Damnation

[The Folk Prophet]

1 hour ago, brlenox said:

I am trying to engage you and be polite in doing so, but I candidly state with confidence that I understand this subject in ways you will never grasp unless you are willing to drop the John Wayne and just be a decent guy.

Sheesh. It's like you're trying rile me up and bring on a war.

Fortunately for you, you are mistaken. And so I'm just walking away instead.

[zil]

NOTE: I have not read everything (or much of anything) that came after this.  I'm just going to start here and make some comments in-line...  It's possible future posts will clarify things for me, so it may not be necessary to respond to these, but I'm going to post them anyway.

On 11/8/2017 at 1:32 PM, brlenox said:

If I might suggest a paradigm shift, you are looking at justice from the bottom up or in other words how justice treats mankind.  If we keep in mind that mankind has already received a completely just judgment in the Garden of Eden and that we have already been assigned a penalty of death and are cast out then maybe we might ask a different question.

Adam and Eve were cast out because they disobeyed God by partaking of the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil, thereby gaining this knowledge.  When we become mortal, after reaching the age of accountability, we could say that we also partake of this tree through our experiences - as we sin or do good, and experience the consequences of each, we gain an understanding of good and evil.  The first time we sin, we are, in essence "cast out" - from that point, we are helpless to save ourselves and death is our just sentence.

What if we looked at justice from the top down.  It is a big deal made about the fact that Christ paid with "innocent" blood.  From the very beginning in the Old Testament we are being taught concerning elements that contribute to an understanding of the atonement and the mechanics of how it works.  Cain slays Abel and again there is a very big deal made about Abel's blood being undeservedly spilt.  A claim is made that Abel's blood calls out for justice for this travesty. Of course in Abel's case we know it is Jehovah / Christ that responds to his demands for justice. How do you suppose justice responds when Christ requires justice to respond to his innocent blood being spilt.  When it is his voice that insists upon justice Who is it that he pleads to and why is there any obligation for there to be a response to his plea for justice. 

Seems to me he would plead to the Father for justice (there is no one else), and that he has the right to set the terms, so to speak (that is, to extend mercy where he will and just punishment where he will).  My thought is that this is what will happen to the Sons of Perdition - instead of Christ being their advocate, asking for mercy on their behalf, he will be asking for justice.

Presumably, the obligation exists due to eternal laws: Christ did not deserve his suffering and death, therefore restoration (justice) is due him.

How does this influence the mechanics of the atonement? 

I'm not sure.  After reading the below, I suspect I'm thinking of justice differently from you.  I'm thinking of it basically as fair application of eternal law - either to one's benefit or detriment.

Is it possible that it is because of the law of Justice that we are saved? And how so? 

In an indirect sense - that is, because justice is owed to Christ, he now has power to extend mercy.

Can mercy even rob a justice already administered from the Garden of Eden which placed mankind in a state of being castoff?

Hmm.  If mercy reverses or voids the "sentence" (restoring us to God's presence), is that robbing, or...?  Perhaps you should have started with definitions of mercy and justice.

Or is it more likely that if Justice was not met when Christ required it that there might be an actual situation where mercy could be in a position to rob justice if those please were not responded to. 

Is the above sentence really what you mean to say?  It almost seems, structurally (ignoring the meaning of the words and just going with the structure of the last two sentences) that the second should invert the first: essentially, those two sentences as they stand now say: "Can mercy rob justice?  Or is it more likely that mercy can be in a position to rob justice?"  The "or is it more likely" doesn't work, the second doesn't contradict the first.  I am left uncertain what you're asking.  If the two had said: "Can mercy rob justice?  Or is it more likely that justice can be in a position to rob mercy?" at least the structure would have made sense.  Maybe your "or is it more likely" should have been "in other words is it more likely"?

How would God the Father appease the demands of justice of the only citizen of His kingdom to retain the rights of His protection for never having broken the law that required mankind to be cast off?

