Damnation


Recommended Posts

18 minutes ago, brlenox said:

while I made one comment to my intelligence I made three to the downsides of attributes that I possess... So you can make one positive statement and three negatives and they will only focus on the fact that the one positive must represent the person's demeanor in totality and ignore the fact that the deprecation is also an element of their persona as well.

... just a couple of pros and cons of what it is to be me ...

Erm.  Where in this quote, which is what @anatess2 replied to, are there three negative comments (cons) about you?

1 hour ago, brlenox said:

I have noted some of the similarities but the differences are glaring as well.  My B. H. Roberts quote pretty much encapsulated the gist of it.  If someone can teach me something I will embrace the opportunity to learn.  The challenge is in most theological subjects, I have run my marathons to gain understanding. I seldom encounter others who have genuinely done the same but want to extol their 50 yard dash as the equivalent. I never rely on my opinion to sway anyone. Thus far TFP has an abundance of opinions but little of concrete value.  Now It appears by some of your comments that you may not have read much of this thread in terms of the detailed analysis I provide on just a couple of aspects on the atonement.  If you are inclined run through that and you will observe other critical differences that are meritorious and significant.    

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, zil said:

Looks like one.  I don't think too many people would define confrontational differently. 

adjective

1.

tending toward or ready for confrontation :

http://www.dictionary.com/browse/confrontational

 

Just being confrontational about the definition of confrontational. :)

20 minutes ago, zil said:

A challenge can be made without being aggressive or hostile.

So also can a confrontation be without hostility or aggression. Like our confrontation over the proper usage of the word confrontational. Because I think you probably understand (as I explained it) that I meant something different than what may well be the most common usage of the word. I think I used the word "concede" even... checking...yup. "But I'll concede..." Direct quote.

20 minutes ago, zil said:

IMO, you sometimes do more than challenge 

Which I admit. (quoting myself again: "I'm not perfect." to which I'll now add...far from it).

Why is something about motes and beams coming to mind at the moment....??? :hmmm:(teasing...btw)

20 minutes ago, zil said:

Yes, I think once one has enough experience with you, it's easier to understand that you're not being hostile, because one has more than just the words and their experiences independent of you.  In other words, I think the words / phrases / sequences you use might be similar enough to people's real-life experiences with hostility that they read into your words something you didn't put there.  Once this is figured out, there's not generally a problem.  But someone has to figure this out first.

Interesting. I wonder how true that is vs. the potential that it's similar enough to people's percieved real-life experiences with hostility.

Edited by The Folk Prophet
Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, brlenox said:

The problem with all of your response is you have to fill in the blanks to get beyond my statement of "I am smart".  That's all I said, that's all I meant.  I do not think I have really ever met someone I would characterize as stupid. 

You lack self-awareness.

Exhibit A:

"the challenge is in most theological subjects, I have run my marathons to gain understanding. I seldom encounter others who have genuinely done the same but want to extol their 50 yard dash as the equivalent"

Parsed:

I am smart - "the challenge is in most theological subjects, I have run my marathons to gain understanding"

You are stupid - "I seldom encounter others who have genuinely done the same but want to extol their 50 yard dash as the equivalent."

 

Get it?

So go back to my questions and answer them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, anatess2 said:

You lack self-awareness.

Exhibit A:

"the challenge is in most theological subjects, I have run my marathons to gain understanding. I seldom encounter others who have genuinely done the same but want to extol their 50 yard dash as the equivalent"

Parsed:

I am smart - "the challenge is in most theological subjects, I have run my marathons to gain understanding"

You are stupid - "I seldom encounter others who have genuinely done the same but want to extol their 50 yard dash as the equivalent."

 

Get it?

So go back to my questions and answer them.

Technically that would be "I am a hard worker" and "You are lazy" or something along those lines.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, anatess2 said:

It's brlenox... so at the very least it's I am a hard worker so I'm smart.  You're lazy so you're stupid.  No?

To be fair, I have not read any passive aggressive hints related to intelligence. Only effort and spirituality.

Edit: Which in my opinion is much more insulting because one cannot help their intelligence. Insulting their work-ethic and spirituality is a cut to their character though.

