Mars Posted October 14, 2015 Posted October 14, 2015 We all know who he is talking about. Why this game? It's insulting mfb, Why don't you start another thread entitled "I have a big problem with the poster jkwilliams" See how that goes. well... i didn't... 2
Mars Posted October 14, 2015 Posted October 14, 2015 i guessed calm. i swear, that chick is running the long con. 4
stemelbow Posted October 14, 2015 Posted October 14, 2015 on second thought, no. no they are not. their fruits taste rotten to me. come out and own your position. you think joseph smith is full of garbage? say so. I've never thought he's full of garbage. you think there's no way the book of mormon could have been of provident origin? say so. I don't think that. you on the fence but have leanings? acknowledge them. I do. truth in lending. truth in advertising. conflicts of interest. there's all kinds of gray area where someone can exploit in so many other domains of life. this one should be no different. i will acknowledge the shortcomings of my religion and its history. i will continue to believe so long as i deem it to be God's will. but one thing i will never do when engaging a critic of my faith or a believer of another faith as a critic of theirs is leave ANY question whatsoever as to my intentions. my language will be straightforward and i will be very clear on that. leading questions. "did you stop beating your wife yet?" "why would church leaders do such a horrible thing?" (they have to have been proved to have done it first) i have no time for that nonsense. you, anyone for that matter, will always know what my predispositions and leanings will be when dealing with me. I think I'm pretty clear.
mfbukowski Posted October 14, 2015 Posted October 14, 2015 on second thought, no. no they are not. their fruits taste rotten to me. come out and own your position. you think joseph smith is full of garbage? say so. you think there's no way the book of mormon could have been of provident origin? say so. you on the fence but have leanings? acknowledge them. truth in lending. truth in advertising. conflicts of interest. there's all kinds of gray area where someone can exploit in so many other domains of life. this one should be no different. i will acknowledge the shortcomings of my religion and its history. i will continue to believe so long as i deem it to be God's will. but one thing i will never do when engaging a critic of my faith or a believer of another faith as a critic of theirs is leave ANY question whatsoever as to my intentions. my language will be straightforward and i will be very clear on that. leading questions. "did you stop beating your wife yet?" "why would church leaders do such a horrible thing?" (they have to have been proved to have done it first) i have no time for that nonsense. you, anyone for that matter, will always know what my predispositions and leanings will be when dealing with me.Right on!!
stemelbow Posted October 14, 2015 Posted October 14, 2015 You have a great imagination. John is misunderstood a lot around here. We're all a bit misunderstood. Just recognize you've misunderstood him and drop this silliness. 1
Mars Posted October 14, 2015 Posted October 14, 2015 I've never thought he's full of garbage.I don't think that.I do. I think I'm pretty clear. was going for the general 'you' here, stemelbow. not you you. haha, in a post where i said i'd be totally clear i failed.
Mars Posted October 14, 2015 Posted October 14, 2015 for the record, my intention is to get people to believe that Mormonism is what it's cracked up to be.
stemelbow Posted October 14, 2015 Posted October 14, 2015 was going for the general 'you' here, stemelbow. not you you. haha, in a post where i said i'd be totally clear i failed. Oh. I have no idea who here could possibly match this description: "at least, there are posters here who sometimes profess testimony - or worse, imply testimony by virtue of professed membership in the church - who use gaps in knowledge to push leading questions that suggest exploitative characters and characteristics in Church leadership figures both past and present."
Mars Posted October 14, 2015 Posted October 14, 2015 Oh. I have no idea who here could possibly match this description:"at least, there are posters here who sometimes profess testimony - or worse, imply testimony by virtue of professed membership in the church - who use gaps in knowledge to push leading questions that suggest exploitative characters and characteristics in Church leadership figures both past and present." i've met a few. i have my misgivings. sometimes i doubt people's sincerity. where appropriate, i'll be pointed about it. until then, i engage what people say and not what i think they are. at least, i try. 2
ALarson Posted October 14, 2015 Posted October 14, 2015 (edited) You have a great imagination. John is misunderstood a lot around here.I think he says what's on his mind and doesn't seem to worry about others agreeing or disagreeing with him. He's pretty much a "what you see is what you get" kind of guy. I don't happen to always agree with him and that's ok. I've also seen his posts on other forums and they're pretty consistent with what he posts here. He doesn't usually leave much room to misunderstand his opinion or thoughts or beliefs. I like that. Edited October 14, 2015 by ALarson
iWriteStuff Posted October 14, 2015 Posted October 14, 2015 Kinda funny to me. I thought this forum would be a lot less combative than the last one due to proactive moderation. Silly me indeed!
Mars Posted October 14, 2015 Posted October 14, 2015 Kinda funny to me. I thought this forum would be a lot less combative than the last one due to proactive moderation. Silly me indeed! we're people. and these are very personal and deeply emotional issues. we can't help but get a little heated sometimes. 2
Ahab Posted October 14, 2015 Posted October 14, 2015 for the record, my intention is to get people to believe that Mormonism is what it's cracked up to be.Yeah, sure, you say that but...Soneone who is really good/adept at deceiving other people is often seen as a good guy. Just look at how many Satan has deceived into thinking like he does by representing himself and his ideals as good..., with many thinking HE is the God they should be worshipping.I still don't know who mski is talking about because I see so many possibilities.
