Whacky Lawsuit Against the Church Goes Awry

[mfbukowski]

55 minutes ago, Michael Sudworth said:

Poppycock, so I am issuing an official CFR.

Absurd, as most of your posts.

Totally ridiculous, a CFR for someone's opinion

So I hereby issue a CFR for all your poppycock!

[Michael Sudworth]

2 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

So I hereby issue a CFR for all your poppycock!

Is this an invitation to resume our discussion of Rorty/Wittgenstein?  I would love to pick that back up with you.

Edited May 23, 2020 by Michael Sudworth

[mfbukowski]

18 minutes ago, Michael Sudworth said:

I believe @mfbukowski pollutes the Gospel message with his Rorty fetish.

Go ahead and justify visions as "rational" without Wm James' Pragmatism.  

Kant started it with his synthetic a priori, then of course it developed through Romanticism and Phenomenology and in the US, Pragmatism.

I found the church through Pragmatism, and without that basis I would find LDS beliefs absurd.  I was an atheist before I joined.

So I would say this is more of a "LDS fetish" than a Pragmatism fetish. Blame it on the Lord for putting me here after he clobbered me with the spirit which I would have found "irrational" without Pragmatism, and it is.

LDS folks for the most part have no idea what a treasure they have here philosophically.  Joseph could never have put it together himself.

Restoring an anthropomorphic God at the beginning of Humanism as found in Romanticism is what has made the church what it is, because humanism is in the "air" - the intellectual ecology of the age- in which we all live.

Other than his arguments regarding contingency of the self, Rorty is said to be the most "lucid" proponent of Pragmatism, and so I quote him often.  If he is not lucid to you, and you cannot see how essential Pragmatism is to Mormonism in general, I am sorry.

Alma 32 is virtually a perfect description of Pragmatism if you understand that or not.  Parley P Pratt was writing Pragmatism 30 years before William James was even born.

[mfbukowski]

24 minutes ago, Michael Sudworth said:

Is this an invitation to resume our discussion of Rorty/Wittgenstein?  I would love to pick that back up with you.

Bring it!

 

[Kenngo1969]

1 hour ago, mfbukowski said:

Go ahead and justify visions as "rational" without Wm James' Pragmatism.  

Kant started it with his synthetic a priori, then of course it developed through Romanticism and Phenomenology and in the US, Pragmatism.

I found the church through Pragmatism, and without that basis I would find LDS beliefs absurd.  I was an atheist before I joined.

So I would say this is more of a "LDS fetish" than a Pragmatism fetish. Blame it on the Lord for putting me here after he clobbered me with the spirit which I would have found "irrational" without Pragmatism, and it is.

LDS folks for the most part have no idea what a treasure they have here philosophically.  Joseph could never have put it together himself.

Restoring an anthropomorphic God at the beginning of Humanism as found in Romanticism is what has made the church what it is, because humanism is in the "air" - the intellectual ecology of the age- in which we all live.

Other than his arguments regarding contingency of the self, Rorty is said to be the most "lucid" proponent of Pragmatism, and so I quote him often.  If he is not lucid to you, and you cannot see how essential Pragmatism is to Mormonism in general, I am sorry.

Alma 32 is virtually a perfect description of Pragmatism if you understand that or not.  Parley P Pratt was writing Pragmatism 30 years before William James was even born.

So, Mark, when are you going to write the book on the teachings of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints vis-a-vis the Philosophy of Pragmatism?!   (I'm only half joking, Mark, so I do expect an answer!) 

[Kenngo1969]

3 hours ago, Michael Sudworth said:

LOL.  You are busting me up.  Ha. @Robert F. Smith presents arguments.   Smac uses a lot of words that essentially mean nothing.

Oh ...

My ...

Goodness.