Edited by The Folk Prophet
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, The Folk Prophet said:

To be fair, I have not read any passive aggressive hints related to intelligence. Only effort and spirituality.

I read both.

It came off to me that brlenox did not respect your, nor Vort's, points of view because he thinks they don't rise up to his level of intelligence.  He pretty much said it in words too.  Too many pages, I'm too lazy to go back and quote it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, The Folk Prophet said:

They do not. But I'm not going to even bother to explain why as it's quite apparent you have no respect for my thoughts.

Out of curiosity. Is you're use of the phrase "no worth" as if that's the quote a mistake or an intentional deception? 

No worth was what I paraphrased vort's comment, "No offense, brlenox, but there are no important things under discussion here." As you agreed with that comment I took that to mean that you found no worth in my contributions to this thread.

As for me having no respect for your thoughts - you are just plain wrong.  You characterized me in a dozen different ways from assuming that I was condescending when I was trying to get you to see the big picture instead of a little point to this point of I have no respect for your thoughts.  I respect them so much that I graciously respond even to these kinds of characterizations as  if I could I would disabuse you of them and would hope that you might take me at my word that I do not think ill of you.  This is a fabricated, fill in the blanks summation of your own making.

I find that I like practically everyone I meet and most generally like me in real life.  I am an odd duck, no question.  But most can see that and appreciate it for the fact that it is also what drives my capacity to see things others miss. My mind works different and much like Zil expressed, I see patterns and types and shadows where most see darkness. However, I find that only those who are trying to be "all that" and appear to be something they are not, those who need to appear smart when they haven't put the effort in to claim such, these types are often intimidated and respond in a fashion consistent with the challenge they feel I represent to their ideal self.  I don't care in most instances if they are not smart but when it comes to doctrine and proper representation I may on occasion illustrate the error of their direction.

Still, it is interesting, these types of conversations, because it is obvious that most here are perceiving this as a boxing match and I haven't even put on any gloves.  I am just answering, laughing at myself for maybe having a little too much fun poking the bear...but hey it is kind of entertaining.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, brlenox said:

I am smart that is just a fact.

No, it's a judgment. It is subjective, depending largely on what one considers to constitute "smartness".

For example, many people of my acquaintance would agree that someone who uses run-on sentences, as you do in the above quote, is not "smart". I happen not to agree with this judgment; I think that very smart people can use all sorts of bad grammar and construction in both spoken and written form, conformity to standard usage being no reliable measure of intellectual agility. But my opinion in the matter is no more binding than yours, or zil's, or TFP's, or anyone else's.

Since "smartness" does not have a well-accepted metric, assigning the trait of "smartness" to someone cannot reasonably be considered a fact -- unless you mean to define yourself as the standard for smartness, so that anyone who meets your bar of intelligence is to be considered smart and anyone who does not cannot be considered smart. Of course, this one-dimensional, IQ-like measure for "smartness" raises far more difficulties than it resolves, so it's not even a zero-sum game.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, brlenox said:

 

I find that I like practically everyone I meet and most generally like me in real life.  I am an odd duck, no question.  But most can see that and appreciate it for the fact that it is also what drives my capacity to see things others miss. My mind works different and much like Zil expressed, I see patterns and types and shadows where most see darkness. However, I find that only those who are trying to be "all that" and appear to be something they are not, those who need to appear smart when they haven't put the effort in to claim such, these types are often intimidated and respond in a fashion consistent with the challenge they feel I represent to their ideal self.  I don't care in most instances if they are not smart but when it comes to doctrine and proper representation I may on occasion illustrate the error of their direction.

Here it is again.

Exhibit B:

I am smart -
" I find that I like practically everyone I meet and most generally like me in real life.  I am an odd duck, no question.  But most can see that and appreciate it for the fact that it is also what drives my capacity to see things others miss."

You are stupid -
" I find that only those who are trying to be "all that" and appear to be something they are not, those who need to appear smart when they haven't put the effort in to claim such, these types are often intimidated and respond in a fashion consistent with the challenge they feel I represent to their ideal self."

 

Do you see what we're seeing?  Or... you still don't get it?

