The Great White Exmo

[_Mister Scratch]

I'll respond to your pseudo-sophisticate attempts at an intellectual critique of the Church when I feel like it and when it appears that, just perhaps, you are willing to take just a little closer look at the possible weaknesses of your own positions.

Dartagnon won't do it, but who knows, perhaps some of the Brights here may be amenable to a serious discussion amongst intellectual peers.

You know, what's so hilarious about this (aside from the fact that Loran cannot properly spell "Dartagnan") is that not terribly long ago he showed up on Kevin's board in order to try and suck up to him. Loran was behaving in a very obsequious and ass-kissy way towards one of Kevin's analyses of Islam, but my! how the tides have shifted! You can practically smell the stink of desperation oozing out of Coggins like some stale effluvium. This poor bastard just wants a teensy tiny modicum of acceptance, but nobody---not Kevin, not the MADites, and certainly nobody here---will give it to him! So, his only recourse is to label everyone else a "poseur." Magically, he is the only "intellectually serious" person in the whole online Mormon universe!

[_Trevor]

Magically, he is the only "intellectually serious" person in the whole online Mormon universe!

Sometimes it does seem that he thinks he is.

[_Coggins7]

Coggins, perhaps you should read some more literary classics before attempting to write poetry. I recommend The Three Musketeers.

And for you Zoid, I'd recommend anything by Dr. Suess.

Now, are you a Gen-X slacker or a Gen-Y slacker? This was not poetry. It was a satirical song, one of many I've done over the last year or so aimed a goring sacred cows and pushing hot buttons, based on an actually existing song, in this case that song being "The Great While Buffalo" by Ted Nugent and the Amboy Dukes.

However, if your general cultural literacy is anything like your brazenly comic understanding of history, its no wonder you think this was an attempt at an original production.

I wouldn't so much as let you gaze, unsupervised, at my actual poetry.

[_Coggins7]

Coggins's endless immaturity, and his startling inferiority complex is really quite excruciating. Perhaps if the Mopologists over at the aptly named MADboard had treated him with more sympathy, he would let up on these silly rampages. Instead, he carries on endlessly, hoping to fill the void left by his lack of formal education. How sad!

Actually Scratch, I've a couple years of formal education behind me, am working on some more as we speak, and have some 20 years plus of serious sustained informal (the best kind, in all actuality, I think there is, except for the fact that you don't get any academic credit for doing it).

Watch Scratch, very, very carefully. He's a credentialist without any credentials.

Move on, nothing to see here...

[_Coggins7]

Oh. My. God.

So you stating that the possibility of the EV God existing to be on par with the possibility of Zeus being the true god is NOT a claim that the EV God does not exist, and is NOT meant to be taken as claims to the actual state of the universe??

Once again. Oh. My. God. You can't make this stuff up.

Coggins, my response to the question about what would happen IF the LDS church turned out to be true was also clearly rhetorical, because I also consider the possibility of the Mormon God existing to be on par with the possibility that Zeus is the true God.

Care to try again? This time, try reading what you just typed before hitting "submit".

Do not think, Beastie, for even a nanosecond, that I do not understand this to be a head game you think you can win by digging in your heels and holding firm regardless of the slim logical filament upon which your position rests.

Yes, my claim that the EV god does not exist is an existential claim. However, there is no hypocrisy here because I have never made the claim that, if he did, I would tell him to take a hike to his face, except in a purely rhetorical sense in response to your purely rhetorical thought experiment. Nor have I ever claimed to believe in the EV god at all, and hence, telling that which I do not believe in to take a hike implies no hypocrisy.

However, as when I discuss religion or philosophy, I prefer to discuss the philosophical substance and logical consistency of beliefs and concepts, and point out inconsistencies only where they actually exist (as opposed to manufacturing them within artificial rhetorical boundaries constructed to test purely hypothetical "what if" situations that, in point of fact, one may not consider to be within the realm of possibility but will assume 'for the sake of argument" to answer the rhetorical question), this discussion is not up to those standards.

Now, back to the main point, which is not my rhetorical hypocrisy but your actually existing pride.