I've had my disagreements with @Robert F. Smith.  From where I sit, occasionally, he seems reluctant to extend due credit to his interlocutors as having done sufficient work to have weighed whatever matter they happen to be discussing to a sufficient degree intellectually.  Occasionally, he seems to fall prey to the fallacy that according a particular matter sufficient weight intellectually will result, inevitably, in his interlocutors agreeing with him about whatever matter they are discussing when that is not the case.  But, yes, agree or disagree with him, it's obvious that he possesses a formidable intellect.  By contrast, if one were to judge you solely by your performance on this thread, it would be obvious that the same cannot be said of you.

Quote

 

I agree.  I am don't have the stamina to match Smac's nonsense.  He's driven many good posters away through his sophistry by simply wearing them down with Zeezrom-esque language and tricks.

Do you post on at least one other board where you would be privy to that information, while the rest of us, who don't frequent such cyber haunts, are ignorant?  If so, and if you post on a particular board of which I'm thinking at the moment, certainly, that would say some interesting things about you.  (Your compatriots on any other boards you might frequent probably don't share your high opinion of @Robert F. Smith.  What, if anything, should we make of that?)

Quote

Most sensible people disagree with Smac's posts on this board.

Did you take a scientific, randomized survey, did you?  Mind sharing the results?  Again, I wonder where you're getting these alleged assessments and your alleged data from.  I have my suspicions.  Alas, you're probably too much of a cobarde to confirm them.  That's fine.  Again, that says some interesting things about you.

Quote

Poppycock, so I am issuing an official CFR.  As I said, @Robert F. Smith and @Kevin Christensen are intellectuals with solid reasoning skills.  Smac is lawyer who uses underhanded and disingenuous rhetoric to win arguments.  Winning arguments does not equal truth; something folks with quality reasoning skills understand.

I'm sure @smac97 has had many more respectful discussion, and perhaps even an occasional disagreement or two, with @Robert F. Smith and with @Kevin Christensen than you ever will.  Notwithstanding our occasional disagreements, I respect @Robert F. Smith.  I cannot recall having any disagreements with @Kevin Christensen, and I respect him, as well.  You?  Alas, not so much.

Quote

Peril? LOL

There's more than one form of peril.  It need not implicate risk to life or limb.  For example, perhaps you've heard the old saying, "It is better for one to stay silent and be thought a fool than for one to open one's mouth, thereby removing all doubt."  There is wisdom in that aphorism that, perhaps, you ought to consider heeding.  I have my doubts about whether you will do so, but ...

Quote

Oh man.... this post made my day

Happy to oblige!  Nice to know I'm good for something.

Edited May 23, 2020 by Kenngo1969

[Robert F. Smith]

2 hours ago, Michael Sudworth said:

..........................   Smac uses a lot of words that essentially mean nothing............ I am don't have the stamina to match Smac's nonsense.  He's driven many good posters away through his sophistry by simply wearing them down with Zeezrom-esque language and tricks.

Most sensible people disagree with Smac's posts on this board.

Most of what Attorney Spencer Macdonald presents on this board consists of quotations and citations of documents, with very brief comments.

2 hours ago, Michael Sudworth said:

  ...................  Smac is lawyer who uses underhanded and disingenuous rhetoric to win arguments.  Winning arguments does not equal truth; something folks with quality reasoning skills understand.............................

In our American system of jurisprudence, we make it a policy that professional advocates will do battle in a courtroom with an experienced judge as referee.  That's why it is called an "adversarial" system.  A jury hears the arguments and then retires to deliberate and return a verdict.  It is an imperfect system, but the best we have come up with since the Danes settled central England (the Danelaw).  Certainly better than the blood feud.

It is true that Socrates and Plato did not trust the Sophists, and that they preferred the benevolent rule of a philosopher king.  They also did not like democracy, which they viewed as mobocracy.  Why would we ever leave it up to the hoi polloi to determine the "truth"?

Should we of the LDS faith prefer rule by the once and future king and the 12 knights of his table-round?  Should we implement our own version of Sharia Law here and now?  Is it time to replace the U.S. Constitution, Mike?