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, brlenox said:

My mind works different and much like Zil expressed, I see patterns and types and shadows where most see darkness.

This is the wonderful and amazing trait of the human brain that allows us to see fishies in clouds and faces in the random pattern of orange peel on the wall. Our brains are pattern-recognizing machines, to the point that we perceive and assign patterns in cases where no such pattern actually exist.

The point being, the fact that you see patterns in "darkness" doesn't necessarily mean what you think it means. It might just mean that you're imaginative, or psychotic, or bored.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

57 minutes ago, brlenox said:

The problem with all of your response is you have to fill in the blanks to get beyond my statement of "I am smart".  That's all I said, that's all I meant.  I do not think I have really ever met someone I would characterize as stupid.  

Really?  Let's take a look.

2 hours ago, brlenox said:

The challenge is in most theological subjects, I have run my marathons to gain understanding. I seldom encounter others who have genuinely done the same but want to extol their 50 yard dash as the equivalent. I never rely on my opinion to sway anyone. Thus far TFP has an abundance of opinions but little of concrete value.  

Looks like you are correct.  You never said anyone was stupid.  You said most others are lazy in their intellectual pursuits, generating opinions of little real value.  Yeah, that's completely different.

Don't get me wrong, I'll quite open to the idea that what you are relating is a completely accurate description of you as well as others.  It may very well be.  I haven't seen any concrete proof of anything either way.  But let's assume it is completely accurate.  And you're merely holding a mirror up to reality.  People in good company generally don't couch things like that because... you tend to get people upset and look like a jerk.

So I'd say the same thing about such statements as I'd say about cussing.  It's perfectly fine to tell the truth as you see it even if it is unpopular (just as it is fine to spit out some random phonetics with no significant meaning).  But it is not ok to needlessly offend people.  The needlessly is key.  You say you never rely on your opinion to sway anyone, then what is your purpose in stating your opinions in such a manner that apparently upsets people?  What do you hope to accomplish?

Consider what you wish to accomplish while you're here and you may find it easier to accomplish that goal by changing the path you're on.

EDIT: I see that @anatess2 already caught my thesis.  Well, great minds.  ...  Waitaminute!  Did I just say Anatess has a great mind?  Whoa!  I might have to rethink this.  (kidding, Annie!)

Edited by Guest
Link to comment
Share on other sites

35 minutes ago, brlenox said:

No worth was what I paraphrased vort's comment, "No offense, brlenox, but there are no important things under discussion here." As you agreed with that comment I took that to mean that you found no worth in my contributions to this thread.

"Of no worth" and "not important" have very distinctly different meanings in the gospel context. Of no worth typically implies not even worth discussion. Not important could be interesting and even maybe useful, but not important enough to worry about whether everyone in the world gets it. Of no worth is bottom dwelling.  Not important rides a scale. I tend towards seeing your views here as the later -- perhaps worthwhile at some level, but of no real importance to anyone's salvation. I invited you to challenge that. I re-invite you, but with the caveat that you challenge the idea rather than my character.

35 minutes ago, brlenox said:

As for me having no respect for your thoughts - you are just plain wrong. 

Hmm. Makes me wonder why when I implied you did not respect them when you essentially said, "why should I respect your views when you've given so little effort to it?" or something along those lines. I can't find the quote now...I think you must have edited it out.

35 minutes ago, brlenox said:

assuming that I was condescending when I was trying to get you to see the big picture instead of a little point

That's because implying that the asking of a little point question must mean one is ignoring the big picture is a condescending presumption.

35 minutes ago, brlenox said:

This is a fabricated, fill in the blanks summation of your own making.

Haha. Okay then. I'm a decent fellow in your eyes after all. How dare I assume that someone telling me I wasn't a decent fellow meant that they didn't think I was a decent fellow. Fill in the blanks summations indeed.

35 minutes ago, brlenox said:

I find that I like practically everyone I meet and most generally like me in real life. 

I don't dislike you. I merely think that you, as has been pointed out, think too highly of yourself and too little of others. I think that every effort I made to legitimately engage you was treated with contempt. So I stopped legitimately engaging you and, probably way too pridefully, set about defending my character.

