Carol Lynn Pearson's book

[The Folk Prophet]

43 minutes ago, lostinwater said:

+1

And God i think spreads His Wisdom about.  Where one is willing to look for it is a personal decision (and that's fine), but i think that often, it lies at least a little bit further outside of our comfort zones than many of us would like to admit - myself included.   

it strikes me as being far too coincidental that each one of us - virtually without exception - believes that despite the 1 in 7,600,000,000 or so odds of being the case - OUR specific worldview - or the one we have mixed together and had shaped by the factions to which we ascribe - is the most correct one there is - and that even when at various times in our lives have it proven to us that such is not the case - even to our own satisfaction, merely make a minor adjustment, and then go back to believing ourselves to be entirely correct, with virtually no conflict about any other beliefs we still hold as immutable facts.  

And that's hardly a criticism - no person can exist without erecting at least a few walls to protect their worldview and provide some semblance of stability.

FWIW, that is why we preach Christ's gospel, not our own.

[Just_A_Guy]

14 minutes ago, The Folk Prophet said:

What if you suck at that?

Because it seems to me that being good (particularly in the mind of a random stranger) at building relationships is not the commandment. Nowhere are the charismatic and diplomatic touted as those who will be saved.

Not saying shouldn't try. 

But it also seems disingenuous and full of guile to pretend something you don't believe or feel. Which means, I suppose, once more, seeking commonality. Of which I have very little with some people.

Challenging.

Well, I suppose some folks are just “born that way” . . .

[lostinwater]

2 minutes ago, The Folk Prophet said:

FWIW, that is why we preach Christ's gospel, not our own.

Thank-you Sir.

Or perhaps, the interpretation of Christ's Gospel to which you ascribe because you believe (passionately) it to be correct is more accurate.

And that's no criticism or jab or mocking at what you believe - nor is it a veiled demand that you exchange your morals for a unconditional kum-bay-yah kind of acceptance of whatever someone else happens to believe is correct.  

But regardless, in almost any disagreement, one or neither party will have exercised their right to be right, and one or both parties will have exercised their right to be wrong.  The debate as to which is which, is, well (for now at least), a debate - an art in which you display great skill - certainly more than i am capable of.  

[Vort]

1 hour ago, lostinwater said:

it strikes me as being far too coincidental that each one of us - virtually without exception - believes that despite the 1 in 7,600,000,000 or so odds of being the case - OUR specific worldview - or the one we have mixed together and had shaped by the factions to which we ascribe - is the most correct one there is - and that even when at various times in our lives have it proven to us that such is not the case - even to our own satisfaction, merely make a minor adjustment, and then go back to believing ourselves to be entirely correct, with virtually no conflict about any other beliefs we still hold as immutable facts.  

I believe this is not so. I suspect that the more educated one becomes, the more one tends to see that there are not merely diverse viewpoints available, but seemingly opposite viewpoints that nevertheless each have merit. I suspect, or at least hope, that most here do not consider their viewpoint to be the most correct of any on earth. I certainly don't think that of my own views.

What do I think of my views? That they are mine. X is right, Y is wrong, and Z is irrelevant. That's what I base my judgment on. What choice do I have? If I am intelligent, unbiased, and open-minded enough, I might reconsider one (or many) of these views when confronted with conflicting evidence. In fact, I suspect this is exactly what each of us does on a constant basis. A person in that situation fully realizes that someone somewhere must have a more correct view on Topic T than s/he does.

Yet when I'm involved in discussion, what am I to depend on? My own understanding, of course, or the understanding of those I trust. There is no other option.

Suppose I hold opinions on three topics, called A, B, and C.

• For A, I am absolutely certain of my own correctness. I can see no legitimate argument that counters my own belief, whether because my belief is so logically solid and fact-based that it's undeniable or because I feel I have received divine confirmation of it.
• For B, I am reasonably confident in my opinion, and don't hesitate to speak out in defense of it, but I can see some holes in my formulation. There are some questions I haven't quite been able to answer yet. So my argument for B isn't bulletproof -- but I'm still pretty confident, and I can still outmatch 95%-99% of those who hold an opposing viewpoint (whether or not they admit it).
• For C, I hold the opinion, but only tentatively. It's what I've been told, or I read it somewhere, or my wife believes it and I trust her. I can't really back up this opinion with much in the way of fact or argumentation. I generally don't enter into discussion about it, because my opinion would be exposed immediately as weak. I'll tell people if they ask, but I'm not into evangelizing such things.

