It has to be asked....

[Guest]

24 minutes ago, Vort said:

I don't like 2RM's misleading statements or pretense at reasoned discussion while ignoring any germane comments that don't fit his particular (very common and very naive) worldview. But to be fair, his "Why should I be a Mormon?" question is a different thread. This is his "Why all the old white men leading the Mormons?" thread. I believe "pale, male, and stale" was his hateful, intolerant way of trying to be clever about his open bigotry.

I can apologize for my free-threading.  But he can't on the one hand refuse to gain knowledge about us and refuse to share knowledge about himself while on the other hand expect his pretense at candid inquiry to be taken seriously.  Whether it is one thread or multiple threads, it is still one person with these attitudes combined communicating with the same audience.

And, yes, I always wonder how someone can lack sufficient self-awareness to use bigotry in the process of accusing someone of bigotry.  I mean, in one breath.  How does anyone do that?

[2ndRateMind]

Hmmm. You have to understand, guys and gals, that I only have a second rate mind. It would be easier to answer your questions if I had more familiarity with the LDS mindset, and some pre-decided agenda to promote. But I don't. I need to take time to consider your comments and questions, and compose answers to them. And this task would be easier still if the general climate of this forum was less inclined toward personal insult, and more disposed towards a more gentle, but nevertheless rigorous, enquiry into truth.

Meanwhile, I can tell you now, that after a week or so's discussion with you all, your general attitudes make me inclined to think that I would make a very poor Mormon indeed, and perhaps I need to look elsewhere for a spiritual home.

Best wishes, 2RM.

 

Edited May 16, 2018 by 2ndRateMind

[unixknight]

27 minutes ago, 2ndRateMind said:

 

Good question, unixknight. To my mind, had Jesus only been a revolutionary rabbi, the religion would never have been founded. Or, if it was, would have quickly and permanently diverged from what is Godly.

Thing is, He still saves souls, in that if in need, and if He is sought open-heartedly, He will bow hither, out of heaven, and answer the prayer. Or at least, so I have found, and many testify, from all corners of the Christian communion.

Best wishes, 2RM.

All fine, but hardly arrived at through an application of Occam's Razor...  which is also fine, and hopefully shows why you won't get any mileage by citing it in this discussion.

[2ndRateMind]

26 minutes ago, unixknight said:

Quote

Quote

Quote

For me, what I have described is quite sufficient to believe. I don't feel any need to extrapolate further. As Occam's razor has it, prefer always the simpler explanation to the more complex.

Which explanation is simpler: 

Jesus of Nazareth was a revolutionary Rabbi who founded a religion, or

Jesus of Nazareth is the Son of God who came to Earth by being born of a virgin, performed miracles and saved humanity from its own sins by being tortured to death, after which He resurrected 3 days later.

What does Occam's Razor tell you to believe?  Is it possible that sometimes the more complex answer is correct?

 

Good question, unixknight. To my mind, had Jesus only been a revolutionary rabbi, the religion would never have been founded. Or, if it was, would have quickly and permanently diverged from what is Godly.

Thing is, He still saves souls, in that if in need, and if He is sought open-heartedly, He will bow hither, out of heaven, and answer the prayer. Or at least, so I have found, and many testify, from all corners of the Christian communion.

Best wishes, 2RM.

 

All fine, but hardly arrived at through an application of Occam's Razor...  which is also fine, and hopefully shows why you won't get any mileage by citing it in this discussion.

No, I am just saying that there are other spiritual phenomena to consider and account for beyond Jesus' life and mission on earth as recounted in the Gospels.

One therefore needs a more extensive theory than that Jesus was just a revolutionary rabbi. But, among those more extensive theories, it still makes sense to apply Occam, and choose the simplest from among them.

Best wishes, 2RM.

Edited May 16, 2018 by 2ndRateMind

[Guest]

1 hour ago, 2ndRateMind said:

Hmmm. You have to understand, guys and gals, that I only have a second rate mind. It would be easier to answer your questions if I had more familiarity with the LDS mindset, and some pre-decided agenda to promote. But I don't. I need to take time to consider your comments and questions, and compose answers to them. And this task would be easier still if the general climate of this forum was less inclined toward personal insult, and more disposed towards a more gentle, but nevertheless rigorous, enquiry into truth.

