Is Mormonism so bad?

[IHAQ]

When MG posits that if he is right, then what he believes to be true is true, one shouldn't feel obligated to post a reply. That's a mad man ranting on the street corner, convinced of his own rightness because he lacks the capacity to get outside of the preference he holds for his own opinions.

But then he has also become satellite to some book or other recently that has spun him off into claims those who do not agree with his opinion are myopic and have their viewfinder focused poorly.

I don't know how many times over numerous threads a board member has pointed out to MG he has his ladder placed on the branch he is sawing, that his reasoning is circular, or that he is locked in a Mormon-based worldview he asserts as universal. There aren't many more ways to express it that haven't been tried. So, I guess that's about as far as the conversation will ever make it.

You're so right.
I never feel obligated to reply to the troll known as 'mentalgymnast'. My reply was aimed towards the thread in general and the lurkers and other respondents to the thread as it's an interesting point about an ongoing attribute of Mormonism - that of wanting to hold two mutually exclusive positions simultaneously.

[Meadowchik]

Obligatory reminder of the response I received from Carrier, when I asked him his opinion of this in May 2019:

https://www.mormoninterpreter.com/josep ... -the-maya/

He said:



Of course this is about a different Bayesian analysis not his own.

Personally, I don't have the time to look at either yet, having my studies and a house full of children with my husband stuck abroad. But one thing I can say with certainty about mathematics is that an analysis is only as good as the model. A poorly constructed model can be worse than useless even if the numerical calculations are correct.

The link you gave isn't working for me. But I recall that piece from interpreter and found it a bit goofy. Thanks for sharing. Interesting response.

That was the original link, but here is the presumably same article at the Interpreter: https://interpreterfoundation.org/josep ... t-guesser/

[mentalgymnast]

I think you may be misunderstanding me. If the LDS church is true then what I’ve said is true.

That's fascinating.

Yes it is.

Regards,
MG

[mentalgymnast]

...either, the Book of Mormon contains the fulness of the Gospel Or there is/are additional Gospel truth/s to be found elsewhere outside of Mormonism. One cannot (in all intellectual honesty) hold both positions simultaneously as they are mutually exclusive. One cannot have one's cake, and eat it.

https://www.fairmormon.org/answers/Book ... the_gospel

There is truth to be found elsewhere other than within the church. Scientific thought and exploration for starters.

Regards,
MG

[mentalgymnast]

When MG posits that if he is right, then what he believes to be true is true, one shouldn't feel obligated to post a reply. That's a mad man ranting on the street corner, convinced of his own rightness because he lacks the capacity to get outside of the preference he holds for his own opinions.

But then he has also become satellite to some book or other recently that has spun him off into claims those who do not agree with his opinion are myopic and have their viewfinder focused poorly.

I don't know how many times over numerous threads a board member has pointed out to MG he has his ladder placed on the branch he is sawing, that his reasoning is circular, or that he is locked in a Mormon-based worldview he asserts as universal. There aren't many more ways to express it that haven't been tried. So, I guess that's about as far as the conversation will ever make it.

I have said the same thing a number of times. There is a divide that cannot be traversed. But it’s important for all of us to get our positions out there. I know you have yours, and I don’t fault you for that, except to say that I think you’re wrong.

Regards,
MG

[mentalgymnast]

When MG posits that if he is right, then what he believes to be true is true, one shouldn't feel obligated to post a reply. That's a mad man ranting on the street corner, convinced of his own rightness because he lacks the capacity to get outside of the preference he holds for his own opinions.

But then he has also become satellite to some book or other recently that has spun him off into claims those who do not agree with his opinion are myopic and have their viewfinder focused poorly.

I don't know how many times over numerous threads a board member has pointed out to MG he has his ladder placed on the branch he is sawing, that his reasoning is circular, or that he is locked in a Mormon-based worldview he asserts as universal. There aren't many more ways to express it that haven't been tried. So, I guess that's about as far as the conversation will ever make it.

You're so right.
I never feel obligated to reply to the troll known as 'mentalgymnast'.

And I have never felt obligated to reply to you either, although out of courtesy I often have. More often than not to set the record straight.

My reply was aimed towards the thread in general and the lurkers and other respondents to the thread as it's an interesting point about an ongoing attribute of Mormonism - that of wanting to hold two mutually exclusive positions simultaneously.

You set up a straw man. You didn’t prove anything except for your ability to twist the truth through misinformation. You’ve done that too many times to count. I would invite your ‘lurkers’ to go back to the old board to determine whether or not this is true. I’ve personally caught you as you set up straw man arguments and link to information with a bias and/or incomplete analysis as though there is/was only one way to view things. That’s common procedure not only with you, but others. Unfortunately there isn’t enough time in the day to go back and tackle all of your posts where you practice your craft.

I would recommend that your ‘lurkers’ go beyond what is read in forums where negativity rules the day, and read widely including sources both pro and con. Then do your own thinking. But don’t simply hop on board with the critics. They have a point of view that needs to be evaluated, that is true. But that doesn’t determine the truthfulness of what is said simply because it is repeated over and over again in an echo chamber such as this. Remain balanced and open. Critics would have you believe that if you are a person of faith you are someone that is just not current with ‘what’s happening’ in the world and have not put in the time to honestly try to determine what is true, etc. This is NOT the place to build faith based on reason. This is a place where faith is ridiculed and lambasted as being out of touch with so called reality. Don’t let them fool you. Too much rides on how we treat those things that are sacred and/or are of an eternal nature.

Sorry to ramble on a bit there IHAQ, but where you seem to be concerned about what the lurkers might read, I thought it important to address them directly.

Regards,
MG

[mentalgymnast]

I never feel obligated to reply to the troll known as 'mentalgymnast'.

I am happy to let lurkers go back and read my posts on this board and the now defunct one and make their own determination on the truth or falsity of your claim. I am confident that they will see that you and others are liars. I realize that by saying this I’m being rather blunt, but I’m telling it as it is. Or at least the way I honestly see it.

Lurkers, don’t depend wholeheartedly on what ‘died in the wool’ critics have to say about those they vehemently disagree with. They have an agenda. And you can guess what it is.

Regards,
MG

[Lem]

Live by the wool, die by the wool. Isn't that from the new Dune movie?
Who knows. Trolls will troll.
-------

Back to the topic,

Obligatory reminder of the response I received from Carrier, when I asked him his opinion of this in May 2019:

https://interpreterfoundation.org/josep ... t-guesser/

He said:

That's totally crank. Indeed, I suspect it's satire. Or else quite the Poe.

If it really is meant seriously, it's defect is the same as all Christian Bayesianism: they assign the wrong values to the facts they list. For example, Smith's knowledge of volcanism has no actual connection with Mesoamerican history. So assigning it a "strong correspondence" factor is a joke. Which has me wondering if we are supposed to take this seriously.

Of course this is about a different Bayesian analysis not his own.

Personally, I don't have the time to look at either yet, having my studies and a house full of children with my husband stuck abroad. But one thing I can say with certainty about mathematics is that an analysis is only as good as the model. A poorly constructed model can be worse than useless even if the numerical calculations are correct.

ETA: working link

Thanks for the reminder of that, Meadowchik. Too funny.

"[are we] supposed to take this seriously[?]" is probably the single best one sentence review of that article.

[Moksha]

If the LDS church is true then what I’ve said is true.

You do know that parachutes are ineffective below a certain altitude, right?

[mentalgymnast]

If the LDS church is true then what I’ve said is true.

You do know that parachutes are ineffective below a certain altitude, right?

The penguin talks in parables.

Regards,
MG