Feeling like I missed something.  Seems like God would do whatever is right / just.  Also, this brings to mind the scripture about how the Father gave to Christ to have life in himself - which seems like justice, restoring the eternal life which was unjustly taken.

Lot's of questions but when you come at it from this direction one can begin to see certain mechanics of the atonement that we do not grasp for looking at justice for how it applies to us who deserve no justice but which can become visible when we consider how the Atonement bought our souls and enabled a return to the presence of the Father because Christ required justice for his innocent blood being spilt.

OK, this is consistent with what I was thinking above, which is that the just "payment" to Christ is what enables him to act as our mediator, to grant us mercy, or leave us subject to the justice which separates us from God due to our sins.

Now I am not exactly agreeing with the idea that Satan wanted to destroy justice, as I lean more to the agency side of the debate.  However if justice were destroyed from our direction of looking at how it impacts us there would be no impact on God the Father as he has already administered a just decision when he condemned all of mankind as all were lost.  However, if he destroyed justice from the top looking down as to how it affected citizens of God's kingdom such as Christ, that would have the capacity to cause God to cease to be God and would have grave ramifications if he chose not to grant that justice. 

Well, I'm probably missing whatever you're trying to lead to.  Not surprising (to me).  Will go look for the next post now.

[zil]

On 11/8/2017 at 1:49 PM, brlenox said:

Try to grasp the entire picture I am suggesting.  If a murderer kills someone, during the process of assessing his guilt justice is acting.  However, after his guilt is fully assessed and he is condemned to die justice has received it's payment.  It no longer acts in the life of the murderer once he has paid the price for his crime.  Since he has paid with his life he has nothing more to offer nor does he have anymore to be taken. This is the same for us.  God the Father gave a sentence of judgement that was predicted upon satisfying the demands of justice.  Once the judgement is rendered and it was a death penalty that the Father rendered, what claim do we have on justice being for all intents and purposes dead men.

The theme of all are fallen or lost is well represented in scripture and this one verse simply is to introduce the legitimacy of the claim that we have been judged and are fallen and lost except upon the conditions of an atonement which somehow provides for a new set of considerations.  Which we may get to later.

Alma 5 has the Prophet addressing the members of his congregation who he cautions against being unrepentant:
 

To what murder is he implying they might be held accountable? What blood is it that stains their garments?

Well, it would have to be Christ's blood, wouldn't it?  (Unless you're actually a murderer, then you could add your victim(s)'s blood too.)

[zil]

OK, gotta stop here and go to bed.  I've been "liking" posts as a means of marking which I have read.  So far, I believe I'm following things.  I have not gone back to my reply to reevaluate my thoughts / understanding of the original questions - I'm waiting until I've read all the way through.  I hope I'll retain all this in the morning.

[zil]

OK, I'm caught up, and I believe I comprehend the symbolism linking the avenger of blood / cities of refuge / high priest to Christ and his Atonement.  This all makes sense to me.  I don't know that my initial replies would change that much, except that this is a different angle on Christ's Atonement than we usually take, and yet, it makes perfect sense and is entirely compatible with the way we normally look at things (or the way I normally look at things).

FWIW, I think you, @brlenox and @The Folk Prophet were trying to talk about different things (at least, in the details), and that TFP was trying to tie your comments closely to where his thread started, but your part of the discussion sort of stepped back and said "let's leave this alone and go back here for a while", and that this might be part of the reason for the conflict.  Or not, just sort of seems that way. It might have been better to start a new thread with the "If I might suggest a paradigm shift..." post instead of fitting it in here...

[brlenox]

Adam

Edited November 16, 2017 by brlenox
trying to get the pictures to fit.

[brlenox]

On 11/10/2017 at 8:42 PM, zil said:

NOTE: I have not read everything (or much of anything) that came after this.  I'm just going to start here and make some comments in-line...  It's possible future posts will clarify things for me, so it may not be necessary to respond to these, but I'm going to post them anyway.

Well, I'm probably missing whatever you're trying to lead to.  Not surprising (to me).  Will go look for the next post now.

