All Activity

I can't interpret your revelation for you. If I saw a being that appeared only once, conveyed no information, yet terrified me, I've heard people have been known to have a single episode of Sleep Paralysis. A brief inability to move or speak while falling asleep or waking up. It often comes with fear, chest pressure, unable to speak, having difficulty breathing, feeling a "presence" in the room, and seeing and hearing hallucinations. The muscle paralysis of REM sleep carries over for a moment after your mind wakes up. You’re partly awake and partly dreaming, the real world and dream images can overlap. You could see a gremlin, a ghost or a demon in your bedroom.

I never said polygamy and Jews in the attic are "the same." An analogy is a comparison of traits shared by two otherwise dissimilar things. If I compare an apple to a tennis ball, it will likely be about their shared approximate size, not how they taste the same. My great-great grandfather was imprisoned for months. The difference is one of degree, not kind. My great-great grandfather wasn't given a trial: Clearly, Alexander was not threatened although he was treated cruelly by his 7th Regiment captors. Thomas Ackley, another military officer recorded in his journal how Alexander Macdonald, sleeping in the guard house hall, exhausted after the long march from Provo, was nearly murdered by an imprisoned soldier. Walking into the room with his ball and chain, “One of these fellows let his iron ball drop, . . . intending for it to strike the Mormon in the head, and would have killed him had it not been that he threw up his arm to save himself, but broke his arm.” (The diarist later identifies the injured man as Alexander Macdonald who was denied medical treatment for his broken arm.) Ackley later expressed amusement at observing Macdonald and other prisoners working “. . . with large sacks of sand tied to them, others with large logs of wood strapped to their backs for punishment. . . . .” Later Alexander was confined to small adobe room, barely large enough for him to stand, and with only a small pile of straw as bathroom facilities. A frantic Elizabeth tried to visit him and bring him bedding and food, but she was turned away. One of the officers had Macdonald brought to his quarters at night to secretly teach him the doctrines of Mormonism. Alexander later told his wife that the young captain believed the teachings but feared that joining the church would jeopardize his military career. Eventually the Army was embarrassed into releasing A.F. Macdonald and he returned to his wife and sons in Springville. Per this article, AF was imprisoned for six months. AF suffered. His family suffered. Many other Latter-day Saints suffered. This is surely distinct from the horrors inflicted on the Jews by the Nazis, but the distinctions are more of degree than of kind. ETA: I acknowledge a key distinction of kind, namely, that Jews were persecuted for who they were, whereas Latter-day Saints were persecuted for who they were and what they did. Nevertheless, the material similarity draws on the moral dilemma aspect. People in Europe during WWII faced a moral dilemma in deciding whether to hide Jews. 19th-century Latter-day Saints faced a moral dilemma in deciding whether to obey the law of the land or what they viewed to be the laws of God. Can you acknowledge that such a dilemma for this latter group existed? If not, why not? I agree. Ah, I did not know that (or I have forgotten). Thank you for the clarification. Understood. But it's a hypothetical. And if there was some element of the situation where you were compelled to deny your relationship with your partner, would you do it? I'm not sure you are aware of why I post in the style I do. We have a way of testing this. You could post what you think re: "why." Then I could do the same. I suspect they would be quite different. And between us, I am far better situated to speak as to the "why." Okay. Thanks, -Smac

What is at stake with lying about a Jew in the attic. 1. When a facist dictator is rounding up millions of Jews and exterminating them is is not the same as polygamy in a democracy. No one was being rounded up and sent to gas chambers simply because of their religion and heritage. 2. No trial is given the person in the attic. They are executed on the spot with no legal rights to go before a jury. 3. Preventing a religion from practicing polygamy is not ethnic cleansing. My partner and I have been together for 19 years, but out of respect for my children that are practicing LDS, we choose to not marry. The Church in fact discourages us being married. However, lately we have been thinking about getting married. I honestly don't care that much about marriage personally mostly because of the Church's influence. If we were married and wanted to move to a country that prohibits gay marriage, we would not choose to live in that kind of environment. I am fully aware of why you like to fisk your posts. Since my goal was to try to understand your point of view about certain subjects but your posts really don't clarifying what your beliefs are. I try to understand your position, but is all I get is you relying on semantics and ambiguities. So what's the point? I probably will take a break from interacting with you.

You can ignore my posts. Excellent. Back to the topic. Thanks, -Smac

I can’t stick to the subject when the other thinks I mean something different than I did (if the topic is color and I say red, but they insist I am saying blue). I don’t know if I will be able to ignore, but since it does seem hopeless at this point to be understood, that does seem the most rational solution.

Okay. You've had your say. Let's get back to the topic. Or you can ignore my posts. Or both. Thanks, -Smac

Well, you could just stick to the topic, or ignore my posts, or both. Thanks, -Smac

I think we have differing expectations. You seem to think "common courtesy" imposes an obligation to respond. I don't.

