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

[malkie]

By the way, I'm still waiting for some sensible explanation of:

1. How MG managed to answer my 9 numbered points with a list of 11 counts of "subjective elements", especially when he said he had identified, not counted them - more on this later

2. This anathematic comment:
viewtopic.php?p=2909948#p2909948
where I pointed out that almost every response MG gave is some form of I think ... or makes sense to me - almost the epitome of subjectivity!"

Talk about motes & beams!

_____________________________________________________

Second part of the "9 vs 11" issue!

Here's MG's original count of my "subjective" elements, which he says is in response to my numbered points:

...
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

And here are just two parts of his more recent comment in which he identifies the "subjective" elements - I see no point in going through the rest - this is sufficient to show the source of my puzzlement:

For my point [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.

Subjective elements:
Are you really denying?
your god.
Surely your god could...
You seem to want to limit him...
without any good reason...

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

Subjective elements:
Of course
you are free to believe...

Number of "subjective" elements: seven! Previously counted as "Paragraph 1: three"
================================
For my 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.

Subjective elements:
you think I'm illogical
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.

Subjective elements:
pre-conceived views
strikes me as illogical
you have no special access
his ways, apparently, are not your ways

Number of "subjective" elements: six! Previously counted as "Paragraph 3: five"

So, not only is the number of MG's paragraphs different from the number of my points, but the count of "subjective" elements is not consistent between MG's count of elements and his identification of (presumably) the same elements.

Can somebody make it make sense?

[malkie]

MG 2.0, you’ve obviously read or listened to something that has given you an epiphany about something to do with “subjective elements.” Would you please list your source so that the rest of us can understand what the heck you are talking about?

I'm getting the (purely subjective!) feeling that orange subjectivity is the new black TTOC

[Marcus]

MG 2.0, you’ve obviously read or listened to something that has given you an epiphany about something to do with “subjective elements.” Would you please list your source so that the rest of us can understand what the heck you are talking about?

I'm getting the (purely subjective!) feeling that orange subjectivity is the new black TTOC

[MG 2.0]

MG 2.0, you’ve obviously read or listened to something that has given you an epiphany about something to do with “subjective elements.” Would you please list your source so that the rest of us can understand what the heck you are talking about?

Hi Res Ipsa. No epiphany. Just a further realization that so much of what is discussed here relies on the subjective nature of being human. Realizing that this is true ought to help each of us look at each other a bit less seriously.

Why? We're biased towards subjectivity due to all of the influences and expected we've personally had on our lives. None of us are immune and it comes through in our posts as I've demonstrated.

I know this is a 'duh' observation/statement, but malkie's post brought it all to the forefront in my mind. It's not really a criticism against any one person. It's an observation, simply, that critics are just as liable to be subjective as a religionist.

That's all.

Regards,
MG

[MG 2.0]

malkie, I'm not suggesting that you need to change or revamp your posting/rhetorical style. As it is, you make many insightful and intuitive comments. It's just that I find it a bit difficult to respond to some of your longer 'list posts' for reasons I've mentioned.

I'll leave it at that.

I may have been better off not even bringing it up...

Regards,
MG

[malkie]

malkie, I'm not suggesting that you need to change or revamp your posting/rhetorical style. As it is, you make many insightful and intuitive comments. It's just that I find it a bit difficult to respond to some of your longer 'list posts' for reasons I've mentioned.

I'll leave it at that.

I may have been better off not even bringing it up...

Regards,
MG

Does that mean that you are going to allow your almost-fully-subjective comment to stand, in spite of your complaints that I'm using subjective expressions?

Are you going to ignore significant discrepancies in your comments, such as your apparent inability to count to 9, because you "find it a bit difficult"? You know that there are alternatives, right?

At least in some cases, my longer "list" posts are an attempt to answer individual points in your longer comments, rather than just dismiss the entire comment. You say you want substantive discussion, but don't seem to like it when people get into the details.

If you are content to retire from the field leaving things as they are, what can I say? For my part, I should probably go back to mostly ignoring you.

I'll leave it at that, but I'm happy to have provided this summary of some of your most recent comments.

Be well ...

[Res Ipsa]

MG 2.0, you’ve obviously read or listened to something that has given you an epiphany about something to do with “subjective elements.” Would you please list your source so that the rest of us can understand what the heck you are talking about?

Hi Res Ipsa. No epiphany. Just a further realization that so much of what is discussed here relies on the subjective nature of being human. Realizing that this is true ought to help each of us look at each other a bit less seriously.

Why? We're biased towards subjectivity due to all of the influences and expected we've personally had on our lives. None of us are immune and it comes through in our posts as I've demonstrated.

I know this is a 'duh' observation/statement, but malkie's post brought it all to the forefront in my mind. It's not really a criticism against any one person. It's an observation, simply, that critics are just as liable to be subjective as a religionist.

That's all.

Regards,
MG

We’re in a forum that discusses religion. What could be more subjective?

None of the big, interesting issues in life are purely objective. I mean, we can all sit around doing obvious slogans, but it would be deadly dull.