[Robert F. Smith]

50 minutes ago, Kenngo1969 said:

So, Mark, when are you going to write the book on the teachings of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints vis-a-vis the Philosophy of Pragmatism?!   (I'm only half joking, Mark, so I do expect an answer!) 

I have been gathering the best of Mark Bukowski's comments on this board for several years.  Some real gems among them.  We desperately need that book, although he has published some of his views formally, e.g., https://journal.interpreterfoundation.org/untangling-scripture-from-the-philosophies-of-men/

[mfbukowski]

53 minutes ago, Kenngo1969 said:

So, Mark, when are you going to write the book on the teachings of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints vis-a-vis the Philosophy of Pragmatism?!   (I'm only half joking, Mark, so I do expect an answer!) 

Working on it.

 

[mfbukowski]

1 minute ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Some real gems among them. 

And then we have others....

But I do appreciate the compliment!

[Kenngo1969]

1 hour ago, Kenngo1969 said:

So, Mark, when are you going to write the book on the teachings of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints vis-a-vis the Philosophy of Pragmatism?!   (I'm only half joking, Mark, so I do expect an answer!) 

 

11 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

Working on it.

 

Duuuuuuuuuude!  

Can I help?  (Still only half-joking.)  You've probably deduced, correctly, that I lack the intellectual and philosophical heft that would be necessary to enable me to make any sort of serious, extensive substantive contribution to it.  But if I can help with editing, and perhaps with translating the odd passage here or there from philosophese to good old-fashioned plain English , I would be all over that!

P.S.:  You know what's a total, complete riot?  (You or somebody else might've mentioned this before, and my mind is only a Steel Trap in 30-second increments, so ...) Supposedly (this comes from Wikipedia, so ... ) Rorty's second wife was a practicing member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints!  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Rorty

Edited May 23, 2020 by Kenngo1969

[Calm]

So no list of MS’s sensible people so we can test his claim?  Why am I not surprised. 

[Kenngo1969]

7 hours ago, Calm said:

So no list of MS’s sensible people so we can test his claim?  Why am I not surprised. 

Well, to be fair, so far, we do have:

@mfbukowski Mark Bukowski

@Kevin Christensen Kevin Christensen

and @Robert F. Smith Robert F. Smith

I have to say, so far, I agree that, insofar as I can tell (but whaddo I know?  I'm ), these gentlemen certainly seem sensible, but, surely, those aren't the only sensible people on this Board or in Cyberspace, are they?   If the list is that short, we're in trouble, aren't we?

Edited May 24, 2020 by Kenngo1969

[mfbukowski]

3 hours ago, Kenngo1969 said:

 

Duuuuuuuuuude!  

Can I help?  (Still only half-joking.)  You've probably deduced, correctly, that I lack the intellectual and philosophical heft that would be necessary to enable me to make any sort of serious, extensive substantive contribution to it.  But if I can help with editing, and perhaps with translating the odd passage here or there from philosophese to good old-fashioned plain English , I would be all over that!

P.S.:  You know what's a total, complete riot?  (You or somebody else might've mentioned this before, and my mind is only a Steel Trap in 30-second increments, so ...) Supposedly (this comes from Wikipedia, so ... ) Rorty's second wife was a practicing member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints!  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Rorty

Yes I knew that and he was very sympathetic to our position. His former home teacher was (is?) A philosophy professor at.... UVU?

He described the kind of God he might be able to accept as an anthropomorphic "friend" of mankind instead of a tyrannical "believe or burn" transcendent god, the death of whom Nietzsche had already proven.

What's a matter wit chu?

You think I picked this guy as a poster boy at random?

https://works.bepress.com/scott_abbott/58/

 

Edited May 24, 2020 by mfbukowski

[carbon dioxide]

On 5/22/2020 at 5:21 PM, mrmarklin said:

The real problem we have with lawsuits in the US, is that the loser does not have to pay the legal costs of the defendants in frivolous suits. Britain, as an example, has loser pays rule, and avoids a lot of stupidity clogging their courts. 