Some of your answers are spot on and I hope the further expansion adds to them some clarity and scriptural sustainment for the conclusions.  Thank you for taking the time to think this through.  I know it takes a lot of mental work and effort to slowly parse and ponder for it to make sense.  There are many many more things that extend out from here but for now we can break at this concept of mercy and justice.

[james12]

On 11/9/2017 at 2:43 PM, brlenox said:

In a nut shell in the avenger of blood concepts, The avenger of blood is God the Father who is honor bound to avenge the death of the innocent blood of his nearest kin. His role precludes the extension of mercy at this point. His nearest Kin is Jesus Christ who plays 3 roles. He is always the one of innocent blood but for some he is intentionally slain, others a complete and unintended accident. However, he also plays the role of the High Priest that atones for the sins of those who unintentionally slew the one of innocent blood. Every single person who seeks the sanctuary of the city of refuge and thus hopes to be protected by the high priest is a murderer.  It is also the High Priest’s role to turn those determined as intentional slayers upon their arrival to the City of Refuge back to the law of the Avenger who has decreed an unalterable death for those who would knowingly shed the innocent blood of the Savior. They are the sons of perdition. We are the accepted into the city of refuge as acknowledged slayers of innocent blood, whether intentional or accidentally, is determined by our lives as the evidence is collected to validate the nature of our hearts. If we are not willing to stay near the high priest, the Avenger can take us at anytime. This earth and our lifetime is the City of refuge. We have been sent from the homes of our inheritance in the celestial kingdom until we can be atoned for by the High Priest. After this then we have the opportunity to return back to the home of our inheritance.

Brlenox, Although long, I have taken the time to read through your posts on this thread. Above is what I believe to be your summary of why we are guilty of a broken law and why we need the Savior. It is an interesting premise, however, I have a few concerns with your line of reasoning and I'll present a few questions. 

1. How are we culpable of shedding blood and thus deserve the death penalty? I can see how you may use this "avenger of blood" concept to argue that Adam is culpable for all those that would be born into this fallen world, but how is it that we are culpable of death? 

2. Why is it that you believe this strange Law of Moses death penalty requirement equates to the law of the Celestial Kingdom? Even today we would not use this refuge law as a basis for justice. It is archaic. It would be much better just to determine someones innocence by interviewing them and others and find motive, intent, etc. Don't you believe God has an even better system then ours, and one that far exceeds this "avenger of blood" law? 

Now just one other note, please put the bottom line up front in your posts. You can then add supporting evidence afterwords but for clarity and ease of understanding it would go a long way. Thanks.

[brlenox]

The Old Testament is first and foremost scripture and it is extremely profitable for study but it takes a person who can think in terms of symbols and such to see a great deal of the best material.

 

 

 

 

Edited November 16, 2017 by brlenox

[zil]

I don't know if it will help anyone else, but I thought I would explain why I have no qualms about the things @brlenox is posting where others seem to.

1) I am not reading with the intent to determine whether I agree or not.  I am learning reading to understand what he is teaching.  Only after I have a good understanding will I try to determine to what extent I may agree or not (though so far, these things ring true to me).

2) I am not concerned with how precisely express or implied details (were one to try to apply the pattern in further detail than has been presented) may fit reality - I am reading about a type and shadow, and such things are never entirely accurate if you go too far down into detail (like parables or allegory, the intent is to teach a lesson or principle, not make a mirror of some reality).

3) This one may take some time, but I feel like it won't be understood without the background.  In my job (I'm a programmer), I must learn in detail the process followed by a group of scientists.  They know their process so well that they don't have to think about it.  But my job (and that of the group I work with on a project) is to extract the details that have long since become subconscious for them.  Thus, even though I don't understand the science, I must understand the process even better than the scientists do.  Once we get far enough along, I start to notice patterns, abstracts which can be applied to things that the scientists see as unrelated or distinct.  This is my job, to find those patterns and the abstracts, because this allows me to reuse code, to simplify the data model, and to streamline the process so that the automated data entry screens I create walk them through the process, let them deal with things they think of as distinct, but reusing the same logic and data because in reality, those things aren't so distinct as the scientists think.  During this part of my job, the details get filed away for later - I need to know them, to know how they restrict the abstraction and pattern, but I don't need to implement or deal with them until after the patterns and abstracts have been identified, then the details come back into play.

