Damnation

[zil]

2 minutes ago, Carborendum said:

That's right. I'm older.  You're the baby sister who always corrects her older brother.  Or something like that.

I was thinking more along the lines of I say "yes" and you remember me saying "no", as well as an allusion that I shall not expound upon further.

Edited November 15, 2017 by zil

[anatess2]

2 minutes ago, brlenox said:

Well I can still do conversational Thai from my mission.  My son served in the Tacloban Filipino mission.

Whoa man!  Tacloban is one of those islands that is a melting pot between dialects - You got Waray and all the variations of it and you got Bisaya and all the variations of it... all in one or two islands!  I would assume they cover both Samar and Leyte?  That would be interesting to know how your son fared with the language confusion... I mean, like Waray says "tuuk" for cry.  In Bisaya "tuuk" is to strangle someone!  hah hah!   And there's probably at least 2 bisaya variations in Leyte and maybe 2 variations of Waray in Samar.... 

[Guest]

22 minutes ago, zil said:

I was thinking more along the lines of I say "yes" and you remember me saying "no", as well as an allusion that I shall not expound upon further.

Would that be the Beatles or Genesis?

[brlenox]

28 minutes ago, anatess2 said:

Whoa man!  Tacloban is one of those islands that is a melting pot between dialects - You got Waray and all the variations of it and you got Bisaya and all the variations of it... all in one or two islands!  I would assume they cover both Samar and Leyte?  That would be interesting to know how your son fared with the language confusion... I mean, like Waray says "tuuk" for cry.  In Bisaya "tuuk" is to strangle someone!  hah hah!   And there's probably at least 2 bisaya variations in Leyte and maybe 2 variations of Waray in Samar.... 

Well, I will have to inquire as to those specifics.  He has commented on the challenge of the dialectic variability. Of my four sons, he was the only one to get the same mind as I have and while it does not show on IQ tests he is actually more intelligent than myself...his memory is incredible.  Tragically with the benefits of exceptional intelligence he also garnered the downside as well - social awkwardness, easily distracted, lack of common sense, indecisiveness etc. Nonetheless, his talents make learning language skills much easier than for most. 

Edited November 15, 2017 by brlenox

[zil]

7 minutes ago, Carborendum said:

Would that be the Beatles or Genesis?

Uh, just plain zil.

[brlenox]

3 hours ago, anatess2 said:

This response.  

Really.  You and TFP will get along very well.  You are like twins.  You think he's offended.  You say you're not offended.  He called you out on your combative responses, you called him a snowflake.  Yep.  You're gonna have fun.

I admitted my familiarity bias on my very first sentence to you.  That's why I butted in.  I've gone a few rounds with some people here on MormonHub.  After a few of those, you tend to build a feel for their online persona even as you've never met them in person.  I was trying to help you out.

I have noted some of the similarities but the differences are glaring as well.  My B. H. Roberts quote pretty much encapsulated the gist of it.  If someone can teach me something I will embrace the opportunity to learn.  The challenge is in most theological subjects, I have run my marathons to gain understanding. I seldom encounter others who have genuinely done the same but want to extol their 50 yard dash as the equivalent. I never rely on my opinion to sway anyone. Thus far TFP has an abundance of opinions but little of concrete value.  Now It appears by some of your comments that you may not have read much of this thread in terms of the detailed analysis I provide on just a couple of aspects on the atonement.  If you are inclined run through that and you will observe other critical differences that are meritorious and significant.    

[anatess2]

1 minute ago, brlenox said:

I have noted some of the similarities but the differences are glaring as well.  My B. H. Roberts quote pretty much encapsulated the gist of it.  If someone can teach me something I will embrace the opportunity to learn.  The challenge is in most theological subjects, I have run my marathons to gain understanding. I seldom encounter others who have genuinely done the same but want to extol their 50 yard dash as the equivalent. I never rely on my opinion to sway anyone. Thus far TFP has an abundance of opinions but little of concrete value.  Now It appears by some of your comments that you may not have read much of this thread in terms of the detailed analysis I provide on just a couple of aspects on the atonement.  If you are inclined run through that and you will observe other critical differences that are meritorious and significant.    

brlenox... I am going to be really frank with you.  Straight up.

Your problem is you think you're so smart and everybody else is stupid.