It looks to me like you’ve invented an all purpose excuse to avoid having to respond to questions or arguments that you don’t know how to respond to. The rest of us answer questions and respond to “subjective elements” all the time. It’s not that hard.

[Marcus]

This issue started when MG made this factual claim:

<snipped>

Anyway, as a relatively small Christian organization, you're dwarfed by other Christian 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. At least to the degree that Christianity is allowed to grow and have any influence....

His claim was shown to be objectively not true, even after several attempts at further qualification on his part. Once his claims were proven objectively incorrect, he switched gears and declared everything subjective. It was nothing more than a smokescreen, but he managed to derail page after page with his nonsensical claims.

Bottom line, he was shown to be objectively wrong in this thread in his claims, but he can't admit it. Malkie's questions, especially how mg found 11 paragraphs of countable subjectivity in a post of 9 paragraphs, remain unanswered. Subjectivity is mg's latest derailment tactic.

[Chap]

The last several posts by the mental gymnast exemplify why I still consider MG to be nothing more than a troll. He was the one who started off arguing size and influence were evidence, when he was proven wrong, he adjusted the definition several times, and after Chap definitively and objectively proved him wrong, AGAIN, he simply defined Chap's argument as subjective and then completely changed his position.

And now, after malkie pointed out he was asking for clarification and using common questioning techniques, the mental gymnast has declared those two techniques subjective (!!!) also.

MG has also fallen back on cut-and-pasting AI generated comments, in spite of Shades directing him at least 4 times to STOP. MG was even briefly suspended for this, but, he is back at it again.

In short, MG 2.0 disrupts, provokes, and derails. He does it by fabricating issues, breaking rules, flipflopping on what he says he believes, and exhibiting breathtaking levels of intellectual dishonesty. Why would a poster simply flipflop on a position? They would if they were a troll whose only intent is to disrupt.

I am grateful for this post, which shows that i am not alone in finding MG's reaction to my posts to be - what can I call them? - the result of a counter-rational determination to refuse to admit that an opponent may be right, no matter what dialectical contortions this forces him into. What else should one expect of a poster whose name (as long-term posters will remember) stands for 'Mental Gymnast'?

However, I would prefer not to call him a troll, because I think that while his posts are indeed disruptive of any rational discussion of LDS matters, I am not sure that is his main object. I think that he sees himself as someone who, for the benefit of any LDS believers who may visit this board, is determined to show that at least one LDS poster exists who will never, ever, under any circumstances, admit that the belief system, historical claims, or institutions of the CoJCoLDS are vulnerable to any substantive criticism by non-believers.

He is willing to pay any price to maintain himself as a kind of LDS Fort McHenry, whose resistance to heavy bombardment by the British Royal Navy during the Battle of Baltimore in the War of 1812 is commemorated in the words of the Star Spangled Banner. Whatever killer points are made by his opponents, which any normal person would think had totally destroyed his arguments, the next time you look at the board his flag is still there!

I think he is too willing to sacrifice reason and logic for me to call him admirable in his determination. But he is certainly weird enough for me to say that he is a unique (even astonishing) example of what it takes to stay LDS, once you step into a forum where there is nothing to prevent his opponents making their points without censorship. He also shows the terrible price a person has to pay if one sets out to defend the CoJCoLDS from frank and open criticism. To that extent, I think some LDS believers who read this board may feel something like "If that's what it take to defend the church, maybe the price is too high".

[Morley]

I am grateful for this post, which shows that i am not alone in finding MG's reaction to my posts to be - what can I call them? - the result of a counter-rational determination to refuse to admit that an opponent may be right, no matter what dialectical contortions this forces him into. What else should one expect of a poster whose name (as long-term posters will remember) stands for 'Mental Gymnast'?

However, I would prefer not to call him a troll, because I think that while his posts are indeed disruptive of any rational discussion of LDS matters, I am not sure that is his main object. I think that he sees himself as someone who, for the benefit of any LDS believers who may visit this board, is determined to show that at least one LDS poster exists who will never, ever, under any circumstances, admit that the belief system, historical claims, or institutions of the CoJCoLDS are vulnerable to any substantive criticism by non-believers.

He is willing to pay any price to maintain himself as a kind of LDS Fort McHenry, whose resistance to heavy bombardment by the British Royal Navy during the Battle of Baltimore in the War of 1812 is commemorated in the words of the Star Spangled Banner. Whatever killer points are made by his opponents, which any normal person would think had totally destroyed his arguments, the next time you look at the board his flag is still there!

I think he is too willing to sacrifice reason and logic for me to call him admirable in his determination. But he is certainly weird enough for me to say that he is a unique (even astonishing) example of what it takes to stay LDS, once you step into a forum where there is nothing to prevent his opponents making their points without censorship. He also shows the terrible price a person has to pay if one sets out to defend the CoJCoLDS from frank and open criticism. To that extent, I think some LDS believers who read this board may feel something like "If that's what it take to defend the church, maybe the price is too high".

Well said, Chap.

This pretty much sums up my thoughts, too. However, I'd probably change the last line to: 'I think some LDS believers who read this board may feel something like, "If this is the best that can be said in defense of the Church, maybe sacrificing my moral integrity by remaining active is too great a price".'