Thus, I am accustomed to taking a set of details and abstracting them into a more generic type and pattern.  I'm also able to set details aside until later, after the pattern and types are understood, and then fit the details back in - or adjust the pattern and types mentally if a new detail requires adjustment.  I think this has helped me to understand what @brlenox is trying to share.  Oddly enough, I'm not that good at doing this with my own personal scripture study - I tend to get lost in the story and be very literal and miss the patterns and types.  I don't know why exactly that is, but it is.  Hence, I really appreciate it when someone else has found the patterns and types and points them out to me.  Maybe when I grow up I'll be able to do this myself with scripture.

Sorry if that made no sense, but it seems to me that this mode of thinking has been very useful to me in processing these posts.  Thank you @brlenox for taking the time - I have already had some new thoughts / perspectives on Christ's Atonement which I need to spend some time solidifying in my head to make good use of them.

Edited November 13, 2017 by zil

[brlenox]

On ‎11‎/‎12‎/‎2017 at 8:42 PM, zil said:

I don't know if it will help anyone else, but I thought I would explain why I have no qualms about the things @brlenox is posting where others seem to.

1) I am not reading with the intent to determine whether I agree or not.  I am learning reading to understand what he is teaching.  Only after I have a good understanding will I try to determine to what extent I may agree or not (though so far, these things ring true to me).

2) I am not concerned with how precisely express or implied details (were one to try to apply the pattern in further detail than has been presented) may fit reality - I am reading about a type and shadow, and such things are never entirely accurate if you go too far down into detail (like parables or allegory, the intent is to teach a lesson or principle, not make a mirror of some reality).

3) This one may take some time, but I feel like it won't be understood without the background.  In my job (I'm a programmer), I must learn in detail the process followed by a group of scientists.  They know their process so well that they don't have to think about it.  But my job (and that of the group I work with on a project) is to extract the details that have long since become subconscious for them.  Thus, even though I don't understand the science, I must understand the process even better than the scientists do.  Once we get far enough along, I start to notice patterns, abstracts which can be applied to things that the scientists see as unrelated or distinct.  This is my job, to find those patterns and the abstracts, because this allows me to reuse code, to simplify the data model, and to streamline the process so that the automated data entry screens I create walk them through the process, let them deal with things they think of as distinct, but reusing the same logic and data because in reality, those things aren't so distinct as the scientists think.  During this part of my job, the details get filed away for later - I need to know them, to know how they restrict the abstraction and pattern, but I don't need to implement or deal with them until after the patterns and abstracts have been identified, then the details come back into play.

Thus, I am accustomed to taking a set of details and abstracting them into a more generic type and pattern.  I'm also able to set details aside until later, after the pattern and types are understood, and then fit the details back in - or adjust the pattern and types mentally if a new detail requires adjustment.  I think this has helped me to understand what @brlenox is trying to share.  Oddly enough, I'm not that good at doing this with my own personal scripture study - I tend to get lost in the story and be very literal and miss the patterns and types.  I don't know why exactly that is, but it is.  Hence, I really appreciate it when someone else has found the patterns and types and points them out to me.  Maybe when I grow up I'll be able to do this myself with scripture.

Sorry if that made no sense, but it seems to me that this mode of thinking has been very useful to me in processing these posts.  Thank you @brlenox for taking the time - I have already had some new thoughts / perspectives on Christ's Atonement which I need to spend some time solidifying in my head to make good use of them.

I appreciate your summary here.  For me it falls under the category of studying it out in your mind, gathering all of the information and formulating a response to that information and then seeking the spirit to guide as to the validity of the information.  In essence it is what God expects of us before he will provide insight.  It makes you honestly somewhat unusual in my experience for most forum participants and I for one certainly appreciate that.