THAT is your problem. 

 

[The Folk Prophet]

14 minutes ago, brlenox said:

I have noted some of the similarities but the differences are glaring as well.  My B. H. Roberts quote pretty much encapsulated the gist of it.  If someone can teach me something I will embrace the opportunity to learn.  The challenge is in most theological subjects, I have run my marathons to gain understanding. I seldom encounter others who have genuinely done the same but want to extol their 50 yard dash as the equivalent. I never rely on my opinion to sway anyone. Thus far TFP has an abundance of opinions but little of concrete value.  Now It appears by some of your comments that you may not have read much of this thread in terms of the detailed analysis I provide on just a couple of aspects on the atonement.  If you are inclined run through that and you will observe other critical differences that are meritorious and significant.    

You really have no idea what I do and do not understand about your presentation -- or even what I've bothered to read and haven't. I have barely engaged you on any of it at all. I challenged a very few basic premises and got my head bit off in response. So I stopped engaging on the matter. Your assumptions about my understanding of it is based on hot air because I haven't really told you my "opinion".

Edited November 15, 2017 by The Folk Prophet

[zil]

17 minutes ago, brlenox said:

If someone can teach me something I will embrace the opportunity to learn.

If you'd like, I can teach you how you were the first one to make a comment which could easily be interpreted as insulting.  Things between you and @The Folk Prophet spiraled down from there.

This isn't to say that he doesn't own his reactions to you, but the reverse is also true.  The simple fact is, you guys didn't slow down long enough to consider that maybe it's not that the other is obnoxious, but that you two have incompatible communication defaults which might need to be more carefully considered if you're gonna talk to each other.

In other words, you can't claim complete innocence.  TFP may not understand why people perceive him as confrontational, but at least he knows they do.

17 minutes ago, brlenox said:

I have noted some of the similarities but the differences are glaring as well.  My B. H. Roberts quote pretty much encapsulated the gist of it.  If someone can teach me something I will embrace the opportunity to learn.  The challenge is in most theological subjects, I have run my marathons to gain understanding. I seldom encounter others who have genuinely done the same but want to extol their 50 yard dash as the equivalent. I never rely on my opinion to sway anyone. Thus far TFP has an abundance of opinions but little of concrete value.  Now It appears by some of your comments that you may not have read much of this thread in terms of the detailed analysis I provide on just a couple of aspects on the atonement.  If you are inclined run through that and you will observe other critical differences that are meritorious and significant.    

I was enjoying the stuff you shared, and hope to do so again (preferably in a new thread cuz I think this one is lost).  But I gotta say, the above sounds like a combination of bragging, insults, and that you are letting past experiences dictate your perception of new experiences in a manner which is not good for you or anyone else (the bit I bolded) - you expect to find idiots, so you do, even when you don't.

Edited November 15, 2017 by zil

[The Folk Prophet]

8 minutes ago, zil said:

TFP may not understand why people perceive him as confrontational

For what it's worth, that isn't actually true. What I don't understand is why being confrontational is a problem or why it should be taken as anything but an opportunity to further express one's views. (Edit: Want to explain it to me. I'm sure I'll respond confrontationally...but you could try.)

And also..... Thanks. 

 

 

 

 

Edited November 15, 2017 by The Folk Prophet

[zil]

Just now, The Folk Prophet said:

For what it's worth, that isn't actually true. What I don't understand is why being confrontational is a problem or why it should be taken as anything but an opportunity to further one's views.

Intriguing.  And a bit baffling.

Quote

con·fron·ta·tion·al

adjective: confrontational

1. tending to deal with situations in an aggressive way; hostile or argumentative.

FWIW: Confrontation causes a person to put up defenses instinctively - this is not conducive to reaching a point of mutual understanding (agreement isn't necessary and is irrelevant to that statement, just mentioning so it can't be misunderstood as me thinking that agreement is the goal of discussion).  Confrontation takes energy away from thoughtful consideration and the forming coherent explanations, and diverts it toward otherwise unnecessary self-defense mechanisms.  And it is, frankly, more mentally and emotionally exhausting than necessary and does not produce as much positive output as can be had without it (assuming "without it" is a viable option, which it is on these forums in most cases).

