Truth: I did call a few people morons recently - One was someone who has addressed me a total of two times (I think it was two) on this board and both times he/she suggested that I was a racist. I replied that I thought he/she was a moron.
What morons say have very little weight in my world.
And, only an utter moron, like you, think that saying 90 million American citizens are blah blah blah is any different than saying 70 million American citizens are blah blah blah. - In either case, that's a LOT of Americans.
And, I don't care why you think I put 90 million (as if an utter moron like you actually practices this thing called thinking) - I already told you why.
Other than writing moronic posts like this, how much of your time do you spend finding racists in the world?
Look - The board superhero that has racism detection built into his cape has again detected a racist.
What a freaking total moron!
IHAQ,
I am not interested in laying out a case to convince you of anything. I engage people directly when I chose to do so. I don't need board support and/or a group to back me.
Also, while I was engaging Marcus directly, you may have noticed that I did not bring up the name of the other person that Marucs was referring to when Marcus injected this challenge to me in this thread - concerning previous events with another poster from other threads. There was a reason that I chose not to do that - So, given your heightened interest to lay out posts from other threads that are damning to me (I don't really care about that) you have injected this other poster's name into this thread - a thread that said poster isn't even participating in - And I would not have done that.
I do have a small request. Could you stop calling people morons? We are in a forum that prohibits personal attacks.
You have a problem with me calling a certain board member a moron (a certain board member that happens to be on your ideological team), while suffering from complete and total lockjaw over the hundreds and hundreds of times that other people on this board call other certain people (who happen to not be on your ideological team) morons on a daily basis?
You are not only a high-level hypocrite, You're also a moron.
Can you point me in the direction of where someone suggested you were a racist? All I could find was you doing this type of thing…
IHAQ,
I am not interested in laying out a case to convince you of anything. I engage people directly when I chose to do so. I don't need board support and/or a group to back me.
Also, while I was engaging Marcus directly, you may have noticed that I did not bring up the name of the other person that Marucs was referring to when Marcus injected this challenge to me in this thread - concerning previous events with another poster from other threads. There was a reason that I chose not to do that - So, given your heightened interest to lay out posts from other threads that are damning to me (I don't really care about that) you have injected this other poster's name into this thread - a thread that said poster isn't even participating in - And I would not have done that.
I thought that was the exchange you were referring to when you labelled your recounting of it as “Truth”.
It seems you and I use differing definitions of the word “truth”…
Premise 1. Eyewitness testimony is notoriously unreliable.
Premise 2. The best evidence for the Book of Mormon is eyewitness testimony.
Conclusion. Therefore, the best evidence for the Book of Mormon is notoriously unreliable.
Back on Z, one of the vocal apologists championed a description of Mormons as (I'm paraphrasing) "socially conservative but epistemically liberal." Basically a description of Nazism, or the present Republican party.
People may have different understandings of what it means to be "liberal". When someone like Huck asks the question, I assume he means socially liberal in some way, pro LGBT, pro women and priesthood etc. However, it's really hard for me to imagine such pro-diversity turning around and declaring the Church is the only true Church on the face of the earth. It just doesn't go together. So we're colorblind now, but all those other churches are still false, as the D&C says? At any rate, that's one way to be liberal.
Many will think of the term in an epistemic sense. Perhaps they are okay with evolution. When someone says 'liberal Mormon", then accepting evolution probably comes to mind, and so there are good reasons to take the term this way. It could also mean some brand of philosophical pragmatism. Generally, I think Mormons who become "liberal" may primarily be driven by social concerns first, or epistemology first, but end up in a place where they are liberal in roughly equal parts of both. I'll admit that when I was on my way out, I had become an epistemic liberal first, I had little or no concern about the social aspects of the Church. That came into balance over time.
To get on the high road to Nazism, you need to be as conservative as possible in the social sense, while being as liberal as possible in the epistemic sense. What's basically happening here is fundamentalist Mormonism in all its glory is held as unfalsifiable; out of range for any fact-checking whatsoever. That could mean one is free to accept all science, because evolution can both be true, and the Adam and Eve story is still literally true, or reject science because postmodernism or science is a scam, and the Adam and Eve story is still literally true. I don't care which route is taken. Either way it leaves a situation of "shifting the paradigm around the Church" as somebody once put it who posted here for a while.
As the proprietor of a certain blog has put it, the 'A' version of Mormon history looks very much like the 'C' version. That's a recipe for extremism. If at age 11 you've come to know the fantasy of world 'A', and then you breeze through world 'B', which is the world of a million facts you couldn't have anticipated at age 11, and then synthesize all those facts into world 'C', which by golly gee ends up with the same wizards and warlock fantasy of world 'A' but with a few footnotes, then you've been prepared well to serve an extremist agenda, should the chance arise.
So when claiming to be a liberal believer, I'm interested in which fundamental story aspects of Mormonism you've given up, or hold to be difficulties. If there aren't any, then it's probably a matter of epistemic liberalism for the sake of empowering the Church in all of its childish, and nightmarish, extremists ambitions.