35 minutes ago, brlenox said:

However, I find that only those who are trying to be "all that" and appear to be something they are not, those who need to appear smart when they haven't put the effort in to claim such, these types are often intimidated and respond in a fashion consistent with the challenge they feel I represent to their ideal self.  

"What? Insulting others? Passive aggressive? Not at all. No implication that those who don't see it the way I do are only expressing an insecure need to appear smart." *blink blink* 

35 minutes ago, brlenox said:

when it comes to doctrine and proper representation I may on occasion illustrate the error of their direction.

This is the second insinuation that you've made that my view(s) are doctrinally in error. Which ones, specifically?

35 minutes ago, brlenox said:

Still, it is interesting, these types of conversations, because it is obvious that most here are perceiving this as a boxing match and I haven't even put on any gloves.

I'd guess that most here (by which you mean 2 people), knowing me, are fully aware that the reason we aren't in a full fledged brawl is not because of your restraint.

35 minutes ago, brlenox said:

I am just answering, laughing at myself for maybe having a little too much fun poking the bear...but hey it is kind of entertaining.

So...a troll afterall?

Edited by The Folk Prophet
Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, Vort said:

This is the wonderful and amazing trait of the human brain that allows us to see fishies in clouds and faces in the random pattern of orange peel on the wall. Our brains are pattern-recognizing machines, to the point that we perceive and assign patterns in cases where no such pattern actually exist.

The point being, the fact that you see patterns in "darkness" doesn't necessarily mean what you think it means. It might just mean that you're imaginative, or psychotic, or bored.

In the absence of specificity, you can make this kind of observation, but as I encouraged you earlier go read the material.  Then you can make an actual relevant observation that is specific to the content under, or which was under, consideration.  If you should find unsustainable patterns there then there is merit in your observation.  You can cite what you observe and we can discuss and share back and forth.  Without that information for you to consider then you can only make pithy observations that are true at a 10,000 foot level but loose all relevance at the 1 foot level. However, as we established  earlier you were unfamiliar with the content and that was what sucked you into this fabulous, wonderful discussion about all of my myriad short comings, downfalls and sundry other limitations. Which for some masochistic tendency I find very entertaining...

As for run on sentences, you are absolutely right, I agree entirely that it does not show intelligence....however and I hate to make excuses but I am roughly 4 or five response to my one and I am typing like a banshee warrior trying to keep up as well as get a couple of other things done at the same time.  Please forgive, after this rocket lift off is over I will attempt to be more circumspect.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, brlenox said:

As for run on sentences, you are absolutely right, I agree entirely that it does not show intelligence....however and I hate to make excuses but I am roughly 4 or five response to my one and I am typing like a banshee warrior trying to keep up as well as get a couple of other things done at the same time.  Please forgive, after this rocket lift off is over I will attempt to be more circumspect.  

I might point out that circumspectitudeness (yeah...I just said that word) would help out with the rocket lift off.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Carborendum said:

 

EDIT: I see that @anatess2 already caught my thesis.  Well, great minds.  ...  Waitaminute!  Did I just say Anatess has a great mind?  Whoa!  I might have to rethink this.  (kidding, Annie!)

It took a while, but now you see the light.  BRIGHT BRIGHT BRIGHT!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

31 minutes ago, The Folk Prophet said:

1.) "Of no worth" and "not important" have very distinctly different meanings in the gospel context. Of no worth typically implies not even worth discussion. Not important could be interesting and even maybe useful, but not important enough to worry about whether everyone in the world gets it. Of no worth is bottom dwelling.  Not important rides a scale. I tend towards seeing your views here as the later -- perhaps worthwhile at some level, but of no real importance to anyone's salvation. I invited you to challenge that. I re-invite you, but with the caveat that you challenge the idea rather than my character.

2.) Hmm. Makes me wonder why when I implied you did not respect them when you essentially said, "why should I respect your views when you've given so little effort to it?" or something along those lines. I can't find the quote now...I think you must have edited it out.

3.) That's because implying that the asking of a little point question must mean one is ignoring the big picture is a condescending presumption.

