Kishkumen wrote:....I don't think that it is possible to be free of bias....
I think it is safe to say almost everyone agrees with you.
The issue in this thread has always been the one-sided use of the accusation of bias. Mg stated honorentheos had a bias as though he was the only one. The pattern was identical to several discussions, most recently a discussion of the Jenkins-Hamblin debate where mg eventually conceded that everyone has bias, but only after he made many, many, MANY posts stating Jenkins couldn't be trusted in a debate with Hamblin because of Jenkins', and ONLY Jenkins' bias, even though he never could come up with what that bias was, only that surely it must have existed because Jenkins was not lds.
Hoping to forestall a repeat of that massive derail, I posted Brother Jake's words.
Lemmie wrote:The issue in this thread has always been the one-sided use of the accusation of bias. Mg stated honorentheos had a bias as though he was the only one. The pattern was identical to several discussions, most recently a discussion of the Jenkins-Hamblin debate where mg eventually conceded that everyone has bias, but only after he made many, many, MANY posts stating Jenkins couldn't be trusted in a debate with Hamblin because of Jenkins', and ONLY Jenkins' bias, even though he never could come up with what that bias was, only that surely it must have existed because Jenkins was not lds.
Hoping to forestall a repeat of that massive derail, I posted Brother Jake's words.
I agree with Brother Jake, and I guess that means I actually do agree with you. So, we agree.
Raising the issue of bias in a one-sided way is a dodge.
"Petition wasn’t meant to start a witch hunt as I’ve said 6000 times." ~ Hanna Seariac, LDS apologist
Kishkumen wrote:Thanks for clarifying your position on the Book of Mormon, honor. I disagree with you and Lemmie on the issue of bias. I don't think that it is possible to be free of bias, but I also think that sufficient evidence regarding an issue should lead us to better conclusions. Bias that is overwhelming of the preponderance of the evidence is to be avoided.
Hi Kishkumen,
I see you and Lemmie sorted things out on the bias question. All I would add to Brother Jake's insights is in my opinion, recognizing and acknowledging bias seems to be the most effective when one applies that insight to one's self and uses that insight to question one's own presuppositions. But as Bro. Jake suggested to MG, it gets abused as a form of special pleading and, ironically, becomes little more than a manifestation of one's own bias at work.
Anyway, I'd much rather spend an afternoon in Seneca's letters these days than try to sort out what evidence may be found in the Book of Mormon's language to the point I am happy to accept that is a form of bias on my part. It absolutely is, and I'm glad that kind of bias makes that kind of decision much easier than if I felt compelled to weigh every bit of evidence for or against that proposition. And then had to do so for every other alternative text I may wish to spend time with rather than going back to the Book of Mormon. Bias has its uses.
The world is always full of the sound of waves..but who knows the heart of the sea, a hundred feet down? Who knows it's depth? ~ Eiji Yoshikawa
honorentheos wrote:Anyway, I'd much rather spend an afternoon in Seneca's letters these days than try to sort out what evidence may be found in the Book of Mormon's language to the point I am happy to accept that is a form of bias on my part. It absolutely is, and I'm glad that kind of bias makes that kind of decision much easier than if I felt compelled to weigh every bit of evidence for or against that proposition. And then had to do so for every other alternative text I may wish to spend time with rather than going back to the Book of Mormon. Bias has its uses.
I can't fault you for your good taste!
"Petition wasn’t meant to start a witch hunt as I’ve said 6000 times." ~ Hanna Seariac, LDS apologist
Kishkumen wrote:Raising the issue of bias in a one-sided way is a dodge.
Depends. We also see those who argue everyone is equally biased so their argument is as good as any other which is a typical apologetic. While I have talked about MG's bias and close mindedness, it was never in regards to any argument he was making. I'm more then willing to look at any argument he wants to make, but he never wants to do the same with most of the issue relevant to whether LDS truth claims are true or false. He sticks only to subjects he think will support his beliefs.
Themis wrote:Depends. We also see those who argue everyone is equally biased so their argument is as good as any other which is a typical apologetic.
Yes, in the context of the conversation, calling everyone biased in order to hold one side to a particular standard is the one-sided way I was discussing. I was picking up from Lemmie's quotation above.
Themis wrote:While I have talked about MG's bias and close mindedness, it was never in regards to any argument he was making. I'm more then willing to look at any argument he wants to make, but he never wants to do the same with most of the issue relevant to whether LDS truth claims are true or false. He sticks only to subjects he think will support his beliefs.
Yep. I think that is totally par for the course. I don't expect any different from MG, and, honestly, I am not sure he is capable of anything else right now. Maybe one day he will be. I still give him credit for trying to relate his Mormon world to things outside it.
"Petition wasn’t meant to start a witch hunt as I’ve said 6000 times." ~ Hanna Seariac, LDS apologist
US actress Allison Mack has pleaded guilty to charges linked to an alleged sex trafficking operation disguised as a mentoring group. Appearing in Brooklyn federal court, Mack pleaded guilty to racketeering and racketeering conspiracy charges related to the suspected sex cult Nxivm. In a statement, Mack admitted to recruiting women by telling them they were joining a female mentorship group.
“When we are confronted with evidence that challenges our deeply held beliefs we are more likely to reframe the evidence than we are to alter our beliefs. We simply invent new reasons, new justifications, new explanations. Sometimes we ignore the evidence altogether.” (Mathew Syed 'Black Box Thinking')
I have spent a ton of time with Thomas. I consider him a dear friend. I find him to be a deep thinker and I find him to be aware of the issues and have deep care and concern for those who have a struggle with Mormonism. He is a great human being. I simply want to be on record here expressing that his story from the outside is confusing. But once you know him and understand his perspective it makes sense. He is a Buddhist at heart and going back into Mormonism was an extension of his eastern spiritual walk.
while folks here have applied negative labels to him without knowing him, such says way more about those folks here than The Wicker Man
DBMORMON wrote:I have spent a ton of time with Thomas. I consider him a dear friend. I find him to be a deep thinker and I find him to be aware of the issues and have deep care and concern for those who have a struggle with Mormonism. He is a great human being. I simply want to be on record here expressing that his story from the outside is confusing. But once you know him and understand his perspective it makes sense. He is a Buddhist at heart and going back into Mormonism was an extension of his eastern spiritual walk.
while folks here have applied negative labels to him without knowing him, such says way more about those folks here than The Wicker Man
Thanks for sharing that, DBMormon.
"Petition wasn’t meant to start a witch hunt as I’ve said 6000 times." ~ Hanna Seariac, LDS apologist
DBMORMON wrote:while folks here have applied negative labels to him without knowing him, such says way more about those folks here than The Wicker Man
I haven't paid attention to all the posts, but I don't recall seeing anything negative applied to him. Most of the thread was being critical of MG's thinking, which I suspect would not be very related to Thomas's positions.