Its not a problem for lawyers.  The more lawsuits the better as they have a chance to make money.

[Kenngo1969]

1 hour ago, mfbukowski said:

Yes I knew that and he was very sympathetic to our position. His former home teacher was (is?) A philosophy professor at.... UVU?

He described the kind of God he might be able to accept as an anthropomorphic "friend" of mankind instead of a tyrannical "believe or burn" transcendent god, the death of whom Nietzsche had already proven.

What's a matter wit chu?

You think I picked this guy as a poster boy at random?

https://works.bepress.com/scott_abbott/58/

 

No, I certainly don't.

[mfbukowski]

8 minutes ago, Kenngo1969 said:

No, I certainly don't.

Tried to PM you, doesn't work.

[Kenngo1969]

4 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

Tried to PM you, doesn't work.

@mfbukowski You can e-mail me at [CENSORED: Contact made.  One can never be too careful about keeping the potential crackpots at bay!]

Edited May 24, 2020 by Kenngo1969

[Kenngo1969]

3 hours ago, carbon dioxide said:

Its not a problem for lawyers.  The more lawsuits the better as they have a chance to make money.

It would be foolish to file lawsuits indiscriminately.  The most important question is not, "Can I file?"  Almost anyone can sue anyone else for almost anything.  (This is particularly true when one considers the relative merits [or lack thereof] of the sorts of lawsuits under discussion in this thread.)  Rather, a far more important question is, "Will I win?" Both lawyer and client must consider the prospects for success of any given suit along with the law of diminishing returns very carefully. Often, litigation is protracted and expensive.  What might have seemed to be good prospects for a lucrative payday at the beginning of a legal proceeding become rather less so the longer the litigation proceeds and the more expenses pile up.

[mfbukowski]

9 hours ago, Kenngo1969 said:

Oh ...

My ...

Goodness.

I've had my disagreements with @Robert F. Smith.  From where I sit, occasionally, he seems reluctant to extend due credit to his interlocutors as having done sufficient work to have weighed whatever matter they happen to be discussing to a sufficient degree intellectually.  Occasionally, he seems to fall prey to the fallacy that according a particular matter sufficient weight intellectually will result, inevitably, in his interlocutors agreeing with him about whatever matter they are discussing when that is not the case.  But, yes, agree or disagree with him, it's obvious that he possesses a formidable intellect.  By contrast, if one were to judge you solely by your performance on this thread, it would be obvious that the same cannot be said of you.

Do you post on at least one other board where you would be privy to that information, while the rest of us, who don't frequent such cyber haunts, are ignorant?  If so, and if you post on a particular board of which I'm thinking at the moment, certainly, that would say some interesting things about you.  (Your compatriots on any other boards you might frequent probably don't share your high opinion of @Robert F. Smith.  What, if anything, should we make of that?)

Did you take a scientific, randomized survey, did you?  Mind sharing the results?  Again, I wonder where you're getting these alleged assessments and your alleged data from.  I have my suspicions.  Alas, you're probably too much of a cobarde to confirm them.  That's fine.  Again, that says some interesting things about you.

I'm sure @smac97 has had many more respectful discussion, and perhaps even an occasional disagreement or two, with @Robert F. Smith and with @Kevin Christensen than you ever will.  Notwithstanding our occasional disagreements, I respect @Robert F. Smith.  I cannot recall having any disagreements with @Kevin Christensen, and I respect him, as well.  You?  Alas, not so much.

There's more than one form of peril.  It need not implicate risk to life or limb.  For example, perhaps you've heard the old saying, "It is better for one to stay silent and be thought a fool than for one to open one's mouth, thereby removing all doubt."  There is wisdom in that aphorism that, perhaps, you ought to consider heeding.  I have my doubts about whether you will do so, but ...

