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

[Marcus]

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".

Well said, Chap. I can certainly put aside my troll definition and see how probable your explanation is. The only thing that still gives me slight pause is how mean-spirited mg can be in mocking entire groups of people he says are beneath him solely because he is Mormon and they are not---oh.

Well, maybe that's not such a good reason. He does make his religion look bad, doesn't he? But then so did the previous LDS president, when he said that good, righteous, moral non-LDS people will be barred from experiencing heaven with their LDS families. Mormon policies like this can create a hell on earth for many.

[malkie]

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".'

Thank you, especially Morley, Chap, Marcus, IHQ, and Res.

I have to admit that I've been extremely disappointed in the way in which MG has taken what appears to be an extreme concept of "subjectivity" and tried to turn it into a tool or weapon - or perhaps a silver bullet.

Normally I would not have pursued the line of dialog that I did past a couple of back-and-forth exchanges, but this time I felt that I really had to dig my heels in and, in effect, force the issue.

I appreciate those who have jumped in from time to time to emphasize points that I let slip, and those who, for me anyway, helped to put the matter to rest.

[Morley]

Thank you, especially Morley, Chap, Marcus, IHQ, and Res.

I have to admit that I've been extremely disappointed in the way in which MG has taken what appears to be an extreme concept of "subjectivity" and tried to turn it into a tool or weapon - or perhaps a silver bullet.

Normally I would not have pursued the line of dialog that I did past a couple of back-and-forth exchanges, but this time I felt that I really had to dig my heels in and, in effect, force the issue.

I appreciate those who have jumped in from time to time to emphasize points that I let slip, and those who, for me anyway, helped to put the matter to rest.

It's a painful process, but thank you for you pursuing this. It seems that sometimes MG's goal is to make the discussion so tedious that everyone drops it.

His "Everything is subjective" has a certain banal nihilism buried in it. It projects a sort of dull, flattened worldview, where nothing is really worth debating, everything is arbitrary, and nothing ultimately matters. He's doing this in the area where he really believes that everything matters: whether or not the CoJCoLDS is "true."

[MG 2.0]

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.

My point is that it makes it difficult to respond when a poster creates a list that is a mix of subjective elements mixed with what may be objective fact even if cherry picked. It would be awfully time consuming to separate fact from fiction (subjective elements). In my original response to malkie's list I responded to several of his concerns. It became evident to me that I was responding to this "mix" I've referred to and that as such we would continue to go around in circles.

You're right, many of these discussions do bounce back and forth intermingling fact with fiction (subjective elements). That's what makes it so hard for a believer to enter in and have the 'steam' to continue when subjective is mixed with objective facts that may be contextually independent of the 'larger story'. In my response to malkie I was simply pointing out the fact that subjective elements might skew the overall objective value of what is being said.

I admit, as has been said, that I also construct my posts not without subjective 'opinion' and belief. Critics do have the advantage because they take the position that only 'rational' conversation can rule the day. That which can be readily confirmed/proved through either the natural senses and/or that which has received overall consensus by those that consider themselves to be materialists and/or secular humanists. I see that as a limited way to view the world.

There will be conflict and disagreement as a result.

Again, my point is that critics, materialists, and secular humanists are just as prone to either consciously or unconsciously throw in subjective elements to the conversation that muddy the waters and make it difficult to respond especially when a large volume of text/lists are thrown in.

Beyond that, I don't think I was trying to make any other point.

I will say, that I disagree with what has been said that I am unwilling to tackle hard issues. I have done that over and over again. To say otherwise is an untruth. I am much more willing to do so when it is manageable however, without long and lengthy 'lists' that have fact and fiction (subjective elements) mixed in together.

Regards,
MG

[MG 2.0]

[There is] 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.

I think that I am one among many that realize that there are issues to be approached and if possible, resolved. It is a process. There are some things that may not be fully resolved.

I think he is too willing to sacrifice reason and logic for me to call him admirable in his determination.

You, I assume, rely on reason, critical thinking, evidence, and the scientific method. Believers such as myself, on the other hand, typically incorporate faith, spiritual intuition, and religious tradition alongside or above empirical reasoning. We then make either firm or tentative conclusions. We differ in how we justify those conclusions and the sources of authority and truth we accept.

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".

Here's the thing Chap. There are MANY believers out there who do NOT see it as "astonishing" to stay LDS. I do admit, however, that when in a closed (minded) group, such as this, it might appear...to YOU...that it is.

Regards,
MG

[MG 2.0]

Thank you, especially Morley, Chap, Marcus, IHQ, and Res.

I have to admit that I've been extremely disappointed in the way in which MG has taken what appears to be an extreme concept of "subjectivity" and tried to turn it into a tool or weapon - or perhaps a silver bullet.