Meanwhile, I can tell you now, that after a week or so's discussion with you all, your general attitudes make me inclined to think that I would make a very poor Mormon indeed, and perhaps I need to look elsewhere for a spiritual home.

Best wishes, 2RM.

I've really been trying to be accommodating.  But I continue to be met with resistance to simple requests for clarification.  Is it reasonable to 

1) Ask for help then refuse to follow any suggestions that individuals offer for such help?
2) Ask to be given directions without explaining where you are to begin with? Imagine the conversation.

• How do I get to Mortenson Street?
• Where are you?
• I'm in town.
• Where in town?
• Well, I don't see why I need to get into that level of detail.
• I can't very well help you go somewhere if I don't know where you're starting, now can I?
• How dare you scoff at me like that.  I didn't deserve such treatment.  Why don't you try being nicer to me and I might try to work with you.

That's what it's sounding like on my end.  Then there's this thread about the leaders of the Church being Pale, Male and Stale.  How can they be taken seriously.  What you've actually said is:

• Whites are all racist.
• Men are all sexist.
• Old people are clueless.
• White old men are a relic from a different era who can't be taken seriously because they're racist, sexist, and clueless.

Then we take offense at such a statement.  And when we do, you claim that you're the one who has been insulted rather than the one doing the insulting.  Can we really be expected to take you  seriously with that kind of cognitive disconnect?

On 5/15/2018 at 10:19 AM, 2ndRateMind said:

So, I've just happened to come across some pictures of the LDS leadership. (The First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve). Not just overwhelmingly white, middle class, middle aged and male, but completely so. Is this a religion/denomination that seeks to save all of humanity, or just a club of like-minded, socially coherent cronies? If the former, why no blacks, asians, hispanics, women, youth, working class, etc?

You apparently didn't look.  The two newest apostles (Quorum of the 12) are Asian and Hispanic respectively).  But that doesn't matter.

Quote

If the latter, why should anyone take Mormons seriously? The epithet, maybe unfairly, 'Pale, Male, and Stale' springs to mind. But if it is unfair, I hope you will be able to explain to me just why it is unfair.

Because calling them deficient because of their 1) Race 2) Sex & 3) Age is racist, sexist, and ageist.

If you want to be taken seriously, then at least make this admission:  "I was offensive when I called someone racist solely on the basis of their race.  I was offensive when i called someone sexist solely on the basis of their sex. I was offensive when I called someone clueless solely on the basis of their age."

If you don't think you did, then tell us what you meant by "Pale, Male, and Stale."  Were these meant to be complimentary?  How so?

Edited May 16, 2018 by Guest

[The Folk Prophet]

10 minutes ago, Carborendum said:

I've really been trying to be accommodating.  But I continue to be met with resistance to simple requests for clarification.

[2ndRateMind]

Quote

You apparently didn't look.  The two newest apostles (Quorum of the 12) are Asian and Hispanic respectively).  But that doesn't matter.

So. Carborendum. The epithet 'Pale, Male and Stale' was simply something I asked you all about. Are you a Racist, Sexist, Obsolete organisation with a Racist, Sexist, Obsolete leadership, and a Racist, Sexist, Obsolete outlook? I cannot apologise for finding this question relevant, given the portraits of your leadership as being 87% white Caucasian, 100% male, with an average age of, what shall we say? maybe 80% over 50 years of age. None of this amounts to a personal attack on any individual contributing to this discussion, such as you have subjected me to. Maybe you are just all being defensive, but if so, I would suggest you deal with the issues that make you defensive, rather than insult me, which serves no useful purpose at all.

As for the rest of your enquiries, I shall deal with them tomorrow, maybe, as time and inclination permit.

Best wishes, 2RM.

 

 

[NeuroTypical]

9 minutes ago, 2ndRateMind said:

Are you a Racist, Sexist, Obsolete organisation with a Racist, Sexist, Obsolete leadership, and a Racist, Sexist, Obsolete outlook? I cannot apologise for finding this question relevant, given the portraits of your leadership as being 87% white Caucasian, 100% male, with an average age of, what shall we say? maybe 80% over 50 years of age.

Looks like we're almost as cool as the US congress.  Do you wonder if they are racist and obsolete?

[2ndRateMind]

10 minutes ago, NeuroTypical said:

Looks like we're almost as cool as the US congress.  Do you wonder if they are racist and obsolete?

Yup.

