Peterson the historical skeptic

[malkie]

Before evaluating your performance, I'd like to see an example of your nested bad language.

As I understand it, you should be not only able to curse, but also to curse again within the first curse, and then again within the second curse, and so on, over and over again. I believe that the technical term is recursion - is that right?

Not tonight. Recursion makes me feel loopy. : )

Would you like to have a short discussion (or a small talk) about how you are feeling?

[MG 2.0]

I disagree with what I interpret as your attempt to place Smith and his actions squarely and only into one of two tidy little boxes - Fraud, or Prophet - while ignoring the vast sea of grey that simultaneously exists between, envelops and overlaps the two.

How wide is the literal divide in online forums like this. Months ago I mentioned a book I was reading called Black and White Thinking-The Burden of a Binary Brain in a Complex World. You say that I ignore a vast sea of grey between Joseph the Prophet and Joseph the man. This man who at times had faults and committed sin and at other times spoke and acted/taught as a prophet.

That thinking, right there, is putting ME in a box as though I’m not able to straddle two points of view/realities in regards to Joseph. I’m a bit disappointed that this hasn’t shown through as I’ve participated on this board. Oh well.

It’s a choice that makes the decision simple, if that’s what is desired…

Oh, it’s not as simple as you make it out to be.

…after all, who wants to see their faith leader as a Fraud? And if he’s a Prophet, then what need is there for one to think past what (he) says?

I’m sure that this has a certain degree of truth to it. In my case, however, if I was convinced Joseph Smith was a fraud I would take my family, sit them down, and have a serious talk. But, that’s not the way I see it, so we haven’t had to sit down and have that talk thankfully. I believe and know that’s a real possibility/danger in cults. I’ve seen it. And it’s terribly unfortunate to observe years of a person’s life essentially wasted or ruined by a cultish leader or group.

But I do feel that such a dogmatic equation can subconsciously squelch some appreciation of the world and the wonders within that surround us all ... so I tend to reject it.

I think as an outsider you are prone to stereotyping. You’re doing that right here. Again, I’m a bit disappointed that you would paint me with such a broad brush.

In any event, I enjoy the conversation. And not because I’m trying to change your mind. Because I’m not. : )

No worries. You won’t change my mind. I think for myself and in some ways may be a little like you. I’m skeptical of authority. I’m independent in thought. But at the same time I believe in a creator God and have been able to successfully mesh this belief with membership in the CofJCofLDS. I believe it is God’s church and Jesus Christ is at its head.

Regards,
MG

[canpakes]

But I do feel that such a dogmatic equation can subconsciously squelch some appreciation of the world and the wonders within that surround us all ... so I tend to reject it.

I think as an outsider you are prone to stereotyping. You’re doing that right here. Again, I’m a bit disappointed that you would paint me with such a broad brush.

I think that some stereotyping in discussions like this is unavoidable. It’s part of the process by which folks define their encounters and surroundings, and structure their response.

Consider that I’m not applying the label to you, directly. My comment regards your particular characterization of Smith, multiple times, within this thread. You’ve wanted to force a very clear dichotomy where Smith is either God’s tool in the indisputable way that Smith himself asserts, or a Fraud who is only acting to deceive others within a pre-planned and detailed ‘long con’.

Those are two very distinct choices. Are they the only ones?

[MG 2.0]

I think as an outsider you are prone to stereotyping. You’re doing that right here. Again, I’m a bit disappointed that you would paint me with such a broad brush.

I think that some stereotyping in discussions like this is unavoidable. It’s part of the process by which folks define their encounters and surroundings, and structure their response.

Consider that I’m not applying the label to you, directly. My comment regards your particular characterization of Smith, multiple times, within this thread. You’ve wanted to force a very clear dichotomy where Smith is either God’s tool in the indisputable way that Smith himself asserts, or a Fraud who is only acting to deceive others within a pre-planned and detailed ‘long con’.

Those are two very distinct choices. Are they the only ones?