4.) Haha. Okay then. I'm a decent fellow in your eyes after all. How dare I assume that someone telling me I wasn't a decent fellow meant that they didn't think I was a decent fellow. Fill in the blanks summations indeed.

5.) I don't dislike you. I merely think that you, as has been pointed out, think too highly of yourself and too little of others. I think that every effort I made to legitimately engage you was treated with contempt. So I stopped legitimately engaging you and, probably way too pridefully, set about defending my character.

6.) "What? Insulting others? Passive aggressive? Not at all. No implication that those who don't see it the way I do are only expressing an insecure need to appear smart." *blink blink* 

7.) This is the second insinuation that you've made that my view(s) are doctrinally in error. Which ones, specifically?

8.) I'd guess that most here (by which you mean 2 people), knowing me, are fully aware that the reason we aren't in a full fledged brawl is not because of your restraint.

9.) So...a troll afterall?

https://mormonhub.com/forums/topic/63272-damnation/?page=2&tab=comments#comment-941014

https://mormonhub.com/forums/topic/63272-damnation/?page=2&tab=comments#comment-941141

https://mormonhub.com/forums/topic/63272-damnation/?page=2&tab=comments#comment-941149

https://mormonhub.com/forums/topic/63272-damnation/?page=2&tab=comments#comment-941149

https://mormonhub.com/forums/topic/63272-damnation/?page=2&tab=comments#comment-941149

1.) These all represent the first posts that I responded with at first with extreme detail.  I can see that because I go into such length on my post that perhaps that alone was taxing and just not conducive to your interests that you missed my answers to your questions.  However, I do not recall that you dealt with any of this responses preferring to gloss over them and focus on my failure as a human being instead...your loss cause I am pretty boring and the material I sent was valuable. I am going to respond to your Challenge of why the points may be of worth in a different email.  It bears careful consideration and shouldn't be mixed with just so much dross as we have here.

In several of my post I completely undermine your observation, for instance the one on shooting a trespasser...but you never come back to the subject and address the response.

The effort to show you these links is because you keep claiming I did not respond to your inquires.  Maybe not in the fashion you hoped of perhaps 10 words or less, but I did respond and at length. Later when it became obvious that all you wanted to talk about was me, and as I was genuinely flattered by such attention, I went with that instead.

I am perfectly happy with your distinctions of no worth and not important. Sounds great.

2 Bad form entirely.  I have not removed any portion of my comments and so you make up something that supports your contentions but you have no evidence to support it.  This is one thing that separates you and I on multiple levels even though we are so much alike in so many ways, right? I don't fabricate.  If I cannot show you an evidence I will not claim it. Extremely bad form.

3.) I think am going to go back to easily offended on this one.  You presume and have presumed way to much.

4.) You are a descent fellow for a troglodyte ... just kidding...ha ha...I crack myself up. Anyway, your personality type is not uncommon and I think very predictable. For all intents and purposes you cannot communicate with me for the huge phantasmagoric image that you have created in your head.  Twice now I have made efforts to get you back on the subject with conciliatory suggestions.  But here we are still going in circles.......................................

5.) I think too highly of myself...hmmm or perhaps you do not think enough of yourself. Potatoes / Potaatoes.

6.) When you quote on this forum you loose the comments of the person before and so now I don't remember what was said that your response might relate too.  I'll just go with you are right and I am wrong for my lack of desire to go find the original post and debate otherwise.

7.) I'm not going to get pulled in with your assumptions of what I mean when I don't mean what I say.  When I think you are wrong in your doctrine, I will ever so politely, and with the most careful and genteel post attempt to crush no egg shells as I attempt to tiptoe through the thin ice of illustrating a point to you which would validate why I think you might possibly, maybe, could be ( but surely I'm mistaken) in error.  I'll be gentle. don't you worry.

8.) I don't brawl.

9.) Oh that I could deny it...but sadly I must confess that I do love observing, studying, testing to see peoples responses.  It helps me understand others better.  The problem and sad commentary to these woeful discussions is that ideally you and I are on the same team.  I can only be characterized as fierce when I see the brethren and church being disparaged by those who should know better.  You seem to have a tad bit of that as well.  If for no other cause I would think highly of you for being true and loyal when such is so uncommon anymore.  That you do not understand my material is not as important as that you stay true to the cause of the gospel.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Carborendum said:

Really?  Let's take a look.