I realize things are a lot more complex than this -- for example, my opinion on homeschooling is B tending toward A, yet I feel little compulsion to evangelize about it -- but let's follow this line of reasoning. In this schema, my beliefs are likely to be as follows:

• A: I am right. If you disagree with me, you are wrong. Period. If out of 7.6 billion people on the planet, 7.599999999 billion disagree with me, I'm still right. Deal with it.
• B: I am confident, but maybe I'm wrong. Someone with more understanding of the topic -- preferably, someone with my viewpoint plus the understanding thing -- can clarify. But I don't pretend to be a world-class expert on the subject. That's just my strongly held opinion.
• C: I think I'm right, but maybe not. I wouldn't bet my house on the subject. I'll share my viewpoint with you, but I won't buffalo* you into accepting it.

*Please note that, because it is both a third-person plural noun AND verb, the word "buffalo" may be used any positive integer number of times** to form a grammatically correct English sentence. Example: "Buffalo buffalo buffalo buffalo buffalo." One  reasonable parsing of this sentence is, "Bovines intimidate (other) bovines (that) bovines intimidate." Hey, I didn't say it was an interesting sentence, but there you have it. Using "Buffalo" as a place name (i.e. a city in New York) adds to the fun.

**For your consideration, I propose "fish" as another "buffalo".

I believe the problem comes from people who are either to prideful or too ignorant (or usually a combination of both) to admit that they hold any opinions other than A. Such people are insufferable in a discussion list context and invariably come across as boorish know-it-alls. If, as is so often the case, their knowledge on the topic is actually very limited, they also come across -- rightly -- as ignoramuses***.

***I was almost going to write "ignorami", which would have been a wonderful word. But it's too similar to "Ignoranti", which I want to turn it into a companion for "Illuminati".

The Ignoranti symbol would be the same, except the eye would be closed.

Edited March 2, 2018 by Vort

[NeuroTypical]

16 minutes ago, Vort said:

• A: I am right. If you disagree with me, you are wrong. Period. If out of 7.6 billion people on the planet, 7.599999999 billion disagree with me, I'm still right. Deal with it.

When thinking about other people claiming A, I find it useful to know how many times they've claimed A in the past, only to find out they are wrong.  Ceteris paribus, if they admit to some, I am more likely to trust them.  Because they were [insert admirable quality here] enough to see they were wrong, change their mind, and even admit it. 

[lostinwater]

37 minutes ago, Vort said:

What do I think of my views? That they are mine. X is right, Y is wrong, and Z is irrelevant. That's what I base my judgment on. What choice do I have? If I am intelligent, unbiased, and open-minded enough, I might reconsider one (or many) of these views when confronted with conflicting evidence. In fact, I suspect this is exactly what each of us do on a constant basis. A person in that situation fully realizes that someone somewhere must have a more correct view on Topic T than s/he does.

Interesting.  Thank-you.

Perhaps i am super-imposing my own tendencies on others.  Certainly, i've been guilty of this before.

i was definitely referring to "Type A" conflicts.  i could/should have made that clearer.

i sometimes on Facebook will click on a news story  - the feed on the right hand side - a hot button kind of article - scroll down a couple pages to where individual people who share and comment  on the article begins to show up.    It's fascinating to see the differences.  Both sides apparently express just total bewilderment that anyone else could possibly think differently.  And in many cases, they both have rather valid points (especially if you can look past the hurt and anger that is attached to what they are trying to say) - at least from where i sit.

Perhaps i need to quit basing my view of everyone else on the kind of conclusions i draw from doing that.....   

Edited March 2, 2018 by lostinwater

[The Folk Prophet]

The opinion that all opinions are of equal merit is an opinion of little merit, in my opinon. 

