Happy Birthday President Nelson!

[I Have Questions]

Just out of interest have you heard of or read the book by Ross Douthat called, "Believe"?

https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/216 ... AXW&rank=4

I just downloaded it on to my watch and started listening to it while out on a walk today. Not much into it yet but he seems to be taking the course of showing that it's sort of crazy/unreasonable to NOT believe in the supernatural. I'm looking forward to getting into it.

Regards,
MG

Ross Douthat you say…

Earlier this week, Harvard PhD history student Tim Barker used his institutional access to post excerpts from some of the early Douthat pieces in a Twitter thread. And folks… they’re not great.

Douthat’s early work includes: a defense of Chilean fascist Augusto Pinochet; a comparison between abortion activists and “rapists and wife beaters”; panic over rage-filled rape survivors coming to cut off men’s penises; a warning that pedophilia could be the next sexual orientation embraced by liberals; a hand-wringing assertion that “whites, too, suffered under slavery”

The most damning of the excerpts posted by Barker is from a piece in which Douthat compared Arab and African immigrants to the barbarians who sacked the Roman Empire in antiquity.

“Today, it is the Africans and Arabs who are creeping in, despite the resistance of the ‘native’ Europeans (witness the rise of the Austrian Right),” he wrote. “The decline of modern Europe… has reached its logical conclusion: the Europeans themselves are vanishing… the continent of the next millennium will belong to different, hungrier peoples.”

When challenged, he doesn’t exactly repent…

I reconsider things I wrote last month, let alone twenty years ago. But I’d rather not establish a precedent that writers should repent every time someone in the internet digs up something offensive or stupid they wrote in college. Instead I’ll say that I spent some time at Harvard trying to be a particular kind of right-wing provocateur, and the campus resolutely refused to be provoked. In the absence of any kind of freak-out, I was forced to think harder about the world and work harder on my writing, and I became – or at least I hope I became – a better, more decent, and more interesting grown-up writer than I might otherwise have been. I think there is possibly a lesson here for the age of Twitter.

As for “Believe”

The defender of faith faces a dilemma: either reconcile religious belief with the modern worldview or resist the implications of science and philosophy altogether. Broadly speaking, there are three possible strategies in response to these encroachments of science and Enlightenment

A literalist argument, maintaining that modern science and philosophy have not, in fact, vitiated traditional conceptions of God and the supernatural.
A poetic argument, asserting that religion is best understood as metaphor and symbol and that its doctrines should be seen not as empirical claims but as profound and enduring poetry.
A pragmatic argument, contending that regardless of religion’s epistemological status, its social and psychological effects are largely beneficial and should be encouraged. (And, of course, the pragmatic argument can be combined with either the literalist or poetic approach.)
Unfortunately, Douthat chose the first strategy—a serious mistake, in my view, since the doctrines of traditional religion are almost certainly false when treated as empirical assertions. Believe does nothing to dissuade me of this.

I note that you are always just starting books and so cannot comment on their content. You’re never “just finishing” a book and giving the board quotes and commentary from it. I wonder why that is?

[Rivendale]

Just out of interest have you heard of or read the book by Ross Douthat called, "Believe"?

https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/216 ... AXW&rank=4

I just downloaded it on to my watch and started listening to it while out on a walk today. Not much into it yet but he seems to be taking the course of showing that it's sort of crazy/unreasonable to NOT believe in the supernatural. I'm looking forward to getting into it.

Regards,
MG

Ross Douthat you say…

Earlier this week, Harvard PhD history student Tim Barker used his institutional access to post excerpts from some of the early Douthat pieces in a Twitter thread. And folks… they’re not great.

Douthat’s early work includes: a defense of Chilean fascist Augusto Pinochet; a comparison between abortion activists and “rapists and wife beaters”; panic over rage-filled rape survivors coming to cut off men’s penises; a warning that pedophilia could be the next sexual orientation embraced by liberals; a hand-wringing assertion that “whites, too, suffered under slavery”

The most damning of the excerpts posted by Barker is from a piece in which Douthat compared Arab and African immigrants to the barbarians who sacked the Roman Empire in antiquity.

“Today, it is the Africans and Arabs who are creeping in, despite the resistance of the ‘native’ Europeans (witness the rise of the Austrian Right),” he wrote. “The decline of modern Europe… has reached its logical conclusion: the Europeans themselves are vanishing… the continent of the next millennium will belong to different, hungrier peoples.”

When challenged, he doesn’t exactly repent…

I reconsider things I wrote last month, let alone twenty years ago. But I’d rather not establish a precedent that writers should repent every time someone in the internet digs up something offensive or stupid they wrote in college. Instead I’ll say that I spent some time at Harvard trying to be a particular kind of right-wing provocateur, and the campus resolutely refused to be provoked. In the absence of any kind of freak-out, I was forced to think harder about the world and work harder on my writing, and I became – or at least I hope I became – a better, more decent, and more interesting grown-up writer than I might otherwise have been. I think there is possibly a lesson here for the age of Twitter.