[_Zoidberg]

And for you Zoid, I'd recommend anything by Dr. Suess.

Let's see... We now know that Coggins is not familiar with the works of Marx, Solzhenitsyn, Bukharin, Dumas, and, apparently, Dr. Seuss. Not to mention the authors whose books are relevant to Mormonism.

Now, are you a Gen-X slacker or a Gen-Y slacker? This was not poetry. It was a satirical song, one of many I've done over the last year or so aimed a goring sacred cows and pushing hot buttons, based on an actually existing song, in this case that song being "The Great While Buffalo" by Ted Nugent and the Amboy Dukes. However, if your general cultural literacy is anything like your brazenly comic understanding of history, its no wonder you think this was an attempt at an original production.

I figured that you aren't likely to come up with anything original. by the way, this might break your americacentric heart, but in order to be considered culturally literate worldwide, it is not necessary to be familiar with every American rock musician from the sixties who shares your political views. But it helps if you are familiar with Dumas.

I wouldn't so much as let you gaze, unsupervised, at my actual poetry.

I will mourn this terrible loss to my dying day. I only hope you apply this restriction to the rest of humanity.

[_dartagnan]

Dartagnon won't do it

Sure I will. The problem is you always end up tucking your tail firmly between your legs before heading for the hills. Like your recent embarrassment over the Book of Abraham. You had to run over to MAD to find someone to fight your battle for you, only to find out nobody could. So you then pitched a fit in frustration and left the scene.

So stop pretending you're in a position to make intellectual challenges. You're a joke.

[_Coggins7]

Still, you have no way of knowing that you are correct

Upon basis can you make this assertion? I understand how you might claim that you don't you you are correct, but I'm not sure how you can claim positive knowledge of the internal mental states of another, or the manner in which "knowing" is apprehended by any given individual.

[_beastie]

Do not think, Beastie, for even a nanosecond, that I do not understand this to be a head game you think you can win by digging in your heels and holding firm regardless of the slim logical filament upon which your position rests.

Yes, my claim that the EV god does not exist is an existential claim. However, there is no hypocrisy here because I have never made the claim that, if he did, I would tell him to take a hike to his face, except in a purely rhetorical sense in response to your purely rhetorical thought experiment. Nor have I ever claimed to believe in the EV god at all, and hence, telling that which I do not believe in to take a hike implies no hypocrisy.

However, as when I discuss religion or philosophy, I prefer to discuss the philosophical substance and logical consistency of beliefs and concepts, and point out inconsistencies only where they actually exist (as opposed to manufacturing them within artificial rhetorical boundaries constructed to test purely hypothetical "what if" situations that, in point of fact, one may not consider to be within the realm of possibility but will assume 'for the sake of argument" to answer the rhetorical question), this discussion is not up to those standards.

Now, back to the main point, which is not my rhetorical hypocrisy but your actually existing pride.

Would you care to explain how my response was NOT a purely rhetorical thought experiment?

http://mormondiscussions.com/discuss/vi ... &start=168

Ray asked:

Beastie, what if your latter interpretation is wrong? What if God did actually give you that revelation?

I replied:

Then I trust I will discover that one day. I don't worry about it, because there are only a few possibilities. One is that God is a God of love and justice, as human beings like to portray. In this scenario, I have no concerns or qualms about my possibly incorrect belief, because that God would know that I've been sincere in my attempts to understand him and the world throughout my life, and if I came to an erroneous conclusion, it is not due to malicious intent. A loving God would not hold that against me.

Another possibility is that God does condemn people to some sort of punishment due to the simple fact that they believed the "wrong" thing in this life. In that case, perhaps God will punish me somehow, likely by forcibly divorcing me from my family and banning me from his presence. That would be a tragedy, but I cannot alter this scenario since, even if I knew this sort of God existed, I would refuse to respect, love, or worship him.

Coggins crowed:

(drumroll...) This, ladies and gentlemen, is what is known as pride. It is also immersed deeply in the aromatic waters of hubris.

"Up yours God, I'm not going to worship anyone who is actually going to hold me accountable for the choices I made while on earth."

I couldn't have done this better myself.

Now Beastie, are you ready to discuss this at a deeper and more intellectually honest level?

