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

[Limnor]

Also, malkie, I’d like to apologize for inserting posts in the thread that were potentially distracting and not related to your argument. I just want to get all of these thoughts off my chest.

[malkie]

Further thoughts:

MG said:
"This is the list I am referring to with subjective words and phrases

Paragraph 1: three
Paragraph 2: none
Paragraph 3: five"

But the list does not contain the subjective words and phrases - only what purports to be a count of such.

Why did you give a count of subjective language usage at all - why not show (in the list, if you want) what the subjective language elements are? That would allow anyone to check your claim that there were 'ecks' instances. Are you willing to go back and highlight each expression that you claim is subjective?

As an alternative way of responding to my numbered points, you also could have inserted your response to my point [1] between points [1] and [2], as many posters do when they are answering a post point by point. That would have ruled out the possibility that you would respond to [9] points with 11 supposedly corresponding replies. Given your assertion that you did not use AI, the more I think about it, the more puzzled I am about what happened and why.

[MG 2.0]

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. " 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?

I think He already has.

Sure, the LDS church is bigger today, but could your god not work through whichever organization he chose? You...want to limit him to your choice based on present-day size...

Yes. I makes sense for reasons I've already mentioned.

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

I've given reasons for why I think He already has.

[*]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.

They are views that I believe are substantiated by scriptural exegesis and prophecy. No one can 100% read the mind of God. We have to go on the evidence. I think at this point in time, size does matter in regard to looking at the growth in the CofJCofLDS since its inception.

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

The language is rather clear in the scriptures. I would challenge you to find other interpretations that would better explain the scriptures in the Old and New Testament that refer to the latter-day work.

[*]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.

I think you're right in saying that the "signs of the times" are open to interpretation and that people have different points of view.

But if were looking at this time for such a church, I don't understand[/s] 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.

I'm not Roman Catholic because I believe that Catholicism doesn't make sense to me. Trinity, etc.

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.

I don't see the gaps. Thursday I went up on the Front Runner to Salt Lake with a friend. We visited a few places including the Church History Library. I read through the actual manuscript accounts of the 1832, 1835, and 1842(38) versions. They each made sense and I was able to dovetail the different accounts together. They fit.

malkie, it's been a long day and I have little evening left. I have a long day at church and with family tomorrow. I honestly don't have the time and inclination to comment on the rest of your post. I used ellipses and a bit of underlining to point out some subjective language towards the beginnning of this post and then got tired of it because I'm tired. You did a better job at using bold face, etc., to clean up some of the subjective language you had used. Thanks for being a sport on that. Unfortunately, this is not uncommon for only you, others do it to including me. I was making a point in the last post or two before this one that it is difficult to have a discussion based on facts if the original questions/statements are written in such a subjective way.

I hope you can see my point. I think we can ALL be more careful on that point.

Anyway, I'm off. I do appreciate the 'push back'. It makes me clean up some of the things that I can do better also. I can be rather subjective at times thinking that my biases ought to be the 'accepted' views of others.

You do the same. We all do.

Have a good Sunday!

Regards,
MG

[malkie]

Also, malkie, I’d like to apologize for inserting posts in the thread that were potentially distracting and not related to your argument. I just want to get all of these thoughts off my chest.

No problem, Limnor. As you'll see all over the board, it's not uncommon for there to be two or more "threads" of discussion within a single topic. I assumed that a poster wrote something that you related to the other topic, and you just went for it.

In this case I see two mitigating factors:
1. you were not attempting to derail the thread, and break up the flow of comment/response, and
2. it was obvious to anyone which comments belonged to which thread

[malkie]

I think He already has.

Sure, the LDS church is bigger today, but could your god not work through whichever organization he chose? You...want to limit him to your choice based on present-day size...

Yes. I makes sense for reasons I've already mentioned.

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

I've given reasons for why I think He already has.

[*]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.

They are views that I believe are substantiated by scriptural exegesis and prophecy. No one can 100% read the mind of God. We have to go on the evidence. I think at this point in time, size does matter in regard to looking at the growth in the CofJCofLDS since its inception.

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

The language is rather clear in the scriptures. I would challenge you to find other interpretations that would better explain the scriptures in the Old and New Testament that refer to the latter-day work.

[*]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.

I think you're right in saying that the "signs of the times" are open to interpretation and that people have different points of view.