Confrontation is, however, a good way to get someone who doesn't like it to walk away from the conversation, or get flustered so that they don't communicate as clearly.  So if your goal is to "win" the discussion, get rid of the other person, or increase confusion, it's an effective tool.

[The Folk Prophet]

33 minutes ago, zil said:

Intriguing.  And a bit baffling.

FWIW: Confrontation causes a person to put up defenses instinctively - this is not conducive to reaching a point of mutual understanding (agreement isn't necessary and is irrelevant to that statement, just mentioning so it can't be misunderstood as me thinking that agreement is the goal of discussion).  Confrontation takes energy away from thoughtful consideration and the forming coherent explanations, and diverts it toward otherwise unnecessary self-defense mechanisms.  And it is, frankly, more mentally and emotionally exhausting than necessary and does not produce as much positive output as can be had without it (assuming "without it" is a viable option, which it is on these forums in most cases).

Confrontation is, however, a good way to get someone who doesn't like it to walk away from the conversation, or get flustered so that they don't communicate as clearly.  So if your goal is to "win" the discussion, get rid of the other person, or increase confusion, it's an effective tool.

Fair enough.

But take this thread. I'm reading along on a theory that proposes upfront that I am looking at things upside down and come across the statement that we do not deserve justice. So I reply, by way of confronting this idea, and simply ask, "we don't?" -- feeling that the implicit, "can you clarify or correct this?" would be understood.

What I expect in response is one of two things.

1. That is correct. We do not deserve justice. Here's why.

2. Good catch. I misspoke, or at least need to clarify what I mean by "deserve". 

What I do not expect to attend this answers is "try harder" (followed by a lengthy series of attacks on my character).

When I engage in useful conversation I challenge ideas and they are defended, and vice versa. When I engage in useless conversations the challenging of the idea is interpreted to be the definition you've provided (one of many, I might add) of "confrontational" (when I said I didn't understand why it was a problem I was not thinking that as the definition...more on that in a bit), that is to say, I was just being hostile and argumentative. But the idea that challenging of views is problematic and/or wrong is, it seems to me, a large part of what's lead to the "snowflakery" referenced previously. People can't handle having their ideas challenged. It's hate speech to do so!

When I said I didn't see why being confrontational was a problem I meant challenging ideas. The addition of hostility didn't strike me in the moment as inherent.

Here's the thing: (I think I said this in another thread). When I agree I click the like button. When I disagree I have to explain why. This seems moderately common. People post more when they do not agree and click the thumbs-up when they agree.

Yes. I own that I'm challenging in my replies. I do not own that it's meant to just be hostile or argumentative (most of the time. I'm not perfect. But it certainly was not meant to just be argumentative a the outset of my exchange with brlenox), or that it should be taken that way. I am also acutely aware of the fact that it is NOT taken that way in many, many instance. I can challenge @Just_A_Guy's thoughts all day and he never takes it as if I'm expressing hostility and arguing just to one-up him. And frankly, it strikes me, that you do not respond to me that way either (for the most part. I expect we all rub each other the wrong way at some point or another). And you (as demonstrated in this very back and forth) challenge my ideas, etc., sometimes. Doesn't seem to be a problem unless and until I respond with a chip-on-the-shoulder attitude.

But I'll concede -- if you mean "hostile and argumentative" then it's true that I do not always understand why my posts are taken that way (case in point: this thread).

Edited November 15, 2017 by The Folk Prophet

[brlenox]

 

I have more to boast of than ever any man had. I am the only man that has ever been able to keep a whole church together since the days of Adam. … Neither Paul, John, Peter nor Jesus ever did it. I boast that no man ever did such work as I. The followers of Jesus ran away from him; but the Latter-day Saints never ran away from me yet’ (“History of the Church,” 6:408-409).

 

Edited November 16, 2017 by brlenox

[anatess2]

Just now, brlenox said:

I am smart that is just a fact.  The problem is that, and I do this by design, while I made one comment to my intelligence I made three to the downsides of attributes that I possess. 

Hah hah.  No.  Comprehension, dear.

I am smart.  That's cool.  I am smart and you are stupid.  Not cool.

So let's see if you're smart enough to get this:

Which of these statements is not cool?

1.)  I am smart.  So why does he not agree with me?  He must be stupid.

2.)  I am smart.  So why does he not agree with me?  Maybe he is smarter than me and I need to figure out what he's saying.