As well in your final sentence you state you have new thoughts and perspectives - as they take form and you can articulate them I am exceedingly interested in what they may be as I am ever seeking to understand more of the Gospel and as Elder Packer Indicates in the quote following it is only when we can tie our understandings to the atonement that we really understand the gospel.

Quote

I have not, to my knowledge, in my ministry said anything more important. I intend to talk about the Lord, Jesus Christ, about what He really did—and why it matters now….Through Him mercy can be fully extended to each of us without offending the eternal law of justice….

This truth [The Atonement of Christ] is the very root of Christian doctrine. You may know much about the gospel as it branches out from there, but if you only know the branches and those branches do not touch that root, if they have been cut free from that truth, there will be no life nor substance nor redemption in them. (Packer, Boyd K., The Mediator, Ensign, May 1977, p. 56)

I have found this to be remarkably correct doctrine from Elder Packer, and many of the most precious understandings I have had have been when they opened up to reveal these connecting ties to the atonement. If you feel ever inclined to share that would be fabulous.

Edited November 14, 2017 by brlenox

[The Folk Prophet]

On 11/12/2017 at 8:42 PM, zil said:

- I am reading about a type and shadow, and such things are never entirely accurate if you go too far down into detail (like parables or allegory, the intent is to teach a lesson or principle, not make a mirror of some reality).

It strike me that this, or similar, is a perfectly fine answer to the questions being asked, vs. responding to the questions as if they're just pig-headed ignoramuses being contentious just to be contentious.

[zil]

1 hour ago, brlenox said:

It makes you honestly somewhat unusual in my experience for most forum participants and I for one certainly appreciate that.

Make no mistake, I'm just as capable of jerking my knee as anyone.   It was just obvious to me from your initial post on this (and from your first posts on the forums) that this wasn't that kind of post, so I changed my approach and expectations going into it.

1 hour ago, brlenox said:

As well in your final sentence you state you have new thoughts and perspectives - as they take form and you can articulate them I am exceedingly interested in what they may be...

Seems unlikely that they'll be anything you've not covered in this thread.  "New" might be the wrong word, it's more like I'm thinking things that seem like I've always known them, but never really considered them in any depth.  Mostly, they're related to the avenger of blood symbolism.

[Guest]

51 minutes ago, zil said:

Make no mistake, I'm just as capable of jerking my knee as anyone.   It was just obvious to me from your initial post on this (and from your first posts on the forums) that this wasn't that kind of post, so I changed my approach and expectations going into it.

Seems unlikely that they'll be anything you've not covered in this thread.  "New" might be the wrong word, it's more like I'm thinking things that seem like I've always known them, but never really considered them in any depth.  Mostly, they're related to the avenger of blood symbolism.

Is this like saying,"I'm Zil. And I approved this post"?

Or is this a "now with more anti-oxidants!" occasion?

Edited November 14, 2017 by Guest

[zil]

5 minutes ago, Carborendum said:

Is this like saying,"I'm Zil. And I approved this post"?

Or is this a "now with more anti-oxidants!" occasion?

I wouldn't want you to miss my brilliance simply because it's typed...

On 11/13/2017 at 1:49 PM, Carborendum said:

..  If it is a @zil post not in a fountain pen, I have the right to ignore it!  Book closed.  Moving on.  Ahhh, the peaceful bliss of willful ignorance...

[brlenox]

 

Quote

It requires striving — intellectual and spiritual — to comprehend the things of God even the revealed things of God. In no department of human endeavor is the aphorism "no excellence without labor" — more in force than in acquiring knowledge of the things of God. The Lord has placed no premium upon idleness or indifference here— "seek and ye shall find;"  "knock and it shall be opened unto you;" "seek ye diligently and teach one another words of wisdom; yea, seek ye out of the best books words of wisdom; seek learning even by study and also by faith" — such the admonitions God gives in reference to our pursuit of knowledge of divine things.