[NeuroTypical]

9 minutes ago, The Folk Prophet said:

The opinion that all opinions are of equal merit is an opinion of little merit, in my opinon. 

My WWII vet father said that a different way, referencing anatomy to convey the notion that an opinion has a low intrinsic value.

[Vort]

4 minutes ago, NeuroTypical said:

My WWII vet father said that a different way, referencing anatomy to convey the notion that an opinion has a low intrinsic value.

I believe the original idea of the saying was not that the opinion necessarily has little value, but that it should generally be kept private, and exposed only in relevant situations. You would die a horrible, painful death without your, um, anatomy.

[jewels8]

9 hours ago, MormonGator said:

It's tough when you have a personal relationship with people on here. I know I've jumped to the defense of some of my friends before. I think it's best to try and remember that sometimes people will say things that might sounds personally offensive when in reality, that's not what they were trying for.

I'm proud of you for sticking up for your friends-that's an awesome trait. Very rare in this society. 

and by the same turn he has insulted me, not knowing me, so there you go

[jewels8]

Just now, jewels8 said:

and by the same turn he has insulted me, not knowing me, so there you go

many people would not want me to be insulted falsely either

[jewels8]

Just now, jewels8 said:

many people would not want me to be insulted falsely either

 

Just now, jewels8 said:

many people would not want me to be insulted falsely either

it really doesn't matter  

[jewels8]

Just now, jewels8 said:

 

it really doesn't matter  

I have apologized  You either chose to forgive or you don't 

[jewels8]

Just now, jewels8 said:

 

it really doesn't matter  You either realize I wasn't trying to go on insulting anyone, and was o

I have apologized  You either chose to forgive or you don't 

[jewels8]

4 hours ago, JohnsonJones said:

It sounds as if you have a very special mission in this life with some very special children.  It sounds that you were given children that need a great amount of love and that you are one that was chosen to be their mother to help them in that aspect.

I appreciate your testimony as a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latterday Saints.  It sounds as if you have a testimony of temple marriage and the great bonds between family. 

I had several children myself, but I did not have the trials that you have had with your children.  You must be a great women to be able to help your children in such a special way.

As this thread is about our hopes on an eternal family, I think your children probably get a special feeling knowing that they have such a special mother and that they can be with their family forever.

Thank you, we are a close family and do try to do our best.

[Vort]

@jewels8 there are two types on people on this list -- and no, I don't mean those that divide people into two types and those that don't:

1. Those who are capable of engaging in robust discussion and even debate on a topic.
2. Those who are incapable of engaging in robust discussion or debate on that topic.

Category #2 above can be broken down into various subgroups:

1. Those who are too young and/or immature to have had the life experience needed to enter into discussion on various topics.
2. Those who have lived in a cultural or emotional bubble, and thus have simply never been exposed to various relevant issues.
3. Those who are so damaged by their own experiences that they have lost the capacity for reasoned discussion on various topics.
4. Those who lack the intellectual capacity to carry on discussions in this medium.
5. Probably others.

(Note that Category #1 folks also can be broken down into most of the same subgroups. But since they are capable of rationally participating in discussions, they can learn from the discussions, grow, and vicariously gain knowledge they didn't have before. That's actually one of the important purposes of discussion lists, arguably the only real purpose. And that's what Category #2 people cannot do.)

Note that not everyone who fits Category #2 for a given topic fits that category for all topics. For example, the victim of a violent crime might not be emotionally capable of discussing the topic of violent crime, especially of the type of crime that victimized him/her. S/he is incapable of entering into a profitable discussion about that issue, but s/he may be perfectly capable of discussing food storage, auto mechanics, firearm ownership, and a myriad of other topics.

What of those who are sincerely Category #2 folks on a topic? On most discussion lists, people assume that such individuals will self-censor. It's sort of an unwritten rule that if you can't discuss a subject in a reasonable manner, you should not participate in discussions on that subject. Thus, other participants feel free to poke at the logic of, and even criticize, those who give weak arguments in support of a subject. They assume the person being poked and criticized can take it and respond appropriately.

