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

[Limnor]

LOL

[Limnor]

My guess is “brought over” means he “brought it over into AI to help identify subjective phrases” but had some difficulty.

Because you used subjective language, he finds it difficult to respond to you.

Have I understood you correctly MG?

But Malkie wasn't using subjective language.' He was pointing out mentalgymnast's 'subjective language.'

Mentalgymnast's AI goofed and labeled MG'S OWN SUBJECTIVE LANGUAGE as...'subjective language."

Oh lol

Is this true, MG?

[Limnor]

The good news is I have a better understanding of “tu quoque” now. Even if it was botched. Sorry MG, just ribbing you.

[malkie]

I think he is trying to say you used subjective language three times in paragraph one and so on.

MG, with respect, sometimes it is difficult to understand what you are trying to say.

I'm sure you're right - but I wanted MG to explain how this formatting of text came about.

My guess is “brought over” means he “brought it over into AI to help identify subjective phrases” but had some difficulty.

Because you used subjective language, he finds it difficult to respond to you.

Have I understood you correctly MG?

Once again, I think you're guess is right. I'm pretty sure that others came or will come to the same conclusion.

I hope that MG does indeed confirm that that's what he was having a problem with.

Since you're relatively new here, Limnor, it may not be obvious to you how MG appears to have exposed himself in apparently trying, once again, to bypass the rules of the board.

He may deny it, and if he does I won't insist on the "obvious" explanation, but there's an issue of trust here.

As I said in the main back and forth, I've assume/accepted that MG was acting in good faith, and was abiding by the rules that he had broken several times. I don't think I can make that assumption, or give him the benefit of the doubt, again. I admit that I could be wrong, but my gut (subjective, right?) tells me your analysis and mine is correct.

[MG 2.0]

I think he is trying to say you used subjective language three times in paragraph one and so on.

MG, with respect, sometimes it is difficult to understand what you are trying to say.

Sorry. I thought my post up near the top of page 14 of this thread paved the way. Apparently not...or my post was either ignored or misunderstood.

Regards,
MG

[malkie]

Here's another iteration of the comment that MG objected to because either he or an AI said I used subjective language.

This time around, I've tried to strip out the subjective parts, and leave only what I believe to be facts that can be supported objectively, or in which I've made it clear that statements like "but surely your god could work through whichever organization he chose", and "you seem to want to limit him to your choice based on present-day size, without any good reason." in the first point are really questions. I've tried as much as possibly to highlight the places where I've made changes.

1. 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 could your god not 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 [god] could not.
2. size etc - "brushed off", not quite. I've dealt with this in a later point
3. 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. Is that logical? Of course, you have no special access to your god's PoV, and his ways, apparently, are not your ways.
4. You refer to "scriptural prophesy" that "seems" to support point [4] - so merely your interpretation
5. 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 are you 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.
6. 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.
7. 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.
8. 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 (correct me if I'm wrong), that that makes your god a good communicator is laughable [[yep - my subjective opinion - you're welcome to show how this form of communication is sound and reliable]]. 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.
9. 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 why, do you think, 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 it not make much more sense, in general, for him to choose a direct and unequivocal way to communicate, rather than through fallible men, and ambiguous feelings which may muffle and distort the message?

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

[[I'm leaving the final para as is - it's my conclusion from considering the totality of the above numbered points.]]:
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..." .

Does your subjective language detector get better results this time?

[MG 2.0]

Sorry, I do not see the reasons.

It is hard to find common ground when too much subjectivity is spread throughout a numbered paragraph post. Where does one start? It's hard to fact check in these instances. It is also difficult to respond to personal interpretation(s) and subjectivity (in words and phrases/statements) in any kind of a factual way.

But while we're here, can you explain where you got the "three; none; five" etc. from, and clarify what "Paragraph1, 2, 3" etc mean?

The number of times in each numbered paragraph where subjectivity crops up.

Added: What did you do when you "brought over" my original post?

The numbered paragraphs didn't come over to the current post on the last page.

Regards,
MG

[MG 2.0]

But Malkie wasn't using subjective language.' He was pointing out mentalgymnast's 'subjective language.'

Is this true, MG?

No. I was responding to the subjective language issues found in the nine numbered items in malkie's post. Not in anything that I said. Another poster might have intended you to think that, I suppose.

Regards,
MG

[Limnor]

MG, looking back at the posts it is obvious that you used AI. I had to re-read it a couple of times to figure it out but I noticed.

I’m going to follow malkie’s lead and not press you on it, but I came to that conclusion on my own.

[malkie]

Sorry, I do not see the reasons.

It is hard to find common ground when too much subjectivity is spread throughout a numbered paragraph post. Where does one start? It's hard to fact check in these instances. It is also difficult to respond to personal interpretation(s) and subjectivity (in words and phrases/statements) in any kind of a factual way.

But while we're here, can you explain where you got the "three; none; five" etc. from, and clarify what "Paragraph1, 2, 3" etc mean?

The number of times in each numbered paragraph where subjectivity crops up.

Added: What did you do when you "brought over" my original post?

The numbered paragraphs didn't come over to the current post on the last page.

Regards,
MG

I'd suggest that having numbered points actually makes it easier. That's why I marked up your post with coloured text and numbers - so that I could refer to them more easily.

You might start:
Point [1]: here is what I disagree with, because of the following subjective language.
Point [2]: here is what I disagree with, because of the following subjective language.
Point [3]: here is what I disagree with, because of the following subjective language.

I'm still puzzled by how you came up with the "three; none; five" etc. Are you saying that you counted the number of subjective expressions in each of "Paragraph1, 2, 3" etc, and expressed the numbers written out as words rather than simply leaving them as numerals. OK, I guess, but I suspect that most people absorb numbers as numerals more easily than they do the same numbers in words.

Can you explain what exactly you mean by the "number of times in each numbered paragraph where subjectivity crops up"? You see, you have listed "Paragraph 1" to "Paragraph 11", to reply to my points (not paragraphs) [1] to [9], so clearly there is not a one-to-one correspondence.

Can you please make them line up, somehow? Otherwise your count (at least, after point [1]) doesn't make sense. What I want to know is, where did the extra "paragraphs" come from, and how did you fail to notice that there was a mismatch in the numbers?.