Happy to oblige!  Nice to know I'm good for something.

For the record I think that Bob is one of the most intelligent people I have ever met and I am privileged to call him a friend.  He is a tremendous scholar, no question about it.  I think on this board many are not aware of his amazing and extensive background, and in my opinion he really DOES know the issues better than, in many cases, all of us put together.  He is a walking Encyclopedia.

Yes we occasionally do not see eye to eye, but those instances are on incidentals only and after usually a short discussion I can usually see that I am the one who was wrong.

I love reading every word Kevin writes, and and have found him also to be a tremendous source for helping to "civilize" me, and he has taught me a lot. I agree with virtually everything he posts.   I have only met him once, but he is a kind and gracious man.  I see that clearly because I am definitely not.

[mfbukowski]

12 hours ago, bluebell said:

He sounds like the kind of poster where anyone who doesn't agree with him isn't sensible.    

Does anyone here find him credible at all?

[smac97]

On 5/23/2020 at 11:52 AM, Michael Sudworth said:

LOL.  You are busting me up.  Ha. @Robert F. Smith presents arguments.   Smac uses a lot of words that essentially mean nothing.

I don't think so.  I think most of what I say is based on evidence and sound reasoning.  I try hard to avoid logical fallacies, fallacious arguments, etc.  However, I'm as human as the next person, so I'm sure I mess up here and there.  When and if that happens, feel free to point out the error in my thinking, and I'll take it into account.  However, you'll need to provide more than broad generalizations like the above.

Quote

I agree.  I am don't have the stamina to match Smac's nonsense.  He's driven many good posters away through his sophistry by simply wearing them down with Zeezrom-esque language and tricks.

I doubt it.

Quote

Most sensible people disagree with Smac's posts on this board.

I doubt that, too.  I am sometimes faulted for being too verbose, but you seem to be unique in accusing me of relying on "words that essentially mean nothing," "nonsense," "sophistry" and "Zeezrom-eque language and tricks."

Quote

Poppycock, so I am issuing an official CFR.  As I said, @Robert F. Smith and @Kevin Christensen are intellectuals with solid reasoning skills.  Smac is lawyer who uses underhanded and disingenuous rhetoric to win arguments.  Winning arguments does not equal truth; something folks with quality reasoning skills understand.

And now accusations of "underhanded disingenuous rhetoric" too.  

Wow.  Lots of anger and vituperation.  Not much in the way of substance, though.

I'd rather not have this thread become personalized about me, so perhaps we should just move on.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited May 24, 2020 by smac97

[smac97]

21 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Most of what Attorney Spencer Macdonald presents on this board consists of quotations and citations of documents, with very brief comments.

And sometimes my comments are not so brief.  I'll own that.

The point, though, is that I try hard to base my comments on "quotations {of} and citations" to evidence and authorities.  I'm pretty sure my writing style has been heavily influenced by my training and experience as an attorney.  My job is not really to formulate new ideas or theories.  Rather, my job is to survey the factual circumstances of a particular dispute, then apply legal principles to them.  What is the dispute about?  What are the factual elements in dispute?  For each such disputed factual element, what evidence is available that tends to prove or disprove the verity of it?  What is the scope and strength and reliability/competency of that evidence?  About which factual elements do we lack sufficient evidentiary means to prove or disprove the disputed issue?  How much guesswork and speculation is in play in the dispute?  What presumptions and assumptions, if any, are warranted when evaluating both the factual record and the gaps in the record, both the evidence and the gaps in the evidence?  

And that's just the examination of the factual aspects of the dispute.  We also need to examine sources of authority.  That is, the "law."  What authority governs the dispute?  As we are usually discussing religious disputes, the "authorities" in view are generally not secular (the Constitution, statutes, case law, etc.), but rather ecclesiastical (scriptures, prophetic counsel, etc.).  Further, there are some scholarly disciplines that can become relevant and have some measure of "authority," or at least a persuasive influence (historiography, linguistics, Egyptology, etc.).