Board nannying? A lot of that going on here!

Why?

When what you say does not connect with what the other person said, that isn’t disagreement. And insisting it is contrary to others repeatedly saying “that’s not what I said” or other similar comments will not lead to understanding that you can then effectively disagree with.

I meant engaging with others’ comments on the topics you start rather than repeating yourself. What you say often doesn’t connect with what others say. And I make it personal because you don’t engage others’ comments on the topic, it’s not about your personality, but your method. Essentially the same that you did with Dan McClellan.

Back a decade ago, sure. Nowadays this feels unlikely when there’s one or two threads that have significant traffic, especially when a thread is essentially dead except for a post or two and you had been active in it up to that point, so a request to you wouldn’t be lost among a ton of posts. For example, here: https://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/75498-dan-mcclellan-on-mormon-stories/page/27/#findComment-1210278189 And yes, there is no obligation, but there is common courtesy to not just walk away and start a new thread to be involved in as if the other person does not exist once you lose interest. Even just saying you are not interested anymore would be sufficient, imo, rather than leaving a request for clarification hanging. I think everyone here understands getting tired of a topic and just having enough of it.

Very well. I’ll leave it to you and Ken and Van. Probably best for all.

Thanks. I think CB's and Calm's repeated references to "other people" agreeing with them to be kind of weird. It's argumentum ad populum. Other people like my posting style, so where does that leave us? My take: It takes us to a return to discussing the topic, with each of us at liberty to ignore posts we dislike. Thanks, -Smac

Really sound like a problem in the making.

Figuratively. It's not an "excuse." It's an illustration of a principle, which is this: There may be circumstances in which it is moral to disobey civil law. For Latter-day Saints, who are commanded to obey the laws of the land, this can create a moral conundrum. Here's another illustration: If you and your husband were moving to another country, and if that county conditioned your entry and residency on you getting a divorce (because the country has laws against same-sex couples/marriage), would you obey that law? Or if the county required you to affirm under oath that you are not in a same-sex marriage, would you make that affirmation? Yes, you stacked the deck there. You are free to speak as you like. As am I. Yet again, someone is conflating disagreement with misunderstanding. I understand that some people dislike my posting style. I disagree with, and reject, requests that I alter my posting style to suit your preferences. Do you see the difference? Thanks, -Smac

Bingo. I think if we all remembered this, the forum would go much smoother. For the record, I don't agree with the sentiments recently expressed about you. There is far too much nannying going on...

You’ve received similar feedback from multiple participants and you ignore and defend. I am the world's leading authority on what I think. That more than one person imputes motives and sentiments onto me which I do not hold does not validate those imputations. Instead, you go passive aggressive and indirectly accuse me of being immature. Classy. And ad hominem. Sure would be nice to discuss the topic instead. We are each at liberty to proceed as we see fit. But yes, if you key your participation on this board on how much you can control and dictate how others participate (such as myself), I think you are setting yourself up for disappointment. I think there is a substantial mismatch between my reasons for participating here and your expectations of my reasons, and of my participation. My posts do not conform to your expectations (which apparently involve "socializing"), and I am not inclined to change my posts to conform to them. If that frustrates you, then perhaps you are better off ignoring my posts. I wish you well. Thanks, -Smac

You literally sliced and diced my post as an excuse to still use the Nazi in the attic when THIS situation is nothing like lying about a Jew in the attic. As I said in the post, "I know it is a game you like to play, but it does erode trust that you are engaging in a good faith discussion like Mustard has pointed out." Do you seriously don't understand why multiple people complain about your fisking technique on a board that is suppose to be discussion based?