We don't do so well here in the UK, either, in respect of the parliamentary representation of women and ethnic minorities. But, I think there is a general recognition that this is a problem, and needs to be addressed. And, we are beginning see the benefits of marginalised groups beginning to populate the corridors of power.

Best wishes, 2RM.

Edited May 16, 2018 by 2ndRateMind

[unixknight]

1 hour ago, 2ndRateMind said:

No, I am just saying that there are other spiritual phenomena to consider and account for beyond Jesus' life and mission on earth as recounted in the Gospels.

One therefore needs a more extensive theory than that Jesus was just a revolutionary rabbi. But, among those more extensive theories, it still makes sense to apply Occam, and choose the simplest from among them.

Best wishes, 2RM.

Occam's Razor works only when you have all the information and can control for the variables (All other things being equal)  

In matters of faith, that isn't possible so Occam cannot be reliably applied.

[2ndRateMind]

36 minutes ago, unixknight said:

Occam's Razor works only when you have all the information and can control for the variables (All other things being equal)  

In matters of faith, that isn't possible so Occam cannot be reliably applied.

On the contrary, William of Occam was a Franciscan Friar, philosopher and theologian. I think matters of faith were exactly what his 'Law of Parsimony' were meant to apply to.

Best wishes, 2RM.

Edited May 16, 2018 by 2ndRateMind

[unixknight]

1 minute ago, 2ndRateMind said:

On the contrary, William of Occam was a Franciscan Friar, philosopher and theologian. I think matters of faith were exactly was his 'Law of Parsimony' were meant to apply to.

Best wishes, 2RM.

Not too sure of that.  I'd be interested in a source that elaborates on how that would be applied to religion.

[2ndRateMind]

8 minutes ago, unixknight said:

Not too sure of that.  I'd be interested in a source that elaborates on how that would be applied to religion.

Can't oblige with any established authority, only elaborate on my own experience (for what that's worth!) But, it seems to me that beliefs often generate other beliefs, and they generate others, and so on, and so on. The result can be a pathological, even psychotic, (I know; I've been there), proliferation of beliefs that bear no relation to reality. And eventually and paradoxically, one discovers that the less one believes, rather than the more one believes, the stronger and more resilient one's faith is, the more confident in one's faith one can be.

Best wishes, 2RM.

Edited May 16, 2018 by 2ndRateMind

[Vort]

38 minutes ago, 2ndRateMind said:

The epithet 'Pale, Male and Stale' was simply something I asked you all about.

"Pale, Male, and Stale" is not a question. It is hateful bigotry. Period. The fact that you now justify yourself proves that you, 2ndRateMind, are a hateful bigot. This is beyond the fact that your second-rate mind seems unable to comprehend that God is not politically correct, and may well not conform to your politically correct norms. No, this is pure bigotry. You are a bigot, and by the looks of things, a troll.

I do not care to convert you. I do not care if you become a member of the kingdom of God. God cares; he loves you, infinitely so. But I do not. I hope very much that you leave this particular venue and never return, at least until you are willing to engage in honest conversation.

[estradling75]

39 minutes ago, 2ndRateMind said:

So. Carborendum. The epithet 'Pale, Male and Stale' was simply something I asked you all about. Are you a Racist, Sexist, Obsolete organisation with a Racist, Sexist, Obsolete leadership, and a Racist, Sexist, Obsolete outlook? I cannot apologise for finding this question relevant, given the portraits of your leadership as being 87% white Caucasian, 100% male, with an average age of, what shall we say? maybe 80% over 50 years of age. None of this amounts to a personal attack on any individual contributing to this discussion, such as you have subjected me to. Maybe you are just all being defensive, but if so, I would suggest you deal with the issues that make you defensive, rather than insult me, which serves no useful purpose at all.

Let's see... Judging someone based solely  on their skin color...  Makes someone racist.  What did you do when you saw the picture... Judged them based on skin color... Title of Racist.. Goes to you.

Let's see... Judging someone based solely  on their sex...  Makes someone sexist.  What did you do when you saw the picture... Judged them based on sex... Title of Sexist. Goes to you.

Let's see... Judging someone based solely  on their age...  Makes someone ageist.  What did you do when you saw the picture... Judged them based on age... Title of ageist. Goes to you.

Trying twist facts to suit your own purposes... Makes someone a dishonest person... What have you been doing this entire thread.. Trying twist facts to suit your own purposes.  Title of Lier goes to you.