Senator Posted October 14, 2015 Posted October 14, 2015 And if you think you know who I am talking about, you are probably wrong.All the guesses so far by pm are wrong.I'm done. Thanks all.Then I guess I should stop playing your little game. 1
Mars Posted October 14, 2015 Posted October 14, 2015 Yeah, sure, you say that but...Soneone who is really good/adept at deceiving other people is often seen as a good guy. Just look at how many Satan has deceived into thinking like he does by representing himself and his ideals as good..., with many thinking HE is the God they should be worshipping.I still don't know who mski is talking about because I see so many possibilities. yeah, fair enough. i could be lying. in general, though, the more clear and concrete the statement the easier it is to detect the deception. deception lives in the gray area. there's always some compelling reason why i broke the rules, or yelled at my wife, or whatever it is. "it's not my fault" becomes the exit strategy for avoiding penalties with behavior. with speech, it's hemming and hawing. if you can get someone to think bananas are delicious without actually saying "i want you to eat this banana. it is delicious." then they might actually go eat a banana due to what they think and they'll tell themselves it was their idea all along. so i try to be clear and concrete. 1
Senator Posted October 14, 2015 Posted October 14, 2015 Kinda funny to me. I thought this forum would be a lot less combative than the last one due to proactive moderation. Silly me indeed!Contention is good. Silly you
ALarson Posted October 14, 2015 Posted October 14, 2015 i guessed calm. i swear, that chick is running the long con.This is very funny. Comic relief?
Mars Posted October 14, 2015 Posted October 14, 2015 This is very funny. Comic relief? yeah. (and no! i'm on to her!!!) 1
hagoth7 Posted October 14, 2015 Posted October 14, 2015 ...But one reason for the substitution could be that a lot of people don't comprehend the meaning of apologetics, that in this context, it means defense, not expression of regret or contrition.I think most people are crystal clear about the distinction.
Rain2 Posted October 14, 2015 Posted October 14, 2015 well... i didn't... Nor me, but I do think another thread would be better. Not really. Just I thought we we discussing an idea from the OP, but now I feel that it has a much more personal turn. i guessed calm. i swear, that chick is running the long con. Bluebell - thanks for expressing better what I was trying to say. When I find it as hard to describe as I was finding it then it is probably better for me to leave it to others who can do a better job than I can. I really admire how well you can communicate. 3
mfbukowski Posted October 14, 2015 Posted October 14, 2015 This is very funny. Comic relief? Question mark? Really?
Ahab Posted October 14, 2015 Posted October 14, 2015 yeah, fair enough. i could be lying.in general, though, the more clear and concrete the statement the easier it is to detect the deception. deception lives in the gray area. there's always some compelling reason why i broke the rules, or yelled at my wife, or whatever it is. "it's not my fault" becomes the exit strategy for avoiding penalties with behavior. with speech, it's hemming and hawing. if you can get someone to think bananas are delicious without actually saying "i want you to eat this banana. it is delicious." then they might actually go eat a banana due to what they think and they'll tell themselves it was their idea all along.so i try to be clear and concrete.You, or anyone else in general, can be as clear and concrete as can be and still be deceiving other people...simply by portraying something as what it is not. A bold face lie that other people could accept as the truth when it really is not. It still amazes me sometimes how easily some people can be deceived. My Dad for example who has been expertly convinced (conned) into believing Joseph Smith was not a prophet of God and that what we know as the "fullness of the gospel" is not true...even though he is a minister of a church, like his father before him, while those in his church believe they know what the true gospel is.So, no, people who deceptive aren't necessarily sneaky. They just somehow portray the truth as not being true.
Mars Posted October 14, 2015 Posted October 14, 2015 (edited) You, or anyone else in general, can be as clear and concrete as can be and still be deceiving other people...simply by portraying something as what it is not. A bold face lie that other people could accept as the truth when it really is not.It still amazes me sometimes how easily some people can be deceived. My Dad for example who has been expertly convinced (conned) into believing Joseph Smith was not a prophet of God and that what we know as the "fullness of the gospel" is not true...even though he is a minister of a church, like his father before him, while those in his church believe they know what the true gospel is.So, no, people who deceptive aren't necessarily sneaky. They just somehow portray the truth as not being true. but the difference here is that you know your dad says he doesn't believe Joseph Smith is a prophet. there's no deception in what he says to you. you may think he's been deceived and that's the reason why he thinks what he thinks, but he is being consistent. there is no universal detector of truth, sincerity, deceit, and falsehood. i agree with you there. but we can help ourselves out by being concrete and comparing what we say with how we act. the more specific you are in your claims about what you do and don't believe, the easier it is for someone to make a judgment call on your sincerity. if you routinely call into question the motives of the prophets and apostles, or call into question the claims that we're led by God when, say, no non-Utah AND non-white men are called to the 12, and are silent or muted in your affirmation that they are led by God, but then routinely talk about experiences you had while at Church in the very recent past (leading the reader to believe you maintain membership and attendance, ostensibly as a member), then i would would be slow to believe your sincerity as a believing member. i would start to wonder what you hoped to get out of some questions. i would be wondering if you already had formed an opinion and your questions were designed such that their answers would logically or naturally lead someone to the conclusions you have. if you call into question, etc... but say "and for these reasons i am leaning toward NOT believing they are led of God" then i will 100% trust your sincerity. just me, though. Edited October 14, 2015 by Mars
Rain2 Posted October 14, 2015 Posted October 14, 2015 What if the person is harming others?Is the a point at which it becomes a duty to oppose them?I answered the OP. Then you posted your question about this person. Then in your next post you quoted me. So I didn't realize that you were asking me a specific question about a specific person. I thought we were still talking about concepts and ideas. I'm sorry that I didn't catch that.
Recommended Posts