Who is............

[ElectofGod]

Good Afternoon selek. I hope you're having a good day! :)

You stated to ElectofGod,

I can't think of any faithful Latter-day Saint that would disagree with this statement. But, you see, the way many of your posts come across to me, selek, is that you are misunderstanding people's posts or interpreting them with your own personal biases and because YOU BELIEVE the views are at odds with revealed truth (so often you come across as having set yourself up as the judge on these forums who gets to decide which posts adhere to revealed truth and which do not), then rather than decide to engage in a fruitful discussion and assume the best of people, you seemingly assume everyone who does not explain or believe the "revealed truths of the Gospel" like you do, well, then they are apostate, they are all of these horrible things and then you proceed to lay in to people with a vitriol that is simply incomprehensible to me.

I just don't get it, selek. You could do everything you do without the bombastic vitriol.

Respectfully,

Finrock

Finrock, while it may be true, my posts did come off as attacking something that is good. He is correct I was in frustrations making a few mistaken statements that were totally unneeded.

Our views may be different in some areas but so is every persons.

BTW, your posts are always so postive, I hope you have a good day too.

[selek]

Good Afternoon selek. I hope you're having a good day! :)

And the same to you.

But, you see, the way many of your posts come across to me, selek, is that you are misunderstanding people's posts or interpreting them with your own personal biases and because YOU BELIEVE the views are at odds with revealed truth (so often you come across as having set yourself up as the judge on these forums who gets to decide which posts adhere to revealed truth and which do not), then rather than decide to engage in a fruitful discussion and assume the best of people, you seemingly assume everyone who does not explain or believe the "revealed truths of the Gospel" like you do, well, then they are apostate, they are all of these horrible things and then you proceed to lay in to people with a vitriol that is simply incomprehensible to me.

First- since I'm in a somewhat playful mood, I'd like you to diagram that sentence.

Second, if you would, I ask a favor;

Point out anything I stated in any of my posts in this thread that is objectively false or demonstrably incorrect.

You may not like my delivery, but I don't believe you can point out an actual error in my argument.

If you can, I am more than happy to be corrected.

In the same vein, it must be pointed out that your entire premise is (by your own admission) subjective.

"[T]the way many of your posts come across to me" is, by definition, an act of interpretation and of assumption- ironically, of the very sort of which you are accusing me.

If such "assumption" is wrong on my part, why is it justifiable on yours?

As a matter of clarification, I prefer not to assume at all. I am (generally) quite careful to limit myself to statements and arguments made and their implications.

I much prefer to deal with "what's on the page" than with guesses about what is not.

I've found that there are two approaches to discovering truth: one can be likened to sifting wheat and chaff, the other to panning for gold.

When sifting wheat and chaff, I find that a vigorous sifting of wheat and chaff tends to produce truth more readily.

By contrast, when panning for gold, a lazy, gentle swirling of the pan is more conducive (and indeed, anything else would be counterproductive).

I tend to choose the method that seems most appropriate as inspired by the Spirit and be the tenor of the conversation.

Do I get it wrong on occasion? More often than I prefer- but I am at least trying, rather than leaving the heavy lifting to others.

Do I come across as adversarial in my pursuit of the truth?

Sometimes.

Is that necessarily a bad thing? Your mileage may vary.

Contrary to the accusation, I have not set myself up as judge, jury, or executioner (despite the temptation to do so)- I am too well aware of my own failings and hypocrisy to engage in that kind of hubris.

The only people I have actively condemned are those who have publicly and openly apostatized from the Church.

The only people I have actively judged are those who stand in open, active, opposition to the Church of Christ.

It is no sin to take their self-proclaimed apostacy at face value.

It is no wrong to point out the opposition and adversarial status that they themselves not only proclaim, but celebrate.

I have not called Elect of God a false prophet, an apostate, or a Son of Perdition. I have not presumed to judge- let alone condemn- him.

Where I have attacked, I have attacked his arguments. Where I have incised, I have incised his reasoning and his logic.

Every "cut" and "thrust" (okay, maybe a fencing metaphor isn't all that helpful) has been made to explore and expose not only the underlying assumptions, but the implications of what has been said.

My questions and exchanges are seldom crafted to "proclaim" truth, but to discover it. I look not merely for the "what", but also the "why".

As EoG himself has pointed out in this thread, it is not merely enough to know; one must also understand.

I just don't get it, selek. You could do everything you do without the bombastic vitriol.

Perhaps. But you are assuming that what you interpret as "bombastic vitriol" is 1) genuine vitriol, and 2) a bug, rather than a feature.

Contrary to what you have assumed, I hold EoG in no ill will. I have not judged, let alone condemned him,

Second, as any good lawyer (and any theatre arts major) can tell you: "drama" has its purposes, too.

You "perceive" anger and contention, and assume that there is no method behind my madness.

I will be the first in line to admit that I don't always get things right. Heck, I'll be second in line to rent billboard space along the highway to proclaim that.

You may not like my approach, but how is yours any different?