I mean you no offense when I say that you appear a classic Category #2 with respect to the topic of plural marriage. If that is indeed the case, then I owe you an apology for not being more careful with your feelings and otherwise treating you like a sister who has a sore spot in her psyche. On the other hand, you have a duty to recognize your own weakness and abstain from discussions on plural marriage. You have the right to enter such a discussion, or even create it (as you did with this one). But then you also have to accept the responsibility to own your own statements and to answer for bizarre, off-the-wall things like "men like sex too much" or "I have lost all respect for God". If you're wearing the Big Girl Panties, everyone is going to expect that you're a big girl. If you are not, then censor yourself, and don't enter into the hot-button topics that you're unwilling or unable to discuss in a rational manner.

Edited March 3, 2018 by Vort

[jewels8]

6 hours ago, wenglund said:

It might be of interest to note that every woman married in the temple is bound in a covenant relationship with at least two men (or four depending upon how one looks at it) , and not just one, thereby entering into a kind of polyandrous marriage.

For those who may be wondering who the other man or men are,  it is Christ or the Godhead.

And, given that Christ is the bridegroom and the Church is the bride, when we are baptized, we  became or become one of tens of millions of brides, and this is typically our first marriage that happens years before our second marriage in the temple.

What do you think, @jewels8?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

I really don't see it quite in that way.

 

[jewels8]

Just now, jewels8 said:

I really don't see it quite in that way.

 

But I do find it helpful that I can pray for help in my marriage and in my family and have the influence of the Holy Ghost for my marriage and family.

[jewels8]

1 minute ago, jewels8 said:

But I do find it helpful that I can pray for help in my marriage and in my family and have the influence of the Holy Ghost for my marriage and family.

 

1 minute ago, jewels8 said:

But I do find it helpful that I can pray for help in my marriage and in my family and have the influence of the Holy Ghost for my marriage and family.

These above statements are a response from Wade Englund about Christ being the Bridegroom and his reference to marriage and the Godhead

[jewels8]

1 hour ago, jewels8 said:

 

These above statements are a response from Wade Englund about Christ being the Bridegroom and his reference to marriage and the Godhead

but it is something I had not thought about, I admit.

[The Folk Prophet]

19 hours ago, lostinwater said:

But regardless, in almost any disagreement, one or neither party will have exercised their right to be right, and one or both parties will have exercised their right to be wrong.

I find this statement moderately meaningless. Truth is truth. Opinion and debate prowess have no effect on the truth. If someone speaks the truth then they are right whether they themselves even know it, whether others see it or know it, whether they say it kindly or unkindly, whether it offends or does not. What it truth is right. And one speaking truth is not exercising a right to be wrong just because it led to another disagreeing with them or taking offense. Their approach may be wrong, though that is extremely hard to judge. But that doesn't render their view wrong in the slightest.

19 hours ago, lostinwater said:

The debate as to which is which, is, well (for now at least), a debate - an art in which you display great skill - certainly more than i am capable of.  

I'm not here to debate. I'm here to speak gospel truth.*  If I have an opinion I try to state that it is my opinion. If I state gospel truth it's not a matter of debate, despite there are those who would debate against it. I do not express it as my opinion because I do not believe that has any bearing on the matter.

I have opinions. They are not necessarily truths. I have opinions on the best way to interact with others. I have opinions on unrevealed gospel ideas. I have opinions on politics. I have opinions on food, music, movies, books, and theater. I have opinions on many other things. And though I may strongly disagree with others on some of these things, I am aware that they are opinions and mine, being mortal, may well be flawed. But gospel truth is not subject to my, or anyone else's, opinion.

It is a gospel truth is that we must humble ourselves and submit to the Father's will or we will lose out on eternal blessings. That is not a matter of my opinion. It is God's word. It is the prophet's words. It is gospel truth. The fact that I believe God and the prophets may technically render it "my opinion" as well, but that is irrelevant. It is gospel truth. And truth does not flex and bend based on opinion, viewpoint, emotion, passion, skill of the debater, or anything else. There are some who are much, much better at debate than I am who are children of hell, servants of Satan, anti-Christ, enemies of truth and right. Their prowess has no bearing on truth either.