Lost Gospel of Thomas 1:8 - And Jesus said, "what about the Pharisees? They did it too! Wherefore, we shall do it even more!"
The only data point I have was a faulty large social gathering 10 years ago that was largely LDS. The crowd was definitely what I would describe as liberal Mormons. I have no idea what has happened since.
he/him
“I prefer peace. But if trouble must come, let it come in my time so that my children can live in peace.” — Thomas Paine
for what it's worth I think Ceeboo and MG have a difficult time participating here in complete harmony on such a predominantly progressive board, and I appreciate how civil they are since they’re massively outnumbered.
I really enjoy the discussions here when everyone remains civil and threads don’t devolve into name calling or straw man attacks.
A lot of these topics are very personal and can easily cause misunderstanding and elevated emotional responses.
I agree. Please, let’s avoid resorting to personal attacks. Having an opposing or unpopular opinion does not necessarily indicate that someone is a troll.
for what it's worth I think Ceeboo and MG have a difficult time participating here in complete harmony on such a predominantly progressive board, and I appreciate how civil they are since they’re massively outnumbered.
I really enjoy the discussions here when everyone remains civil and threads don’t devolve into name calling or straw man attacks.
A lot of these topics are very personal and can easily cause misunderstanding and elevated emotional responses.
Unfortunately, being human, I slip now and then and can be abrasive and not as empathetic to the feelings of others as I might be.
Overall, drumdude, I appreciate your civil behavior towards others here that may not be in agreement with your views concerning the church.
Back on Z, one of the vocal apologists championed a description of Mormons as (I'm paraphrasing) "socially conservative but epistemically liberal." Basically a description of Nazism, or the present Republican party.
People may have different understandings of what it means to be "liberal". When someone like Huck asks the question, I assume he means socially liberal in some way, pro LGBT, pro women and priesthood etc. However, it's really hard for me to imagine such pro-diversity turning around and declaring the Church is the only true Church on the face of the earth. It just doesn't go together. So we're colorblind now, but all those other churches are still false, as the D&C says? At any rate, that's one way to be liberal.
Many will think of the term in an epistemic sense. Perhaps they are okay with evolution. When someone says 'liberal Mormon", then accepting evolution probably comes to mind, and so there are good reasons to take the term this way. It could also mean some brand of philosophical pragmatism. Generally, I think Mormons who become "liberal" may primarily be driven by social concerns first, or epistemology first, but end up in a place where they are liberal in roughly equal parts of both. I'll admit that when I was on my way out, I had become an epistemic liberal first, I had little or no concern about the social aspects of the Church. That came into balance over time.
To get on the high road to Nazism, you need to be as conservative as possible in the social sense, while being as liberal as possible in the epistemic sense. What's basically happening here is fundamentalist Mormonism in all its glory is held as unfalsifiable; out of range for any fact-checking whatsoever. That could mean one is free to accept all science, because evolution can both be true, and the Adam and Eve story is still literally true, or reject science because postmodernism or science is a scam, and the Adam and Eve story is still literally true. I don't care which route is taken. Either way it leaves a situation of "shifting the paradigm around the Church" as somebody once put it who posted here for a while.
As the proprietor of a certain blog has put it, the 'A' version of Mormon history looks very much like the 'C' version. That's a recipe for extremism. If at age 11 you've come to know the fantasy of world 'A', and then you breeze through world 'B', which is the world of a million facts you couldn't have anticipated at age 11, and then synthesize all those facts into world 'C', which by golly gee ends up with the same wizards and warlock fantasy of world 'A' but with a few footnotes, then you've been prepared well to serve an extremist agenda, should the chance arise.
So when claiming to be a liberal believer, I'm interested in which fundamental story aspects of Mormonism you've given up, or hold to be difficulties. If there aren't any, then it's probably a matter of epistemic liberalism for the sake of empowering the Church in all of its childish, and nightmarish, extremists ambitions.
Gadianton, thanks for getting back to the topic. Perhaps the MG is this and so and so is a moron subject has played out.
You are certainly correct that there are more than one version of liberal. I was first thinking of sense of moral obligation tempered with pragmatism respecting some individual interpreted. I think that is what I grew up with as familiar in the 60s. I find myself occasionally shocked by the expressions of rigid expectations. Of course pragmatic thought may lead to various liberal social attitudes but might not be required. In the sixties there was no lgbt issue I do not remember any womens priesthood pressure. There was a blacks and priesthood issue. It was possible for a person to hold the church to be true while expecting the black issue to be resolved by change. Liberal Mormons might say that in private but not often loudly in public.
Of course conservatives incline to see personal pragmatic judgement as a door open to bad stuff.I am of the view that striving for epistemic clarity is a primary pragmatic and moral obligation. I find myself curious and disturbed by your observations about how a very different kind of liberal use of epistemology can lead to authoritarian social systems. Big brother ministry of truth is based upon a belief that we cannot know truth so an authority figure creates it.
I see how you see a sort of liberal epistemology taking uncertainly as a justification to create fiction. I guess it can be used to disparage science and education in general. Doors open to the full nightmare.