Normally I would not have pursued the line of dialog that I did past a couple of back-and-forth exchanges, but this time I felt that I really had to dig my heels in and, in effect, force the issue.

I appreciate those who have jumped in from time to time to emphasize points that I let slip, and those who, for me anyway, helped to put the matter to rest.

It's a painful process, but thank you for you pursuing this. It seems that sometimes MG's goal is to make the discussion so tedious that everyone drops it.

His "Everything is subjective" has a certain banal nihilism buried in it. It projects a sort of dull, flattened worldview, where nothing is really worth debating, everything is arbitrary, and nothing ultimately matters. He's doing this in the area where he really believes that everything matters: whether or not the CoJCoLDS is "true."

On the contrary, I find the debate rather interesting. In fact, I've spent a lot of time over the years looking at 'contraries' in the way different folks view the world, religion, and Mormonism in particular. However, I don't see a problem/concern with staking down a position based on what I see as the overwhelming evidence while at the same time recognizing that there are valid reasons to think otherwise. In fact, if I was to wake up (or not) on the other side of death and find that I was wrong in many respects (of course if I don't wake up it doesn't matter, right?), I would just pack up my things and move on. Or not.

I do have a fairly high confidence level that I'm on the right path. We all...well, many of us...look through a glass darkly and are living in a world where faith/hope are a necessary element in moving forward with a belief in a loving creator God. I'm willing to take that chance that there is something 'more' and that the Restoration actually plays and important part in the scheme of things. But worth the debate?

Sure!!

Critics, however, seem to be hell bent on seeing the world and our place in it, and out of it, as an "unresolvable". I'm willing to look a little farther than that in my explorations. It makes sense to do so, to me.

Regards,
MG

[Chap]

You, I assume, rely on reason, critical thinking, evidence, and the scientific method.

Yup. Now why would I do that? Possibly because doing that enables us to arrive at results on which people can agree whatever their cultural, ethnic or religious background. Like when, for instance anybody who is willing to use the tools of reason, critical thinking, evidence, and the scientific method will find that they agree with other people following the same route that the earth is round, and moves in an orbit round the sun. Or that the reason why large numbers of people no longer die of smallpox is because of Edward Jenner's introduction of vaccination in the early 19th century.

Believers such as myself, on the other hand, typically incorporate faith, spiritual intuition, and religious tradition alongside or above empirical reasoning.

So you do - I did notice that.

The problem is that for the immense majority of the human race, the kinds of "faith, spiritual intuition, and religious tradition" that religious believers bring to the discussion depends on the religion that their mothers and fathers had, and in which they raised their children, in other words, a matter of pure chance. The conclusions they come to are therefore likely to be at random variance with one another; there is no objective way of choosing between one or another, nor is there any reason to suppose that such an arbitrary way of selecting the starting point for enquiry should produce results corresponding to objective reality. So, unlike the case of those who "rely on reason, critical thinking, evidence, and the scientific method", there is no way that consensus among human beings who think like that can be expected.

Somehow, I don't think I would want anyone I cared about to make their decisions about reality in that arbitrary way.

There are MANY believers out there who do NOT see it as "astonishing" to stay LDS.

Since they rarely meet people or material expressing critical views of their religious world-view, and indeed are strongly discouraged from doing so by the authorities of their church, is that surprising?

[Res Ipsa]

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.

My point is that it makes it difficult to respond when a poster creates a list that is a mix of subjective elements mixed with what may be objective fact even if cherry picked. It would be awfully time consuming to separate fact from fiction (subjective elements). In my original response to malkie's list I responded to several of his concerns. It became evident to me that I was responding to this "mix" I've referred to and that as such we would continue to go around in circles.

Difficult? It’s not like we’re trying to dissect Finnegan’s Wake here. Any of us should be able to separate secretive and object in any of Malkie’s questions in five seconds, tops. Even then, there’s no need to go through the exercise in order to respond. We interpret and respond to mixed subjective and objective statements every day.

You're right, many of these discussions do bounce back and forth intermingling fact with fiction (subjective elements). That's what makes it so hard for a believer to enter in and have the 'steam' to continue when subjective is mixed with objective facts that may be contextually independent of the 'larger story'. In my response to malkie I was simply pointing out the fact that subjective elements might skew the overall objective value of what is being said.

Isn’t that what religion does — use subjective elements to skew the objective? What is faith if not a subjective belief in something that cannot be proven with objective facts and syllogisms? What sets you apart from most of us is a subjective faith in the restored gospel. To claim that subjective elements are just too hard for you or any other religious believer to parse is absurd.

I admit, as has been said, that I also construct my posts not without subjective 'opinion' and belief. Critics do have the advantage because they take the position that only 'rational' conversation can rule the day. That which can be readily confirmed/proved through either the natural senses and/or that which has received overall consensus by those that consider themselves to be materialists and/or secular humanists. I see that as a limited way to view the world.