But if were looking at this time for such a church, I don't understand[/s] 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.

I'm not Roman Catholic because I believe that Catholicism doesn't make sense to me. Trinity, etc.

I don't see the gaps. Thursday I went up on the Front Runner to Salt Lake with a friend. We visited a few places including the Church History Library. I read through the actual manuscript accounts of the 1832, 1835, and 1842(38) versions. They each made sense and I was able to dovetail the different accounts together. They fit.

malkie, it's been a long day and I have little evening left. I have a long day at church and with family tomorrow. I honestly don't have the time and inclination to comment on the rest of your post. I used ellipses and a bit of underlining to point out some subjective language towards the beginnning of this post and then got tired of it because I'm tired. You did a better job at using bold face, etc., to clean up some of the subjective language you had used. Thanks for being a sport on that. Unfortunately, this is not uncommon for only you, others do it to including me. I was making a point in the last post or two before this one that it is difficult to have a discussion based on facts if the original questions/statements are written in such a subjective way.

I hope you can see my point. I think we can ALL be more careful on that point.

Anyway, I'm off. I do appreciate the 'push back'. It makes me clean up some of the things that I can do better also. I can be rather subjective at times thinking that my biases ought to be the 'accepted' views of others.

You do the same. We all do.

Have a good Sunday!

Regards,
MG

I hope you have a good Sunday too - not sinning like I expect to be doing.

One final thought, though:

You spent some time and effort complaining that I was using subjective language, and that somehow that made me effectively just a follower of another religion.

I'll leave it up to you, or someone else with the patience, to identify all of the subjective expressions you used in the quoted comment. You say "it is difficult to have a discussion based on facts if the original questions/statements are written in such a subjective way". It seems to me (haha!) that almost every response you gave is some form of "I think ..." or "makes sense to me" - almost the epitome of subjectivity!

And I'll look forward to an explanation, when you have time, of the 9 points I made vs. the 11 paragraphs that you say are corresponding responses.

[Marcus]

...They are views that I believe are substantiated by scriptural exegesis and prophecy. No one can 100% read the mind of God. We have to go on the evidence. I think at this point in time, size does matter in regard to looking at the growth in the CofJCofLDS since its inception....

I picked out this paragraph as mg is still arguing "size does matter..."
As a reminder, here are his previous statements wherein he also added a qualifications re 'Restoration Churches":

...You seemingly brushed off the size/influence/international factor quickly.

What I said was that the CofJCofLDS is the largest...by far...of the Restoration churches. Why you don't see that as an indicator of the 'fruits of the restoration/gospel' is illogical. Especially in view of some of the scriptural prophecy that seems to point towards influence and size having some degree of importance. You might think that before Christ comes that there would be a church upon the earth with an international influence....

Several people have offered data about other Restoration churches that showed he was in error with the above assertions.

This time around, he has added another qualifying phrase "...growth...since its inception..."

But, he is still incorrect. Based on data and links to references already posted, both the Jehovah's Witnesses and the Seventh Day Adventists started roughly the same time as the LDS church, and have both experienced considerably more growth, as well as having a significant international presence.

...I was making a point in the last post or two before this one that it is difficult to have a discussion based on facts if the original questions/statements are written in such a subjective way.

I hope you can see my point. I think we can ALL be more careful on that point...

I will disagree with this characterization. A prime example is the 'growth' and 'size' question. No one gave subjective answers, even as mental gymnast continued to give more and more qualifications to his original statements. His original assertions, as well as his more and more qualified assertions re this topic are objectively wrong, based on objective data.

Re: his final response, it's simply facetious to argue "we can ALL" be more careful on that point." Mentalgymnast tried to cover up the objective responses with his assertions of other poster's subjectivity. I am stating my opinion, here, that his intent was to distract, based on his very long and well documented history of using distraction as a technique to avoid dealing with his people pointing out his objective errors.

The only thing he accomplished by this distraction effort this time was a highlighting of his own subjective approach, as well as his inappropriate AI use.

[I Have Questions]

Thursday I went up on the Front Runner to Salt Lake with a friend. We visited a few places including the Church History Library. I read through the actual manuscript accounts of the 1832, 1835, and 1842(38) versions. They each made sense and I was able to dovetail the different accounts together. They fit.

A completely subjective assertion.

