Are there still liberal Mormons?

[malkie]

Thanks, Marcus - I appreciate the clear explanation. Nice (but not necessary!) that Res agrees.

What I was attempting to do was to indicate that the reliability of eyewitness testimony cannot be determined from the testimony itself, absent further information that is independent of the testimony. Hence my choice of "inherently".

My concern about "notorious" (generally known and talked of) is that notoriety is an indication of what people generally think about something, and not necessarily related to reality. (I know I'm not explaining this very well, but I'm feeling a little bit of brain fog right now.) It's argumentum ad populum, is it not?

That's a pretty good response for someone feeling brainfog--I think you're doing ok!!

Seriously, though, that's a good point about word choice -- as a statistician if see the words "notoriously unreliable" in reference to data, I am most likely assuming the probability is not only less than 50% reliable, but probably far less than that. To me, the adjective is strictly assigned to the behavior of the data, which is just a factual observation.

However, while I don't agree that it is necessarily, in all cases "argumentum ad populum", you are absolutely correct that to someone hearing the phrase, words may be seen as indicating a human opinion about evidence. But, this is a signature line, so while I could write a (very dry, lengthy) substitution for "notoriously unreliable,* I probably wouldn't add it in. At best, I might add an asterisk, and put something in a footnote explaining what the data indicates.

Thanks again, Marcus.

[MG 2.0]

I admit that there are people here that are much more intelligent than I am.

You are one of them, Marcus. Morley is another, although he was apparently (?) attempting to make himself out to be less so. He failed on that count.

As I said earlier, if you’ve had an education that is above and beyond what another might have had it is more than likely that it will show.

And it does show here.

Regards,
MG

Thank you. And yes, I absolutely agree that Morley is another.

Whew! Now that we got that straight.

Regards,
MG

[MG 2.0]

If anyone cares to respond to MG's reply to my comment, please feel free to do so - don't wait for me, because it ain't gonna happen

Ah shucks.

But sure, I’d be happy to entertain a response from another. Although, truth be told, I like the way you present yourself and your opinions/arguments, malkie.

Hope all is well with you. I’ve been quite under the weather this week. Reading and trying to keep my wits about me while kinda stuck at home. Yes, I know what brain fog feels like right now. And a crappy sore throat.

Blecch.

Multiple witnesses. All sticking to their story even into their later years. Sort of a game changer in my book.

Regards,
MG

[Marcus]

The reason I didn’t answer Marcus’s questions was because the reliability of the witnesses has been discussed ad nauseam. But even more than that, it’s a simple thing. It wasn’t just one witness that carried their testimony with them throughout their life even during and after having been disassociated from the church.

It was multiple witnesses that did the same thing.

The likelihood that multiple witnesses would get it wrong and then stick by their testimony through thick and thin is highly unlikely.

It makes their initial testimony/witness much more palatable.

There seems to be a tendency among the critics to almost toss the testimonies off almost at face value. Maybe with one. Maybe. But with multiple witnesses? ...

Were their witness statements all independently given? Or was their witnessing grouped together and written by someone else, who tells us that they all signed off on it?

Your argument about multiple witnesses deteriorates significantly in the face of non-independent statements.

Additionally, was there any relationship between the various witnesses, or did they have relationships to Smith? I'm with Twain on this:

Noting the familiar relationship among the witnesses, satirist Mark Twain wrote, "I could not feel more satisfied and at rest if the entire Whitmer family had testified."[5]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eight_Wit ... tified.%22

"Multiple witnesses", under these circumstances, only decreases the reliability of the accounts.

[MG 2.0]

The reason I didn’t answer Marcus’s questions was because the reliability of the witnesses has been discussed ad nauseam. But even more than that, it’s a simple thing. It wasn’t just one witness that carried their testimony with them throughout their life even during and after having been disassociated from the church.

It was multiple witnesses that did the same thing.

The likelihood that multiple witnesses would get it wrong and then stick by their testimony through thick and thin is highly unlikely.

It makes their initial testimony/witness much more palatable.

There seems to be a tendency among the critics to almost toss the testimonies off almost at face value. Maybe with one. Maybe. But with multiple witnesses? ...

Were their witness statements all independently given? Or was their witnessing grouped together and written by someone else, who tells us that they all signed off on it?

Your argument about multiple witnesses deteriorates significantly in the face of non-independent statements.

Additionally, was there any relationship between the various witnesses, or did they have relationships to Smith? I'm with Twain on this:

Noting the familiar relationship among the witnesses, satirist Mark Twain wrote, "I could not feel more satisfied and at rest if the entire Whitmer family had testified."[5]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eight_Wit ... tified.%22

"Multiple witnesses", under these circumstances, only decreases the reliability of the accounts.

I’m referring particularly to the three witnesses. If you want to verify their ongoing testimony throughout their lives you would need to do your own research (which apparently you haven’t?).

You can start with these resources. They deal specifically with the three witnesses and their statements made later in their lives:

See, e.g., Dallin H. Oaks, "The Witness: Martin Harris", Ensign, May 1999; James E. Faust, "A Growing Testimony", Ensign, November 2011; Henry B. Eyring, "An Enduring Testimony of the Witness of the Prophet Joseph", Liahona, November 2003;"Lesson 4: Remember the New Covenant, Even the Book of Mormon", Doctrine and Covenants and Church History: Gospel Doctrine Teacher's Manual (1999).