There will be conflict and disagreement as a result.

Again, my point is that critics, materialists, and secular humanists are just as prone to either consciously or unconsciously throw in subjective elements to the conversation that muddy the waters and make it difficult to respond especially when a large volume of text/lists are thrown in.

in my opinion, this problem you point out is self created. For as long as I’ve read your posts, your overarching argument here has been “My religious beliefs are rational.” When you do that, you step out of the realm of faith and into reason. And it very difficult to defend that position, given that you start from the subjective proposition that a living creator God exists.

But beyond that, you just said that you think a materialist view is limited, which puts you in favor of making subjective arguments. But you also complain about others using subjective.

Your reasoning here is a mess.

Beyond that, I don't think I was trying to make any other point.

I will say, that I disagree with what has been said that I am unwilling to tackle hard issues. I have done that over and over again. To say otherwise is an untruth. I am much more willing to do so when it is manageable however, without long and lengthy 'lists' that have fact and fiction (subjective elements) mixed in together.

Regards,
MG

My comment about dodging was limited to this thread. I made it because Malkie had caught you out in making a terrible argument — the number of church members is evidence of [the truth of the Church?] If we only count restoration churches. Appeal to popularity is a logical fallacy. Restricting it to“Restoration Chuches” the “Texas Sharpshooter Fallacy” and your conclusion is purely subjective. When we are arguing on the fly, it’s easy to hit on an argument that sounds great — until it is road tested.

I think you’d be much better saying “Yeah, that wasn’t my best argument and moving on. It’s much better than a lengthy nonsensical excuse for not responding.

[I Have Questions]

My comment about dodging was limited to this thread. I made it because Malkie had caught you out in making a terrible argument — the number of church members is evidence of [the truth of the Church?] If we only count restoration churches. Appeal to popularity is a logical fallacy. Restricting it to“Restoration Chuches” the “Texas Sharpshooter Fallacy” and your conclusion is purely subjective. When we are arguing on the fly, it’s easy to hit on an argument that sounds great — until it is road tested.

I think you’d be much better saying “Yeah, that wasn’t my best argument and moving on. It’s much better than a lengthy nonsensical excuse for not responding.

I’m unsurprised that MG2.0 hasn’t retracted his ridiculous assertion that the sect of his upbringing must be true because it has the most members. He’s unable to acknowledge or admit making a mistake. Lots of people have shown he’s made a mistake. He knows he’s made a mistake. But he cannot bring himself to acknowledge that. What type of personality does that?

Malkie has been exceptional patient. He deserved significantly better responses.

[MG 2.0]

Isn’t that what religion does — use subjective elements to skew the objective?

Res Ipsa, you are offering a rigid, adversarial relationship between the subjective and the objective in religion, ignoring the nuance and complexity inherent in most faiths, including Mormonism.

What is faith if not a subjective belief in something that cannot be proven with objective facts and syllogisms?

And here you are purposefully ignoring the nuance and complexity inherent in having religious faith and LDS theology in particular. It seems to me that it might be you who is offering up a rigid relationship between having faith and not having faith.

What sets you apart from most of us is a subjective faith in the restored gospel.

But it’s not all subjective. If it was, we probably wouldn’t be having this conversation. I’d be on your team.

To claim that subjective elements are just too hard for you or any other religious believer to parse is absurd.

You are over simplifying what I’ve said. It is you parsing my words to fit a certain rigidity that you seem to have between the subjective and the objective. Only one of the two is acceptable.

For as long as I’ve read your posts, your overarching argument here has been “My religious beliefs are rational.”

I believe they are. Because I am willing to accept the nuance and complexity that may lie behind what is seen as a simple choice/dichotomy by those that have a more rigid view of what is acceptable vs. not acceptable as reasonable evidence. Believers are willling to incorporate more data than unbelievers are willing to.

When you do that, you step out of the realm of faith and into reason. And it very difficult to defend that position, given that you start from the subjective proposition that a living creator God exists.

I, along with many others, do not see that as a purely subjective proposition.

But beyond that, you just said that you think a materialist view is limited, which puts you in favor of making subjective arguments. But you also complain about others using subjective.

The materialist view is limited by default. The materialist is unwilling to look at those things that might reasonably lead to having faith in that which we cannot see.

Your reasoning here is a mess.

I don’t believe so.

Beyond that, I don't think I was trying to make any other point.

Malkie had caught you out in making a terrible argument — the number of church members is evidence of [the truth of the Church?] If we only count restoration churches.

In this instance, for reasons I’ve already elaborated on, I don’t think this is a “terrible argument” at all.

Regards,
MG