If plural marriage is required for exaltation then it is. That is my plain point in this thread. And there is no debate on the matter -- particularly in that it's an unknown. And no emotion, complaint, whining, or other passionate expressions make a lick of difference in whether it is or not.

Now whether it actually is required or not IS a matter of opinion because that has not been revealed. It is my opinion that it is not required -- and I believe that is in line with common church thinking on the matter. But I don't know for sure. God having plural wives? Also unrevealed. I am of the opinion that He may well. But that is merely my opinion. But the idea that when God commands we must submit and obey or lose salvation (pending repentance -- which is submitting and obeying)? That is not an opinion. That is truth, and I am unwilling to betray truth for the sake of abstract ideas of "interpretation" as if there's some level of interpretation to something so plain as submitting to God's will. It's very straightforward. Pride is evil. Humility is righteous. That is not opinion. That is truth. It's amazing how many so-called "debates" I end up in where the primary view of the person debating against what I've said is arguing on behalf of pride. Those arguments are false and wrong and will lead to pain for the individuals who cling to them so fiercely. Those who express a pure willingness to submit to God in all things will never cross the path of my admonishments. I may disagree with them on politics, or even on whether being gay is a choice or not. But that is a debate of opinion. And in those cases your suggestion may hold some merit. I, as many do, tend to hold my opinion in higher esteem than those I disagree with. Of course.

* My motivation for speaking gospel truth has, admittedly, changed over the recent past. Many may have noticed that I have been absent on these forums for quite some time. I got fed up with the constant nastiness that is natural to online interactions. And I got tired of having holier-than-thou leftists telling me how their "nice-ness is best" philosophy on interactions was superior to boldly proclaiming the truth. But I had a few epiphanies recently. 1. The world needs boldness WAY more than it needs nice-ness (aka political correctness). Sensitivity has spoiled the world. We are not in a good place as a culture, and it stems, in a great way, from the politically correct idea that hurting feelings and being insensitive is the worst thing you can possibly do. I think there may well be more value in learning to have someone speak boldly to you without suffering from PTSD symptoms in response. So when I hurt someone's feelings (usually inadvertently -- sometimes intentionally), it's as likely as not an opportunity for them to practice characteristics that this world sorely needs.** 2. I need to be proclaiming gospel truths daily to maintain my own focus on them. I am weak, as all men are, and when I do not engage in gospel thought I find myself sliding into apathy in ways I should not -- sometimes leading to poor behavior. This forum is not the only means one has to stay sharp in the gospel. It is one way that seems to work well for me. I'm sure I'll get fed up again and take further breaks. But...there it is.

** I fully understand (I think @wenglund alluded to this elsewhere,) that being kind is probably more about and for me and my character than it is about others. But I do not typically go after people as fiercely as I have in this thread (though I get treated as if I have done so regardless of my care in the matter (note: this is not an implication that it being taken badly either way justifies something wrong)). But...yeah...if you want to get my ire up, apparently, imply you think something of God is disgusting.

Edited March 3, 2018 by The Folk Prophet

[The Folk Prophet]

2 hours ago, Vort said:

Thus, other participants feel free to poke at the logic of, and even criticize, those who give weak arguments in support of a subject. They assume the person being poked and criticized can take it and respond appropriately.

Whereas this is generally true, there are times when I, for example (which is probably not common) know very well that a person can't take it, but believe the issue, point, or view is egregious enough that the flaw must be pointed out for other reasons (such as sharing a alternate, reasonable, take on the matter for others who might be lurking and emotional on the fence about something, or something is simply offensive enough that the vileness of it compels someone to mount a defense regardless of the state of the offender).

That being said, as often happens, I see how your idea that approaching #2 types carefully holds a great amount of merit, and my approach was, (as suggested by others) perhaps not following the golden rule. (Sort of. I kind of hope that if I ever make such egregious statements akin "all something are something nasty" that someone would tell me what an awful thing that is to say in no uncertain terms.