Additionally, logical reasoning plays a significant role in sorting out a factual dispute.  There are all sorts of logical fallacies and errors in reasoning that an individual may, inadvertently or otherwise, rely on when looking at a dispute, at evidence pertaining to the dispute, and at relevant mandatory or persuasive authorities governing the dispute.  By way of example, Michael Sudworth, in his comments in this thread about me, appears to be resorting to ad hominem and/or poisoning the well.  He's saying nothing substantive about arguments I have presented, and instead is resorting to taunts, insults, and unsupported accusations to attack me personally. 

We all have our strengths and weaknesses.  While I do appreciate substantive feedback from posters here, Michael is just offering driveby potshots (or, as one guy recently put it, "words that essentially mean nothing").

Quote

In our American system of jurisprudence, we make it a policy that professional advocates will do battle in a courtroom with an experienced judge as referee.  That's why it is called an "adversarial" system.  A jury hears the arguments and then retires to deliberate and return a verdict.  It is an imperfect system, but the best we have come up with since the Danes settled central England (the Danelaw).  Certainly better than the blood feud.

It is true that Socrates and Plato did not trust the Sophists, and that they preferred the benevolent rule of a philosopher king.  They also did not like democracy, which they viewed as mobocracy.  Why would we ever leave it up to the hoi polloi to determine the "truth"?

On this message board, I think posters and readers are a lot more like the judge or the jury.  It is for each of us to look at a dispute, weigh the evidence, apply reasoning and argument and authoritative sources, and come to a conclusion for ourselves.  I think this board has been helpful in my efforts at looking at disputes about the Church and the Restored Gospel.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited May 24, 2020 by smac97

[smac97]

14 hours ago, carbon dioxide said:

Quote

The real problem we have with lawsuits in the US, is that the loser does not have to pay the legal costs of the defendants in frivolous suits. Britain, as an example, has loser pays rule, and avoids a lot of stupidity clogging their courts. 

Its not a problem for lawyers.  The more lawsuits the better as they have a chance to make money.

The legal community has discussed the relative merits of the English Rule (loser pays both side's attorneys' fees) and the American Rule (each side pays unless there is a statute or contract that says loser pays both sides' fees).  I'm somewhat ambivalent about the debate.  I see merit to both rules, but only have practical experience with the latter.

Regarding frivolous lawsuits, however, I'm not sure American courts are "clogged" with them.  I have practiced in real estate law for about ten years now.  I would say 90% of my practice has been on the defense, representing banks, trustees, property owners, etc.  Of that 90% of cases, I'd say about 80% of them are disposed of through a "motion to dismiss."  When presenting a motion to dismiss to the court, the defendant admits (temporarily, and only for the purposes of the motion) that the plaintiff's factual allegations are true, but that the plaintiff is still not entitled to pursue a lawsuit because of various legal reasons.  The vast majority of frivolous/vexatious lawsuits are disposed of through a motion to dismiss.  Laura Gaddy's lawsuit against the Church is an example of such a frivolous suit, as is the one referenced in the OP.

I have encountered a very few litigants who have succeeded in making a frivolous lawsuit very expensive and time consuming.  However, for each such suit, there are many dozens of suits that get dismissed with minimal legal effort (say, 10-15 hours of legal work each, largely spent on the motion to dismiss and attending the hearing).

One benefit of the American Rule is that tort disputes, such as negligence claims (car accidents, slip and fall, etc.), slander, etc. require both sides to pay their own attorneys.  This means both sides are incentivized to settle, and usually do.

Medical malpractice claims seem to be a big mess.  

Thanks,

-Smac

[Scott Lloyd]

22 hours ago, Michael Sudworth said:

Are you dating anyone, Nehor?  How's that going for you?

Cheap shot.