When you refuse to answer questions that might clarify your position, there is not much else we can do. I generally respond to inquiries, quite a bit in fact. In any event, the imputation of ill motives is, in my view, a form of ad hominem. I have questions not responded to all the time. It's just the way these boards work. We're not obligated to each other. We lose track of discussions. We may lose interest in discussions. I may not want to respond to questions about me instead of the topic. As for "not much else we can do," I disagree. We could return to discussing the topic rather than the participants in it. Hard to keep track of every thread and every discussion within each thread. And it's not like any of us is obligated to each other. Take, for example, Nehor. I regularly let him "have the last word" because I find his provocateur schtick and frequent lack of substantive commentary/insight and dialed-to-eleven sarcasm and personal hostility to frequently detract from discussion of the topic at hand. Rather than dwell on Nehor, though, I generally try to get back to discussing the topic. Similarly, I find your tendency to personalize discussions frequently detracts from discussion of the topic. I would prefer to focus on the topic. If I misunderstand something, that can be pointed out and demonstrated (rather than, say, simply assumed and followed by lectures). Most of the time, though, I think I do understand, I just disagree, and that disagreement is then construed by some as, and publicly declared to be, me "misunderstanding" something, which is another form of ad hominem. I don't come to this board for "connection." That's an expectation I have, I think, repeatedly rejected. As I noted to Mustard a few weeks ago, I don't come here to "socialize." I come here to discuss and debate topics pertaining to or touching on the Church and the Restored Gospel, quite often difficult ones. As for "concern for the other," I really don't know how to respond to that. None of us knows each other. I am generally quite civil and respectful in my comments. You are, of course, free to board nanny and personalize threads, as you frequently do, but I wish you wouldn't. My sense is that I have ruffled some feathers and outright offended some (and others have done that to me). As you say, online text communication is never perfect. More to the point, though, is that many of the topics raised here are controversial, which means participants will understandably have differing viewpoints on them. When that happens, disagreement can become less about the topic, and commentary can devolve into various manifestations of ad hominem and other forms of fallacious reasoning. I think communication is hindered when discussions become personalized, when terrible motives are imputed (and rarely demonstrated), and where logical fallacies overwhelm substantive interaction and focus on the topic. More mindreading and tone policing and board nannying. Sure would be nice to focus on the topics of discussion, rather than endless personalizing of threads. How about this: I will let you say what you think, and in ways that you deem fit (within the parameters of the board rules and general civility), and I'll ask that you reciprocate that accommodation. And this: If you don't care for the content or tone or format or style or whatever about my posts, you can ignore them. I would prefer that, as I don't answer to you and don't feel obligated to conform to your expectations and preferences. But again, you are free to say what you like, and participate in ways that you like. Argumentum ad populum. The valuable thing about a message board is that if a misunderstanding arises, it can be clarified and corrected. For example, you regularly impute things onto me that I think just are not so. I often - though not always - respond to clarify my perspective, often to seemingly no effect. If you still think I am "misunderstanding," then perhaps we can just be okay with that and move on. No need for ongoing lectures and tone policing. Okay. I disagree. I think big ideas and topics are often worth parsing out in ways that I like. While you sometimes (frequently? always?) take that as me missing "the whole picture," I don't think that is the case very often. It's just you making assumptions (and negative ones), or else just grousing about other participants and detracting from discussion of the topic at hand. Again, I don't come here to "socialize" or to "connect." That you and Mustard and others may come here to do that is all fine and dandy, but I would ask that you stop faulting me for not joining. I come here to discuss topics, not me. So in the end, I don't really care to discuss your armchair psychoanalysis of me, your imputing motives to me, your critiques of my writing style and supposed "misunderstandings," your lectures about me and my supposed moral failings ("real connection or concern for the other..." "I go by the rule every man a potential rapist") and whatever. I would prefer that you discuss the topics, not me. There may have been times in the past when there was a sense of camaraderie and conviviality on this board, but those days are, in my view, long gone. I participate here because I am interested in discussing the Church and the Restored Gospel, and particularly to listen to those who have viewpoints on these things which vary from my own, and who are willing to explain their viewpoints. Thanks, -Smac

You’ve received similar feedback from multiple participants and you ignore and defend. I’m tempted to be immature and respond the way you typically respond. Instead, i will say, this site is no longer of interest for me. It’s so frustrating, in fact, that I dislike how I participate. I need to change my interactions or stop participating at all.

And you know this how?

When you refuse to answer questions that might clarify your position, there is not much else we can do. You do go missing from threads at times though after someone has asked you something. I don’t believe you intentionally misconstrued what is being asked or set up your analysis style for that purpose, but your method of answering (breaking into small parts and apparently not reading to the end of a post before answering and then not adjusting at least what you have written when you do read the rest of the post) tends to cause you to misconstrue what the other is saying as you seem to fill in gaps unnecessarily—some questions you ask at times aren’t much related to what was said, it comes across as if you are having a different conversation to me—and that can lead to incorrect assumptions or inferences…most unnecessary if the post was treated as a whole, though communication is never perfect. And since many posters have pointed this out to you, how your method makes you misunderstand rather than comprehend what they are saying (it’s not just disagreement as you disagree with stuff they weren’t talking about at times) and yet you still continue to use it, I can understand why some might see you as just looking for a platform for your own ideas without any real connection or concern for the other. I think there may be another possibility….you have a process that feels right to you and likely works well in other areas of your life and not to use it is creates a sense of discomfort, disorder, incompleteness perhaps. If I am right, it’s unfortunate because the process is preventing you from understanding in many cases (based on what I have experienced of your analysis of my own posts and others’ similar comments of theirs). In essence, I think you are using the wrong tools to examine details….mental scissors (that cut apart and isolate ideas and even phrases from the greater context) vs a magnifying glass perhaps (where one can look closely, but that type of temporary isolation of details still leaves the construction of the comments intact so when one pulls back, one can look at the whole picture so as to put the details one identified together in the original pattern rather than create a new one filled more with one own ideas than the other.