Speaking of which, and on a side note (and not directed specifically at @Vort but just a thought) re: the golden rule. The implication that you only do to others what you want done to you is problematic in terms of the idea of defending your homes, family, life and liberty (per the title of liberty ideas) even unto bloodshed as commanded by God. That sort of works if one takes the view that they want to be killed if they ever try and take away another's life, family, liberty, etc. But in practice that doesn't really work. Ideally people should want to be rent by God as they have rent their clothes if they ever betray truth and right. But in reality, that is not typically the case it seems. So, once again, I think the broader principle needs to be applied -- consider others before yourself. But -- of course -- consider God first.

[Crash]

3 hours ago, jewels8 said:

and by the same turn he has insulted me, not knowing me, so there you go

Do explain. The only thing I can think of where you took my words as an insult against you was saying that you were displaying sociopathic and narcissistic behaviors by actually flinging insults at TFP and his wife instead of intellectually arguing the issue substantively. That's not an insult. It's an observation. If I was calling you a sociopath, I would have said that you're a sociopath. I didn't say that, though, and I was deliberately choosing my words distinctively. 

You're passive agressively trying to dismiss your insults against TFP and you're continuing to display apathy in the wake of your apology. At this point, you really should just move on instead of continuing to requote yourself with further apathetic and defensive responses.

 

[Traveler]

 

In most discussions I am not so interested in a person’s opinion as the method or path they have followed to arrive at their opinion.  It is not always the case but it is often the case that opinions are arrived at without a clear understanding where it actually came from.  I do this often enough myself that it embarrasses me to admit it.

I also believe that most arguments or disagreements (but not all) come from one of two reasons.  One is because we do not listen carefully enough to what the other person believes and why they believe it.  But the second I believe causes the greater pain and anger and that is that we do not have a clear understanding of what it is we believe. 

I sometimes think that there is such a fear of being wrong that many become angry to have their opinions scrutinized.   It is kind of like a cornered animal that attacks and bites in defense.  Often, we put ourselves in a corner with the logic that if someone else is right – then we are wrong.  This means that the discussion no longer is a search for truth but a defense of territory of opinion.

There is also a tendency to think there is a correct opinion and all others are wrong.  The problem I have had with such thinking is that it often causes me to focus too much on a single point that I do not comprehend the greater picture.   In short seldom does someone want to discover what they have missed.  Because of the impression that if they missed something then they were wrong.  But this contradicts the line upon line upon line and precept upon precept upon precept that is the method and path G-d takes us on to truth.  And so it is my opinion that Satan tempts us away from truth by flattering us that we know enough and do not need to add someone else’s insight.

 

The Traveler

[jewels8]

54 minutes ago, The Folk Prophet said:

Whereas this is generally true, there are times when I, for example (which is probably not common) know very well that a person can't take it, but believe the issue, point, or view is egregious enough that the flaw must be pointed out for other reasons (such as sharing a alternate, reasonable, take on the matter for others who might be lurking and emotional on the fence about something, or something is simply offensive enough that the vileness of it compels someone to mount a defense regardless of the state of the offender).

That being said, as often happens, I see how your idea that approaching #2 types carefully holds a great amount of merit, and my approach was, (as suggested by others) perhaps not following the golden rule. (Sort of. I kind of hope that if I ever make such egregious statements akin "all something are something nasty" that someone would tell me what an awful thing that is to say in no uncertain terms.

Speaking of which, and on a side note (and not directed specifically at @Vort but just a thought) re: the golden rule. The implication that you only do to others what you want done to you is problematic in terms of the idea of defending your homes, family, life and liberty (per the title of liberty ideas) even unto bloodshed as commanded by God. That sort of works if one takes the view that they want to be killed if they ever try and take away another's life, family, liberty, etc. But in practice that doesn't really work. Ideally people should want to be rent by God as they have rent their clothes if they ever betray truth and right. But in reality, that is not typically the case it seems. So, once again, I think the broader principle needs to be applied -- consider others before yourself. But -- of course -- consider God first.

Would you feel disgusted with yourself if you had sex with 2 women?