Looks like you are correct.  You never said anyone was stupid.  You said most others are lazy in their intellectual pursuits, generating opinions of little real value.  Yeah, that's completely different.

Don't get me wrong, I'll quite open to the idea that what you are relating is a completely accurate description of you as well as others.  It may very well be.  I haven't seen any concrete proof of anything either way.  But let's assume it is completely accurate.  And you're merely holding a mirror up to reality.  People in good company generally don't couch things like that because... you tend to get people upset and look like a jerk.

So I'd say the same thing about such statements as I'd say about cussing.  It's perfectly fine to tell the truth as you see it even if it is unpopular (just as it is fine to spit out some random phonetics with no significant meaning).  But it is not ok to needlessly offend people.  The needlessly is key.  You say you never rely on your opinion to sway anyone, then what is your purpose in stating your opinions in such a manner that apparently upsets people?  What do you hope to accomplish?

Consider what you wish to accomplish while you're here and you may find it easier to accomplish that goal by changing the path you're on.

EDIT: I see that @anatess2 already caught my thesis.  Well, great minds.  ...  Waitaminute!  Did I just say Anatess has a great mind?  Whoa!  I might have to rethink this.  (kidding, Annie!)

Again perhaps it is just the odd way I look at things but I see any gift as the same as another.  If I am a truly gorgeous blond (not made up to be), with scintillating blue eyes, and the voluptuous figure of Aphrodite it simply is.  It wasn't something that I can take any credit for as it is simply the roll of the genetic dice.  But that also does not alter that I am beautiful.. That I am smart is no different.  I didn't do anything to be this it just happened - again the genetic lottery.

Now I realize that what you are saying is correct.  That I see things differently and understand while the things I might say mean nothing of significance to me, I do realize that to others they convey an entirely different paradigm. And I do know that I am, as I said earlier, poking the bear. It's amazing I keep poking and more bears keep showing up ... but needlessly offending people may be symptomatic of the problem of the whole issue. 

We live in a time when it is the offended ones that get all of the attention and sympathies.  Again, as I have observed several times, the facts of this thread will bear out that there is much of assumption and accusation going on here and the putting of words in my mouth that I never intended to be understood in the manner in which they have been understood.  However the conditioning of a societal priority to offense, a phenomenon I would never have to negotiate even 60 or more years ago to the degree that we see rampant in society now, has been prompted as a means of diverging the conversation away from the things of importance to the banal and irrelevant.  Who uses that tool best and who benefits the most? and why is it deployed and when? The answers to that may be instructive to the paradigm of offense when none is intended.

However, I think it is a paradigm that might benefit by observation.  It is tragic indeed that we now have an entire forum obsessed with telling me how wrong and arrogant I am...which by the way must be quite the eye opener for TFP based on his opening thoughts in the defending the Gospel thread.  The tragedy is that the apparent subject of worth is my state as an imperfect human being, who still is quite fond of himself, and yet the doctrine that I posted on this very thread has been completely lost in the discussion.  What I posted is of immense value.  It genuinely is valuable. The messenger is not.  Skip me and go back and review what you are trading these moments of your life for and you may see that even if you do not agree entirely you will find your mind opening in ways never before encountered. The material I posted is of great value IF...IF it breaks the barriers of casual reading and becomes thoughts pondered.  Do I wonder why this thread and those who have responded have been tilting at windmills for many hours now, days for some? No I do not.  

Some people didn't like Joseph Smith because he couldn't spell their name right, or he was too willing to play with children, or he could very boldly stand before an entire congregation and tell the lot of them they knew nothing of the gospel and they should go home until they learned something. But, and I do not presume to his level of greatness, but how much was lost because they took offense where none was intended. It is a tragedy then and now that we are so easily carried about working devices missing what is truly of value and important. Well for now I have tilted enough and while I cannot lie that poking the bear is entertaining I am going to leave off for the time being of such and let all of us return to the more productive elements of our lives.  Thanks for your suggestions and I would say you read things pretty clear for an abrasive.  