No. And I’ve looked at other possibilities, one being pious fraud. For a number of reasons as I looked at this alternative I found that it didn’t fit what I could see from the historical record and also looking from a bird’s eye view of what occurred as a result. I’m not sure that I want to go into all that right now. Good topic for another day. I’ve been on this board a lot for the last couple of days. At a later date if you would like to go the pious fraud route (which is a heading with a number of sub headings) I’d be interested.

I’ve enjoyed the last couple days discussion. With you mainly. The other stuff has been more or less static and noise. I enjoyed the input of a few other posters also. A few that I hadn’t interacted with before. Malkie, I enjoyed our back and forth also.

Off for now.

Regards,
MG

[malkie]

...
I’ve enjoyed the last couple days discussion. With you mainly. The other stuff has been more or less static and noise. I enjoyed the input of a few other posters also. A few that I hadn’t interacted with before. Malkie, I enjoyed our back and forth also.

Off for now.

Regards,
MG

Unfortunately, MG, I didn't enjoy it - not much at all. I'm much less likely to interact with you in the future.

But that's just me.

[doubtingthomas]

I’m so over bad actors. They have no character.

- Doc

MG is not a bad actor. You simply don't understand his point of view.

[doubtingthomas]

No. And I’ve looked at other possibilities, one being pious fraud.

How about false memory? Many of your faith promoting accounts were written many years after the fact.

[Dr Exiled]

[The gospel as taught by the CofJCofLDS] looks concocted to anyone not immersed in the religious culture.

I don’t think that is a fair/accurate assessment. Granted, there are more people that reject rather than accept the gospel and it’s teachings. But MANY of those that do accept the gospel are truly converted to Christ and the Plan of Salvation.

I’m assuming that you are referring to the missionary lessons as they are taught to investigators?

Regards,
MG

This is the thing. Cojcolds conflates the common teachings such as love your neighbor or do unto others as you would want them to do unto you with its fantastical authority claims. Everything that is good doesn't have as its base cojcolds. Over the centuries, people have discovered certain ethics and then religious imposters, like Joseph Smith, have stolen them, claiming that they are from the God that chose them to be the leader. Families were important prior to Cojcolds claiming it as its own.

For me, the start is with Joseph Smith himself and his scrying. It's a killer. Joseph Smith used the same rock to supposedly bring forth the Book of Mormon that was used to trick his neighbors about buried treasure. His story was concocted to cover for his embarrassment of being caught, just like the criminal will turn to Jesus. His plates conveniently disappeared and he didn't use them anyway. Where is the evidence that the Nephites were actually here? Why doesn't cojcolds dig in central america or wherever to find the evidence? It certainly has the money and think of how many would join if actual evidence were to be found?

[Doctor CamNC4Me]

... I’ve looked at other possibilities, one being pious fraud. For a number of reasons as I looked at this alternative I found that it didn’t fit what I could see from the historical record and also looking from a bird’s eye view of what occurred as a result.

You wanna know how I know MG hasn’t read No Man Knows My History? ^

“Joseph could with a certain honesty inveigh against adultery in the same week that he slept with another man's wife, or indeed several men's wives, because he had interposed a very special marriage ceremony. And who was to say him nay, since in the gentile world the simple pronouncement of a few time-word phrases by any justice of peace was all that was necessary to transform fornication into blessed matrimony. The spoken word stood between him and his own guilt. And with Joseph the word was God.” (Pg. 308)

The level of BS coming out of MG’s fingertips is massive, continuous, and will never stop. It’s not even psychologically fascinating any more because it’s pathological. I think it’s safe to say MG and Joseph Smith are cut from the same cloth, which isn’t at all a compliment.

- Doc

[MG 2.0]

I’m so over bad actors. They have no character.

- Doc

MG is not a bad actor. You simply don't understand his point of view.

That seems to be what many kerfluffles of any kind revolve around. We look at the ‘other’ as being a bad actor because they don’t see things our way.

Regards,
MG