I’m sure there are other sources out there.

The point is, the three witnesses together are exponentially more powerful than one. I don’t think IHAQ had that in mind with his sigline.

Hope this helps.

Regards,
MG

[MG 2.0]

Thank you. And yes, I absolutely agree that Morley is another.

Whew! Now that we got that straight.

Regards,
MG

[Marcus]

Were their witness statements all independently given? Or was their witnessing grouped together and written by someone else, who tells us that they all signed off on it?

Your argument about multiple witnesses deteriorates significantly in the face of non-independent statements.

Additionally, was there any relationship between the various witnesses, or did they have relationships to Smith? I'm with Twain on this:


"Multiple witnesses", under these circumstances, only decreases the reliability of the accounts.

I’m referring particularly to the three witnesses. If you want to verify their ongoing testimony throughout their lives you would need to do your own research (which apparently you haven’t?)...

So, you can't answer the questions?

Were their witness statements all independently given? Or was their witnessing grouped together and written by someone else, who tells us that they all signed off on it?

Your argument about multiple witnesses deteriorates significantly in the face of non-independent statements.

Additionally, was there any relationship between the various witnesses, or did they have relationships to Smith?

"Multiple witnesses", under these circumstances, only decreases the reliability of the accounts.

[Marcus]

Whew! Now that we got that straight.

Regards,
MG

I'm glad you bumped that. It was a troll post where I answered you straightforwardly and then you jumped on it, mocking people, as only a troll would do.

You outed yourself as the troll you are. No one is surprised.

[MG 2.0]

I'm glad you bumped that. It was a troll post where I answered you straightforwardly and then you jumped on it, mocking people, as only a troll would do.

You outed yourself as the troll you are. No one is surprised.

It simply amazes me to observe the hubris that comes from your keyboard. What I said is in part true. You are an amazingly smart person, right? So is Morley. There are some very bright people here. But that also really goes without saying.

Everybody seems to know that.

The wink and lol are in reference to the hubris and self confident judgement which is on display as you pontificate on the strengths and weaknesses of others. The nit picky stuff.

A MAJOR focus.

Now…why is that? Does it take special training? Or is a lack of human decency to simply cut each other some slack and smile…in a kind sort of way…in regards to the quirks and yes, even inadequacies of others.

Maybe I’m not cut out for the ‘debate stage’ where debate preparation includes poking and prodding for the slightest little opening to rush in and grind the other person and/or their arguments down rather than looking for possible strong points and strengths.

I can do better. Can you do better? As it is, this gets awfully tedious presenting an opinion or an argument to simply have it turned on a 180 through argumentative methodologies designed to simply go in for the kill through finding some kind of rhetorical weakness in argument.

I guess it’s not a living room where we sit around and chat.

It’s always ‘high stakes’. It’s too bad it has to be that way. I suppose it’s the whole religion/politics thing where polarization seems to be the only game in town for many. Even if on an unconscious level.

It wasn’t a troll post as much as an ‘it is what it is kind of hopeless’ post. I guess if we are truly looking at each other as the enemy then there is no hope for reconciliation.

If I can’t even connect with malkie on a simple level of ‘hey, you’re a good guy’, then, well, I find that sad.

I do like the general framing of this board of being able to give and take and share ideas. But there seems to be a level of animosity that I’m finding disheartening with very little room, it seems, for basic human kindness.

And yes, I can always do better also. I was a little snarky in some of my recent comments.

Also, truth be told, I think we both (believers and non believers) make personal observations to ourselves that we are talking more or less to a brick wall.

I know I do!

This board might actually be better off being an echo chamber of sorts. A silo. It may well be that religious discussion, where there will naturally be disagreements, is better had in the living room rather than online. I’ve felt like more than ‘one voice’ needed to be heard here.

I still do. But I sometimes find my self wondering if that’s actually possible. So many believing members have come and gone and given up trying to find common ground. Tough to do in these circumstances where our core beliefs are 180 degrees different from each other.

In a certain sense we may actually look at each other as being stupid. “How can a person believe that?” Honestly, don’t you folks often wonder how in the world I can remain a member of the church and actually believe?

In other words, I’m some kind of stupid right out of the gate? How can you even believe this stuff?

Ceeboo was recently treated unfairly (I’m not going to argue yay or nay on that) and he unfortunately responded unkindly. But I think he was being looked at and treated as an inferior simply because he believes in the Judaeo Christian God.

Lots of pretty smart people do. I’m reading a book right now called, “The Language of God” by Francis Collins. Smart guy to say the least. But at the end of the day some would look at him as being somehow deficient because he too hasn't ‘seen the light’.

It’s tough when the ‘crowd’ is chanting one thing and you’re standing up for Christ. I admire Ceeboo for that. Standing up for God. In the midst of unbelievers asking for proofs for something that is much bigger than our five senses and worldly logic.

Anyway, that’s enough. Thanks for listening if you got this far!

Must be the cold medication. Cough cough.

Regards,
MG

[Marcus]

And yet another post from the troll.