Edited by brlenox
Misspellings, run on sentences, and other signs of limited intelligence...okay, okay one last poke...
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Vort said:

No, it's a judgment. It is subjective, depending largely on what one considers to constitute "smartness".

For example, many people of my acquaintance would agree that someone who uses run-on sentences, as you do in the above quote, is not "smart". I happen not to agree with this judgment; I think that very smart people can use all sorts of bad grammar and construction in both spoken and written form, conformity to standard usage being no reliable measure of intellectual agility. But my opinion in the matter is no more binding than yours, or zil's, or TFP's, or anyone else's.

Since "smartness" does not have a well-accepted metric, assigning the trait of "smartness" to someone cannot reasonably be considered a fact -- unless you mean to define yourself as the standard for smartness, so that anyone who meets your bar of intelligence is to be considered smart and anyone who does not cannot be considered smart. Of course, this one-dimensional, IQ-like measure for "smartness" raises far more difficulties than it resolves, so it's not even a zero-sum game.

Alas Vort, you're a wonderful person. Have a great day.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, brlenox said:

2 Bad form entirely.  I have not removed any portion of my comments and so you make up something that supports your contentions but you have no evidence to support it.  This is one thing that separates you and I on multiple levels even though we are so much alike in so many ways, right? I don't fabricate.  If I cannot show you an evidence I will not claim it. Extremely bad form.

As you impugn me honor I thought I'd better hunt it down. Whereas you didn't actually use the word "respect", instead using the phrase "taken seriously" (which explains why searching for that word didn't find it, what you said is clear:

On 11/9/2017 at 6:16 PM, brlenox said:

I'm doing all the heavy lifting here and you want to be taken seriously for a few moments of critique?

So let me answer this plainly. YES. I want to be taken seriously for my few moments of critique and your unwillingness to take me seriously is THE crux of the issue here. Because blowing off my critiques as if they are lazy and thoughtless tells me that you don't understand what I'm getting at. Not the other way around. Your presumption that my critiques are thoughtless was a thoughtless response. Well, fine then. I walked away. I am not engaged in discussion of your theories because you will not take me seriously...as in show me any respect...when I do engage.

14 minutes ago, brlenox said:

3.) I think am going to go back to easily offended on this one.

Your condescension isn't offensive. I'm wondering if you understand the difference there since you keep going back to how offended I am. I'm pretty emotionally stable, for the most part. I mostly have a thick skin. The fact that I point out rudeness and condescension as I see it doesn't mean I'm emotionally responding to it.

17 minutes ago, brlenox said:

Anyway, your personality type is not uncommon and I think very predictable. For all intents and purposes you cannot communicate with me for the huge phantasmagoric image that you have created in your head. 

Hello pot. Meet kettle.

32 minutes ago, brlenox said:

Twice now I have made efforts to get you back on the subject with conciliatory suggestions.  But here we are still going in circles

As I've told you. I will not engage in an intellectual discussion with someone who views my thoughts as unworthy of being taken seriously. That would be an even bigger waste of time than this back and forth.

Anyhow, here are the gospel principles I've raise in this thread: 

That's it. That's all I've offered. Which of these ideas is contrary to your enlightened view anyhow? I remain at a loss as to why you deem these views inferior ones.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, brlenox said:

Again perhaps it is just the odd way I look at things but I see any gift as the same as another.  If I am a truly gorgeous blond (not made up to be), with scintillating blue eyes, and the voluptuous figure of Aphrodite it simply is.  It wasn't something that I can take any credit for as it is simply the roll of the genetic dice.  But that also does not alter that I am beautiful.. That I am smart is no different.  I didn't do anything to be this it just happened - again the genetic lottery.

Now I realize that what you are saying is correct.  That I see things differently and understand while the things I might say mean nothing of significance to me, I do realize that to others they convey an entirely different paradigm. And I do know that I am, as I said earlier, poking the bear. It's amazing I keep poking and more bears keep showing up ... but needlessly offending people may be symptomatic of the problem of the whole issue. 