Mental laziness is the vice of men, especially with reference to divine things. Men seem to think that because inspiration and revelation are factors in connection with the things of God, therefore the pain and stress of mental effort are not required; that by some means these elements act somewhat as Elijah's ravens and feed us without effort on our part. To escape this effort, this mental stress to know the things that are, men raise all too readily the ancient bar — "Thus far shalt thou come, but no farther." Man cannot hope to understand the things of God, they plead, or penetrate those things which he has left shrouded in mystery. "Be thou content with the simple faith that accepts without question. To believe, and accept the ordinances, and then live the moral law will doubtless bring men unto salvation; why then should man strive and trouble himself to understand? Much study is still a weariness of the flesh." So men reason; and just now it is much in fashion to laud "the simple faith;" which is content to believe without understanding, or even without much effort to understand. And doubtless many good people regard this course as indicative of reverence — this plea in bar of effort — "thus far and no farther." "There is often a great deal of intellectual sin concealed under this old aphorism," remarks Henry Drummond. "When men do not really wish to go farther they find it an honorable convenience sometimes to sit down on the outmost edge of the 'holy ground' on the pretext of taking off their shoes." "Yet," he continues, "we must be certain that, making a virtue of reverence, we are not merely excusing ignorance; or under the plea of 'mystery' evading a truth which has been stated in the New Testament a hundred times, in the most literal form, and with all but monotonous repetition." (Spiritual Law, pp. 89, 90.)

I maintain that "simple faith" — which is so often ignorant and simpering acquiescence, and not faith at all — but simple faith taken at its highest value, which is faith without understanding of the thing believed, is not equal to intelligent faith, the faith that is the gift of God, supplemented by earnest endeavor to find through prayerful thought and research a rational ground for faith — for acceptance of truth; and hence the duty of striving for a rational faith in which the intellect as well as the heart — the feeling — has a place and is a factor. (Roberts, B. H., Seventy's Course in Theology fifth year book.)

 

 

Edited November 16, 2017 by brlenox

[anatess2]

46 minutes ago, brlenox said:

The Folk Prophet - I'm not sure how to communicate with you as my style seems to trigger what I have heard several people lately refer to as the "snowflake syndrome". You seem a bit sensitive which is always an obstacle to good communication. 

I know The Folk Prophet, I don't know you.  So, all I'm going to say about this is... you are wrong.  If this is how you're approaching your conversations with TFP then, yeah, you'll be in contention and it would be because you are not understanding what he is saying but rather reading into it a contentious tone that is not present and responding to THAT.  Which is what defines a snowflake, isn't it?

This I know.  If he doesn't understand you or he doesn't agree with you, he will challenge you.  If you can't explain yourself in a different manner or if you can't deal with a challenge, then that's pretty much it because TFP is not one to give up just to make one feel better or something.

And that's all I have to say about that.

Edited November 14, 2017 by anatess2

[brlenox]

Just now, anatess2 said:

I know The Folk Prophet, I don't know you.  So, all I'm going to say about this is... you are wrong.  If this is how you're approaching your conversations with TFP then, yeah, you'll be in contention and it would be because you are not understanding what he is saying but rather reading into it a contentious tone that is not present and responding to THAT.

And that's all I have to say about that.

Well, nothing speaks more of a man that what others will say in his behalf. Very Good.

[anatess2]

1 minute ago, brlenox said:

Well, nothing speaks more of a man that what others will say in his behalf. Very Good.

You are fast on that trigger, brother!  (or is it sister?)  At least give this non-native-English-speaker, er writer - a few seconds to edit my post. 

 

[brlenox]

4 minutes ago, anatess2 said:

I know The Folk Prophet, I don't know you.  So, all I'm going to say about this is... you are wrong.  If this is how you're approaching your conversations with TFP then, yeah, you'll be in contention and it would be because you are not understanding what he is saying but rather reading into it a contentious tone that is not present and responding to THAT.  Which is what defines a snowflake, isn't it?