As for “Believe”

The defender of faith faces a dilemma: either reconcile religious belief with the modern worldview or resist the implications of science and philosophy altogether. Broadly speaking, there are three possible strategies in response to these encroachments of science and Enlightenment

A literalist argument, maintaining that modern science and philosophy have not, in fact, vitiated traditional conceptions of God and the supernatural.
A poetic argument, asserting that religion is best understood as metaphor and symbol and that its doctrines should be seen not as empirical claims but as profound and enduring poetry.
A pragmatic argument, contending that regardless of religion’s epistemological status, its social and psychological effects are largely beneficial and should be encouraged. (And, of course, the pragmatic argument can be combined with either the literalist or poetic approach.)
Unfortunately, Douthat chose the first strategy—a serious mistake, in my view, since the doctrines of traditional religion are almost certainly false when treated as empirical assertions. Believe does nothing to dissuade me of this.

I note that you are always just starting books and so cannot comment on their content. You’re never “just finishing” a book and giving the board quotes and commentary from it. I wonder why that is?

" It is sort of crazy not to believe in ....." Roland the closet goblin. Thor. Pixies.

[Gadianton]

Well, at least I've been able to get you to pull back from describing me as a fanatic and extremist.

I've explained that extremism and fanaticism aren't necessarily the same thing. A person may be a fanatic without being an extremist and I think the converse is also true.

Imagine a person who has a little prayer ritual they do every day over their tea to keep the good spirits present and the bad away. Imagine this person is very nice and polite and this is just a little thing. But the person sleeps through tea one day and grows very uncomfortable in worry over dark forces gathering around them. Such a person is a fanatic but not an extremist. Suppose there is a group of people who believe their race is the only that should be allowed to live, and all others should be executed. Most likely, such people are both extremists and fanatics, but, if the group is large enough, it's possible that a happenstance member while an extremist for believing such a thing, otherwise just goes about their life casually not thinking about it. Not walking the walk. I would say this person isn't a fanatic.

I've said you aren't an extremist, in fact, you specifically bring more ambiguity than there really is into Mormon teachings if you get the sense there might be an avenue for criticism of unfair. For instance, in the other thread, you even told me I can't go by the scriptures if I can use them to back up the apartheid heaven that Mormonism teaches. You are very proud of your general acceptance of other people and everyone should be friends and that the Mormon view is ultimately an extremely large tent that will find a way to be as fair as possible to everyone. You think this absolves you from fanaticism. It doesn't, in my opinion.

The most hyperbolic authoritarians have learned to use relativism to justify extremism. Being wishy-washy about what we can and can't know is a way authoritarians justify the extreme unlikeliness of their worldview being correct. I think IHAQ hit the nail on the head: You wouldn't have been a participant in MMM, but you're the first to claim "a glass darkly" and we can't blame the leaders. We've recently had a master class in this from a follower of Daryll Cooper in SP. There was a lot of ambiguity about WW2, whose to say Hitler was that bad -- especially compared to Churchill? I think that you are fanatical -- just my little op -- as you're willing to sweep everything and anything under the rug, go to lengths to question the possibility of knowledge, and repeat near circular nothings over and over and over in defense of the core truth that you believe in. You're willing to sacrifice details of the big picture to make you look judicious, and then that "fairness" is used as credibility for the underlying belief. You're not an extremist though in my view because at the end of the day, you'll look the other way and let atrocities happen but you're not fundamentally sadistic like many are who share your broad political views and post on this board. I think you do wish the best for everyone when it comes down to it.

[MG 2.0]

I note that you are always just starting books and so cannot comment on their content. You’re never “just finishing” a book and giving the board quotes and commentary from it. I wonder why that is?

I read the books for my own edification and enjoyment. Yes, McClellan’s “The Bible Says So” is in my stack as is “Into the Unknown” by Kelsey Johnson. I will confess that I get sidetracked by authors such as David Baldacci. I’m reading the Will Robie series (five books) right now. If I get hooked on some good fiction the other books remain in the pile although I’ll pick them up for a chapter or two here and there.

Fiction is my weak spot.

Honestly, IHQ, I don’t have any desire to share what I’m reading while I’m reading or giving a synopsis at the end of each book I read. It’s for me, not for you.

I hope that answers your question.

Regards,
MG

[MG 2.0]

Well, at least I've been able to get you to pull back from describing me as a fanatic and extremist.

I've explained that extremism and fanaticism aren't necessarily the same thing. A person may be a fanatic without being an extremist and I think the converse is also true.