[malkie]

Some points in my comments were left unanswered at the weekend. I'd still like some clarification as I cannot understand how my numbered points and MG's "Numbered paragraphs" got out of sync.

Also, the question of my subjectivity in comments is still unresolved due to lack of specificity on the part of MG. I'll make a separate comment for that issue, as this one is already a bit long.

I apologise that there's some repetition here. I'm trying to pull together several comments, some of which include quotes of others, without the context getting totally lost.

MG, I've added a A, B etc. in the places where I'd like you to reply and/or explain what you mean, or what's going on. This should help to keep your responses on track. Also, I've taken the liberty of highlighting some words & phrases in the hopes that you will find it easier to identfy salient issues.

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 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.
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. 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.
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 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.
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, 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.
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 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

A Your list is "somewhat difficult to respond" to because, quite apart from the numbering mismatch, you have failed to identify what you refer to as my use of subjective language.

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

B I still do not understand what you mean by: "The numbered paragraphs didn't come over to the current post on the last page."

Are you saying that when you quoted my comments, somehow the numbered paragraphs were omitted? Or that the numbers were omitted? or what?
You know, I assume, that you are not restricted to plain quoting of a single comment - you can do as I have clearly done several times and copy/paste text, or text and markup (like the {list} and {*} tags) to fill in where the board disallows more than 3 levels of nesting of quotes. Or you can quote from more than one comment - again, as I have clearly done.

My reply to your question: "Where does one start? It's hard to fact check in these instances."

...
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.

C 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.

D 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.

E 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?.

Further thoughts:

MG said:
"This is the list I am referring to with subjective words and phrases

Paragraph 1: three
Paragraph 2: none
Paragraph 3: five"

F But the list does not contain the subjective words and phrases - only what purports to be a count of such.

G Why did you give a count of subjective language usage at all - why not show (in the list, if you want) what the subjective language elements are? That would allow anyone to check your claim that there were 'ecks' instances. Are you willing to go back and highlight each expression that you claim is subjective?

As an alternative way of responding to my numbered points, you also could have inserted your response to my point [1] between points [1] and [2], as many posters do when they are answering a post point by point. That would have ruled out the possibility that you would respond to [9] points with 11 supposedly corresponding replies. Given your assertion that you did not use AI, the more I think about it, the more puzzled I am about what happened and why.

It's clear from your reply to the other "stripped down" version of my numbered points that you know how to insert your responses with individual points made in the comments you're responding to. So, again, I have to ask myself why you chose a more error prone and much less informative format to reply the first time.

H So, MG, could you please take me step by step through it - thanks.

[malkie]

...

I can be rather subjective at times thinking that my biases ought to be the 'accepted' views of others.

You do the same. We all do.

Have a good Sunday!

Regards,
MG

In
viewtopic.php?p=2909948#p2909948

you were replying to a restatement of one of my previous comments from which I had taken out/replaced what I thought you meant by my use of subjective statements. I could only do so much, of course, because you did not identify the wording that you were objecting to.

Since you're so averse to what you claim is my use of subjective language, can you explain why you use subjective language in almost every single response - "I think ..."; "I believe ..."? It's almost as if you find it necessary to do so, in the absence of facts and sources to supply.

Even then, in several cases you have deflected, rather than answering the question.

For example:
Q: "Are you really denying that your god could raise up the FLDS (or any other organization he chose) according to his timeline and needs?"

A: "I think He already has."

It's all very well and fine for you to think that he has, but that is not responsive to my question.

Am I correct in thinking that while your answer agrees that your god could raise up, or have raised up, any organization he chose, or chooses in the future, etc., you think he has already has chosen your particular sect of Mormonism/Restorationism/Christianity? If so, why do you think that?

It can't be because of current size, or growth rate, as you originally suggested: other posters have already countered these arguments. And it can't be because of future developments that you cannot know.

[I Have Questions]

Am I correct in thinking that while your answer agrees that your god could raise up, or have raised up, any organization he chose, or chooses in the future, etc., you think he has already has chosen your particular sect of Mormonism/Restorationism/Christianity? If so, why do you think that?

It can't be because of current size, or growth rate, as you originally suggested: other posters have already countered these arguments. And it can't be because of future developments that you cannot know.

It’s probably just a coincidence that MG 2.0 thinks God has chosen the specific sect that MG 2.9 was born, raised and lived his whole adult life within.