Yeap I think we all clearly see what is truthfully happening here

[person0]

2 hours ago, 2ndRateMind said:

your general attitudes make me inclined to think that I would make a very poor Mormon indeed, and perhaps I need to look elsewhere for a spiritual home

I really mean this sincerely, but, why would you want anyone's attitude to sway you to or away from a particular subset of doctrines?  Shouldn't your evaluation be based on the doctrine itself, and the direction given from the Lord?  In my experience, two people can be yelling at each other trying to say the same thing, but they just don't recognize that is what they are doing, and they might hate each other for actually agreeing.  Communication is a beast, especially with text only and no body language to use to help decipher.  Now, I don't think most of us are actually saying the same thing as you, but I'm just trying to use that example as a way to explain my point.

[2ndRateMind]

5 minutes ago, Vort said:

"Pale, Male, and Stale" is not a question. It is hateful bigotry. Period. The fact that you now justify yourself proves that you, 2ndRateMind, are a hateful bigot. This is beyond the fact that your second-rate mind seems unable to comprehend that God is not politically correct, and may well not conform to your politically correct norms. No, this is pure bigotry. You are a bigot, and by the looks of things, a troll.

I do not care to convert you. I do not care if you become a member of the kingdom of God. God cares; he loves you, infinitely so. But I do not. I hope very much that you leave this particular venue and never return, at least until you are willing to engage in honest conversation.

Or, you could just answer the question in the OP, without the insults, if you have such an answer.

As for your assertion that 'God is not politically correct', you could well be right. I do not know. But I do know He is just, and where political correctness reduces social injustice, then I think He would not be altogether displeased.

Best wishes, 2RM

Edited May 16, 2018 by 2ndRateMind

[estradling75]

Just now, 2ndRateMind said:

Or, you could just answer the question in the OP, without insults, if you have such an answer.

Why should we answer such a loaded and dishonest question?  As for answers many have given you one (for this and other questions you have asked) and the simple fact is you do not care about answers so much as promoting your agenda.  This is clear to anyone that interacts with you even for a short while.

[Guest MormonGator]

22 minutes ago, unixknight said:

Not too sure of that.  I'd be interested in a source that elaborates on how that would be applied to religion.

 From what I've read Ockham believed in God but he thought the existence of God couldn't be proven logically. That's what I remember from my philosophy classes in college. 

Most philosophers think that the existence of God can't be proven by reason (most, not all) and therefore, Ockham's Razor is meaningless in the conversation. 

Edited May 16, 2018 by MormonGator

[2ndRateMind]

Quote

I do not care to convert you. I do not care if you become a member of the kingdom of God.

So, Vort, is the Church of Jesus Christ of the Latter Day Saints only for those who agree with you about everything?

Best wishes, 2RM.

[unixknight]

5 minutes ago, 2ndRateMind said:

 But I do know He is just, and where political correctness reduces social injustice

Define "social injustice" if you would, please.

[2ndRateMind]

4 minutes ago, unixknight said:

Define "social injustice" if you would, please.

Do you really need me to define it for you? Can you really not tell it when you see it? If so, and if not, what is your Church leadership wasting their time on?

Best wishes, 2RM.

[unixknight]

Just now, 2ndRateMind said:

Do you really need me to define it for you?

Yes.

[Vort]

7 minutes ago, MormonGator said:

 From what I've read Ockham believed in God but he thought the existence of God couldn't be proven logically. That's what I remember from my philosophy classes in college. 

Most philosophers think that the existence of God can't be proven by reason (most, not all) and therefore, Ockham's Razor is meaningless in the conversation. 

People like Second-rate Mind use Ockham's Razor falsely, as an attempt to bolster their weak argument.

What causes objects to fall to the ground when we let go of them?

A. Mass distorts spacetime. This distortion manifests itself as a uniformly attractive force between masses, varying directly with the size of the masses and inversely with the squared reciprocal of the distance between them.

B.Invisible gravity fairies pull things downward.

By (2ndRateMind's interpretation of) Ockham's Razor, B is the simpler, and thus preferred, choice.

[Vort]

10 minutes ago, 2ndRateMind said:

So, Vort, is the Church of Jesus Christ of the Latter Day Saints only for those who agree with you about everything?

Best wishes, 2RM.

You are a liar. I never said nor suggested any such thing.

Best wishes, Vort