Imagine a person who has a little prayer ritual they do every day over their tea to keep the good spirits present and the bad away. Imagine this person is very nice and polite and this is just a little thing. But the person sleeps through tea one day and grows very uncomfortable in worry over dark forces gathering around them. Such a person is a fanatic but not an extremist. Suppose there is a group of people who believe their race is the only that should be allowed to live, and all others should be executed. Most likely, such people are both extremists and fanatics, but, if the group is large enough, it's possible that a happenstance member while an extremist for believing such a thing, otherwise just goes about their life casually not thinking about it. Not walking the walk. I would say this person isn't a fanatic.

I've said you aren't an extremist, in fact, you specifically bring more ambiguity than there really is into Mormon teachings if you get the sense there might be an avenue for criticism of unfair. For instance, in the other thread, you even told me I can't go by the scriptures if I can use them to back up the apartheid heaven that Mormonism teaches. You are very proud of your general acceptance of other people and everyone should be friends and that the Mormon view is ultimately an extremely large tent that will find a way to be as fair as possible to everyone. You think this absolves you from fanaticism. It doesn't, in my opinion.

The most hyperbolic authoritarians have learned to use relativism to justify extremism. Being wishy-washy about what we can and can't know is a way authoritarians justify the extreme unlikeliness of their worldview being correct. I think IHAQ hit the nail on the head: You wouldn't have been a participant in MMM, but you're the first to claim "a glass darkly" and we can't blame the leaders. We've recently had a master class in this from a follower of Daryll Cooper in SP. There was a lot of ambiguity about WW2, whose to say Hitler was that bad -- especially compared to Churchill? I think that you are fanatical -- just my little op -- as you're willing to sweep everything and anything under the rug, go to lengths to question the possibility of knowledge, and repeat near circular nothings over and over and over in defense of the core truth that you believe in. You're willing to sacrifice details of the big picture to make you look judicious, and then that "fairness" is used as credibility for the underlying belief. You're not an extremist though in my view because at the end of the day, you'll look the other way and let atrocities happen but you're not fundamentally sadistic like many are who share your broad political views and post on this board. I think you do wish the best for everyone when it comes down to it.

Two things. I think we can blame the leaders for MMM. Also, I would reject your notion that I am willing to sweep things “under the rug”. What I try and do, however, is give the benefit of a doubt to everyone at first blush. That is, that people are doing the best they can with what they’ve got. That includes their natural makeup and their environment.

But at the end of the day, we DO naturally place blame on those that we see hurting/harming other people. It’s a fine line between people doing the best with what they’ve got and someone that has the ‘evil intent’ to go against what their ‘better angels’ tell them to do.

That’s what makes it so difficult to condemn anyone from before my time and direct observation. At a certain level, I can, at an other level I have to ask, “Do I have all the relevant information?”

The answer is most likely no.

So in other words, MMM and so many other examples that can be brought up are worthy of condemning certain individuals and also giving them some grace. The Fancher Party, for example, wasn’t squeaky clean. But that’s a separate thread.

Regards,
MG

[Marcus]

...Also, I would reject your notion that I am willing to sweep things “under the rug”. What I try and do, however, is give the benefit of a doubt to everyone at first blush...

That's an entertaining bit of nontruth from the Mental Gymnast. Unless he means he tries, and then he regularly, constantly, and usually quite rudely fails.

[MG 2.0]

...Also, I would reject your notion that I am willing to sweep things “under the rug”. What I try and do, however, is give the benefit of a doubt to everyone at first blush...

That's an entertaining bit of nontruth from the Mental Gymnast. Unless he means he tries, and then he regularly, constantly, and usually quite rudely fails.

Hi Marcus, have a wonderful rest of the week! It might help if you stopped following me around spouting off…nothing…and found something actually productive to do. You didn’t even read my whole post. You took something out that would simply misdirect and slapped it up without a second thought. I mean that literally, not a second thought. That’s on the assumption you had a first thought. You’re thoughtless at times.

Give it a go?

Regards,
MG

[Rivendale]

I've explained that extremism and fanaticism aren't necessarily the same thing. A person may be a fanatic without being an extremist and I think the converse is also true.

Imagine a person who has a little prayer ritual they do every day over their tea to keep the good spirits present and the bad away. Imagine this person is very nice and polite and this is just a little thing. But the person sleeps through tea one day and grows very uncomfortable in worry over dark forces gathering around them. Such a person is a fanatic but not an extremist. Suppose there is a group of people who believe their race is the only that should be allowed to live, and all others should be executed. Most likely, such people are both extremists and fanatics, but, if the group is large enough, it's possible that a happenstance member while an extremist for believing such a thing, otherwise just goes about their life casually not thinking about it. Not walking the walk. I would say this person isn't a fanatic.

