spent too much time already trying to explain my responses to malkie earlier in the thread. It's a reoccurring theme. It would be nice to see it nipped in the bud. Obviously, however, I cannot control the rhetorical style of how others post.

Best wishes.

Regards,
MG

DiscussMormonism.com

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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