This I know.  If he doesn't understand you or he doesn't agree with you, he will challenge you.  If you can't explain yourself in a different manner or if you can't deal with a challenge, then that's pretty much it because TFP is not one to give up just to make one feel better or something.

And that's all I have to say about that.

Uh Oh ... an edit has appeared.  You might take a look at my responses to his questions and perhaps I am wrong but I thought I did as good a job as I am capable of in responding to his questions.  Perhaps you might educate me as to where I failed.

[brlenox]

1 minute ago, anatess2 said:

You are fast on that trigger, brother!  (or is it sister?)  At least give this non-native-English-speaker, er writer - a few seconds to edit my post. 

 

I'm just a little beyond middle aged fat guy who is seldom accused of doing anything fast anymore. So what is your native language. 

[anatess2]

1 minute ago, brlenox said:

Uh Oh ... an edit has appeared.  You might take a look at my responses to his questions and perhaps I am wrong but I thought I did as good a job as I am capable of in responding to his questions.  Perhaps you might educate me as to where I failed.

It's not a matter of where you failed or anything like that.  It's a matter of coming to an understanding.  TFP and I go a few rounds.  It can get a bit frustrating, I know.  Patience is a virtue.  But this is always true with him (and most people here, actually) - I kinda have to figure out where his perspective is going in response to my statements.  Then if he shows that he misunderstood me in his response, then I just tell him, you misunderstood me here.  And we iron it out.  Or if he understands but disagrees I try to convince him to go on my side, he tries to convince me to his side and that's how the conversation goes.

Where it goes bad is when you take offense where offense is not intended.  TFP can sound like he's condescending but he's not.  He simply doesn't bother with niceties when he wants to express something.  I like that about him actually.  But when you respond to him like he's being contentious then he gets contentious because... it is frustrating to be accused of something when you simply want to engage in serious discussion.  I've done that to him too.  And we go a few rounds.  And we become friends again.  Hah hah.  I love Mormonhub.

 

[The Folk Prophet]

55 minutes ago, anatess2 said:

because TFP is not one to give up just to make one feel better or something.

But I am one to give up when I feel that A) the details at hand aren't important enough to bother*, B) I know that my responses, no matter how carefully I word them, will be taken wrong, and C) the person with whom I am engaged is so entirely convinced of themselves that they feel any other view must stem from a place of lesser study and understanding.

*Specifically, I don't see anything in the theory presented that, if mistaken, would lead anyone away from the gospel.

[The Folk Prophet]

1 hour ago, anatess2 said:

TFP can sound like he's condescending but he's not. 

Well...I wouldn't go so far as to say never.

1 hour ago, anatess2 said:

He simply doesn't bother with niceties when he wants to express something. 

Just out of curiosity, what would "niceties" include in your mind? Because the first post where I really engaged included the following:

"So you are saying that...." -- A clarifying question before accusing inaccuracy.

An attempt to clarify the definition of "justice" so we could better understand, including, "Do you agree with these definitions?" (vs. "That's the definition and if you think otherwise then you're making something up!" or the like).

A request for him to expound on things.

And even my very first post preceding that was written as a question rather than a statement of "you're wrong".

Are these not niceties?

Edited November 15, 2017 by The Folk Prophet

[The Folk Prophet]

2 hours ago, brlenox said:

my style seems to trigger what I have heard several people lately refer to as the "snowflake syndrome".

I'm pretty sure that doesn't mean what you seem to think it means.

Edit: for the sake of not just coming across as...whatever it is that I come across...let me explain: A "snowflake" is not someone who is bothered by being told they're [insert insult here], even by implication. That's called a "person". A "snowflake" is someone who can't handle hearing views that differ from their own -- like those who can't stand to hear right-winged views because it "triggers" them and gives them emotional trauma. "How dare you say that the gender-wage gap is a myth! That's so offensive. I need a safe space to get away from your harmful views!"

Edited November 15, 2017 by The Folk Prophet