I've said you aren't an extremist, in fact, you specifically bring more ambiguity than there really is into Mormon teachings if you get the sense there might be an avenue for criticism of unfair. For instance, in the other thread, you even told me I can't go by the scriptures if I can use them to back up the apartheid heaven that Mormonism teaches. You are very proud of your general acceptance of other people and everyone should be friends and that the Mormon view is ultimately an extremely large tent that will find a way to be as fair as possible to everyone. You think this absolves you from fanaticism. It doesn't, in my opinion.

The most hyperbolic authoritarians have learned to use relativism to justify extremism. Being wishy-washy about what we can and can't know is a way authoritarians justify the extreme unlikeliness of their worldview being correct. I think IHAQ hit the nail on the head: You wouldn't have been a participant in MMM, but you're the first to claim "a glass darkly" and we can't blame the leaders. We've recently had a master class in this from a follower of Daryll Cooper in SP. There was a lot of ambiguity about WW2, whose to say Hitler was that bad -- especially compared to Churchill? I think that you are fanatical -- just my little op -- as you're willing to sweep everything and anything under the rug, go to lengths to question the possibility of knowledge, and repeat near circular nothings over and over and over in defense of the core truth that you believe in. You're willing to sacrifice details of the big picture to make you look judicious, and then that "fairness" is used as credibility for the underlying belief. You're not an extremist though in my view because at the end of the day, you'll look the other way and let atrocities happen but you're not fundamentally sadistic like many are who share your broad political views and post on this board. I think you do wish the best for everyone when it comes down to it.

Two things. I think we can blame the leaders for MMM. Also, I would reject your notion that I am willing to sweep things “under the rug”. What I try and do, however, is give the benefit of a doubt to everyone at first blush. That is, that people are doing the best they can with what they’ve got. That includes their natural makeup and their environment.

But at the end of the day, we DO naturally place blame on those that we see hurting/harming other people. It’s a fine line between people doing the best with what they’ve got and someone that has the ‘evil intent’ to go against what their ‘better angels’ tell them to do.

That’s what makes it so difficult to condemn anyone from before my time and direct observation. At a certain level, I can, at an other level I have to ask, “Do I have all the relevant information?”

The answer is most likely no.

So in other words, MMM and so many other examples that can be brought up are worthy of condemning certain individuals and also giving them some grace. The Fancher Party, for example, wasn’t squeaky clean. But that’s a separate thread.

Regards,
MG

The Fancher party wasn't squeaky clean. Another reprehensible assumption worse than your spiritual autism.

[MG 2.0]

Two things. I think we can blame the leaders for MMM. Also, I would reject your notion that I am willing to sweep things “under the rug”. What I try and do, however, is give the benefit of a doubt to everyone at first blush. That is, that people are doing the best they can with what they’ve got. That includes their natural makeup and their environment.

But at the end of the day, we DO naturally place blame on those that we see hurting/harming other people. It’s a fine line between people doing the best with what they’ve got and someone that has the ‘evil intent’ to go against what their ‘better angels’ tell them to do.

That’s what makes it so difficult to condemn anyone from before my time and direct observation. At a certain level, I can, at an other level I have to ask, “Do I have all the relevant information?”

The answer is most likely no.

So in other words, MMM and so many other examples that can be brought up are worthy of condemning certain individuals and also giving them some grace. The Fancher Party, for example, wasn’t squeaky clean. But that’s a separate thread.

Regards,
MG

The Fancher party wasn't squeaky clean. Another reprehensible assumption…

Through the fog of history some of what we have, granted, is rumor that may or may not be the full truth although it may be partial truth. This is one of those instances. Many members of the Fancher party were from Arkansas, a state where Mormons had faced violent persecution in the past. This fact, whether true or not, fueled existing fears and a sense of animosity. Some rumors even claimed that the party included individuals who had been involved in the murder of Mormon apostle Parley P. Pratt.

Tensions were already high because of the Utah War and Brigham Young’s declaration of martial law. There were a number of factors that created a situation which was primed for conflict.

Regards,
MG

[Philo Sofee]

I note that you are always just starting books and so cannot comment on their content. You’re never “just finishing” a book and giving the board quotes and commentary from it. I wonder why that is?

I read the books for my own edification and enjoyment. Yes, McClellan’s “The Bible Says So” is in my stack as is “Into the Unknown” by Kelsey Johnson. I will confess that I get sidetracked by authors such as David Baldacci. I’m reading the Will Robie series (five books) right now. If I get hooked on some good fiction the other books remain in the pile although I’ll pick them up for a chapter or two here and there.

Fiction is my weak spot.

Honestly, IHQ, I don’t have any desire to share what I’m reading while I’m reading or giving a synopsis at the end of each book I read. It’s for me, not for you.

I hope that answers your question.

Regards,
MG

McClellan's book was worth every minute! Taught me lots of new and good angles I had not considered, and I am no slouch when it comes to the Bible.