We live in a time when it is the offended ones that get all of the attention and sympathies.  Again, as I have observed several times, the facts of this thread will bear out that there is much of assumption and accusation going on here and the putting of words in my mouth that I never intended to be understood in the manner in which they have been understood.  However the conditioning of a societal priority to offense, a phenomenon I would never have to negotiate even 60 or more years ago to the degree that we see rampant in society now, has been prompted as a means of diverging the conversation away from the things of importance to the banal and irrelevant.  Who uses that tool best and who benefits the most? and why is it deployed and when? The answers to that may be instructive to the paradigm of offense when none is intended.

However, I think it is a paradigm that might benefit by observation.  It is tragic indeed that we now have an entire forum obsessed with telling me how wrong and arrogant I am...which by the way must be quite the eye opener for TFP based on his opening thoughts in the defending the Gospel thread.  The tragedy is that the apparent subject of worth is my state as an imperfect human being, who still is quite fond of himself, and yet the doctrine that I posted on this very thread has been completely lost in the discussion.  What I posted is of immense value.  It genuinely is valuable. The messenger is not.  Skip me and go back and review what you are trading these moments of your life for and you may see that even if you do not agree entirely you will find your mind opening in ways never before encountered. The material I posted is of great value IF...IF it breaks the barriers of casual reading and becomes thoughts pondered.  Do I wonder why this thread and those who have responded have been tilting at windmills for many hours now, days for some? No I do not.  

Some people didn't like Joseph Smith because he couldn't spell their name right, or he was too willing to play with children, or he could very boldly stand before an entire congregation and tell the lot of them they knew nothing of the gospel and they should go home until they learned something. But, and I do not presume to his level of greatness, but how much was lost because they took offense where none was intended. It is a tragedy then and now that we are so easily carried about working devices missing what is truly of value and important. Well for now I have tilted enough and while I cannot lie that poking the bear is entertaining I am going to leave off for the time being of such and let all of us return to the more productive elements of our lives.  Thanks for your suggestions and I would say you read things pretty clear for an abrasive.  

Forgive me if I'm just too tired right now to extract from this long post a simple answer to a simple question.  But I'm going to ask the question again:

If you're not expecting to sway anyone's opinion, what do you hope to accomplish with your posts?  And how do you think you're doing with that goal?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, brlenox said:

 It is tragic indeed that we now have an entire forum obsessed with telling me how wrong and arrogant I am.  

I'm not sure anyone has stated you are flat out wrong.

22 minutes ago, brlenox said:

What I posted is of immense value.  It genuinely is valuable.

Let's presume for a second that some individual or another never comes across these ideas at all, which, of course, is highly likely. Are they damned?

I know you're going to take this as combative. C'est la vie. But it seems to me that you equate spiritual value with intelligence. Let's just say, for the sake of argument, that I'm just too blasted stupid to understand a word you saying. Is my celestial glory lost then?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, Carborendum said:

Forgive me if I'm just too tired right now to extract from this long post a simple answer to a simple question.  But I'm going to ask the question again:

If you're not expecting to sway anyone's opinion, what do you hope to accomplish with your posts?  And how do you think you're doing with that goal?

Forgive me for what I thought was a short post ... for me anyway.  I am expecting to sway opinions.  However you will have to put a little effort into what is not much of a post to understand.  I am sorry that to get my points across I do not have the gift of brevity but I feel I am not even answering if I do not illustrate the thought process. Another imperfection, however you may note, I took the time to work my way through your post of almost (within 30 seconds of read time) similar length to respond to you. Perhaps you might do me the same courtesy.  The post is a good one if you can ponder the implications.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, The Folk Prophet said:

I'm not sure anyone has stated you are flat out wrong.

Let's presume for a second that some individual or another never comes across these ideas at all, which, of course, is highly likely. Are they damned?

I know you're going to take this as combative. C'est la vie. But it seems to me that you equate spiritual value with intelligence. Let's just say, for the sake of argument, that I'm just too blasted stupid to understand a word you saying. Is my celestial glory lost then?

I do not take this as combative.  I am answering this in the next post as I am responding to an earlier one which points to the same ideology.  It is found in the answer to your first point when it gets here.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • pam unfeatured this topic

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share