Now compare to my exchange with Coggins:

I asked:

If, after your death, you discover that the EVs are right, and God sends sincere Mormons to hell to burn for eternity for believing the wrong thing, would you worship, love, and respect that God?

Coggins:

Is this a purely rhetorical question, or is it meant to seriously address the possibility you mention? This matters becaue if God is really as capricious, arbitrary, and merciless as the EV God is understood to be in these senses, then he probably does not exist at all. Either that, or the universe contains some very dark and dreary secrets it would be better for mortals not to know.

My understanding and experience with God indicates to me quite clearly that he is not the God of the EVs, and hence, I have no problem having faith in his ultimate goodness, mercy, and fairness. On the purely non-experiential, rhetorical side, if I were to die and find out that he was sending me and billions of other people to Hell for all eternity for being wrong on nuances of doctrine, then yes, I would probably have a falling out with him, which would at that point be moot, as it would be too late.

But that is nothing but a thought experiment. In reality, my serous religious faith and the revealed knowlege I have received during my life indicates a God very much different than the one you mention. "What if" questions of this kind are nice tactics for cornering someone with a rhetorical device but do not get to the substance of the matter, which is that the EV God is, in this sense, not congruent with the major attributes ascribed to God in the New Testament (God is love etc). The thought experiment is interesting, but one sided and parochial. Other questions must be asked as well, such as what if I find out that I was right, abandoned that course until it was too late, and then found out that I was wrong to have abandoned it? What if I find out that I"m in the matrix and the whole thing was a complex engineered dream? What if I find out that I myself am nothing but a part of Brahma's dreams? What if this and what if that.

I have no illusions that the EV version of Hell is incorrect, because I know the Restored Gospel to be true. The truth is inconsistent with EV doctrines, and hence, the EV doctrines are not true. The EVs have theology, while the Church has revelation and witnesses, or prophets. I'm not concerned with EV theology being any threat to revelation and the witness of the prophets.

Notice the bolded phrase, in which Coggins himself identified "what if" questions are rhetorical devices. Note that Ray's question to me was textbook "what if", rhetorical.

Care to try again, Coggins?

[_Coggins7]

Sure I will. The problem is you always end up tucking your tail firmly between your legs before heading for the hills. Like your recent embarrassment over the Book of Abraham. You had to run over to MAD to find someone to fight your battle for you, only to find out nobody could. So you then pitched a fit in frustration and left the scene.

So stop pretending you're in a position to make intellectual challenges. You're a joke.

The more you talk the talk and walk the walk of Mr. Scratch, the more of an intellectual hack you appear to be. The fact of the matter is Dartagnon, when the truth regarding the Book of Abraham finally becomes too much for the critics to sustain, and the walls come tumbling down around your ears and the ears of others, like Brent Goldencalf, who have substantially overstated their case regarding the relative merits of their own evidence, there won't be any egg on your face because, like all good anti-Mormon intellectual charlatans, you will have moved on to your next target and, like Saddam, you'll lay low while until the heat's off, hoping to be able to reconstitute your WMD later when everybody has forgotten the past boners--such as the cock certainty of Signature Books types regarding the authenticity of the Salamander Letter.

I actually got some good feedback from MAD. The consensus there is not at all inconsistent with what I've maintained all along: that critics have substantially overstated and exaggerated the merits of their case, and an equally good case can be made for the missing documents theory of the Book of Abraham, and that the Egyptian Alphabet and Grammer had little, if anything, to do with the actual translation. From a strictly scholarly perspective, both sides are still in play as to the weight of the evidence.

In point of fact, you do not speak like a scholar, write like a scholar, or behave like a scholar. You quite clearly, whatever you might think of secular critics of your ideas, consider Mormons who disagree with you to be your personal enemies whom you are free to ridicule, insult, and bait.

You don't even hide your demagoguery and personal animosity toward the Church very well within the folds of your serious intellectual work (at least its clear that you take it to be serious).

So keep up the pose, Dartagnon, until a big fat one ends up sunny side up on your face and the beaming faces of the Sycophants of Signature.

Time is the great equalizer in these things.