3.)  I am smart.  So why does he not agree with me?  Maybe we're talking past each other.

Bonus question.  Which of the statements above was brlenox thinking when he wrote his comments?

If your answer is not #1, that means there's a disconnect between what you're thinking and what other people perceived what you're thinking.

[anatess2]

26 minutes ago, The Folk Prophet said:

. I am also acutely aware of the fact that it is NOT taken that way in many, many instance. I can challenge @Just_A_Guy's thoughts all day and he never takes it as if I'm expressing hostility and arguing just to one-up him.

That's not because of you.  That's because of @Just_A_Guy.  He's a lawyer.  He is... shall I say... Presidential.  You can insult him straight to his face and he will give you some Latin phrases that will make you go bowing down to his greatness not realizing you were just insulted 10x worse. 

 

Edited November 15, 2017 by anatess2

[The Folk Prophet]

Just now, anatess2 said:

That's not because of you.  That's because of @Just_A_Guy. 

 

That is EXACTLY my point!!!!

[brlenox]

1 hour ago, The Folk Prophet said:

You really have no idea what I do and do not understand about your presentation -- or even what I've bothered to read and haven't. I have barely engaged you on any of it at all. I challenged a very few basic premises and got my head bit off in response. So I stopped engaging on the matter. Your assumptions about my understanding of it is based on hot air because I haven't really told you my "opinion".

Perhaps that is true but I will provide an example of why I suggest otherwise.  Earlier I made the statement of your dismissal of what we were discussing.  I was simply being straightforward, candid, blunt, or whatever you want to call it that it seemed you were not really reading and understanding the material. Here is what I said:

15 hours ago, The Folk Prophet said:

So when you say "I am sensing that wave of the hand of dismissal" you don't expect me to interpret that as an accusation of hand waving by way of dismissal?

When you tell me to "drop the John Wayne and just be a decent guy", you think I'm wrong to infer that you think I am not a decent guy?

Just a little bit ago here is your response to vort's statement that there was nothing of worth contained in this thread.

3 hours ago, The Folk Prophet said:

I'm not entirely sure what you're getting at with the rest of your post (I expect you'll clarify), but this statement is still truth. (Though I would like to think that some of what I was trying to get at in the OP had some level of importance...but that may just be hubris).

I was thinking about this a bit last night and meant to ask @brlenox regarding what he's shared: What do you consider is important, practically speaking, about what you've offered beyond conceptual interest?

...but this statement is still truth.  I took that that to mean that you found nothing of worth in all of what I said.  Your statement here of "no worth" and mine of a wave of dismissal meet as one idea.  So based on your commentary I think I am safe to say that we value the information differently and what was precious to me is not so much for you. 

[The Folk Prophet]

13 minutes ago, brlenox said:

These types tend to not posses true self-confidence but spin around in varying degrees of lack of confidence, guilt, self-doubt and so on.         

Hey @anatess2. That's you to a T!

[zil]

19 minutes ago, The Folk Prophet said:

Fair enough.

But take this thread. I'm reading along on a theory that proposes upfront that I am looking at things upside down and come across the statement that we do not deserve justice. So I reply, by way of confronting this idea, and simply ask, "we don't?" -- feeling that the implicit, "can you clarify or correct this?" would be understood.

What I expect in response is one of two things.

1. That is correct. We do not deserve justice. Here's why.

2. Good catch. I misspoke, or at least need to clarify what I mean by "deserve". 

What I do not expect to attend this answers is "try harder" (followed by a lengthy series of attacks on my character).

Yes, that is the example which I mentioned above in my reply to @brlenox, the sentence which started it all.  And yes, that sentence was flawed and easily interpreted negatively, especially in context, regardless of how it may have been intended.

21 minutes ago, The Folk Prophet said:

the definition you've provided (one of many, I might add) of "confrontational"

Looks like one.  I don't think too many people would define confrontational differently.  A challenge can be made without being aggressive or hostile.

22 minutes ago, The Folk Prophet said:

People can't handle having their ideas challenged.

IMO, you sometimes do more than challenge - you do so in words / phrases / sequences which seem hostile.  And that's where the problem comes in when people are disagreeing with you.

But I'll state again, I think it was that one sentence from brlenox (which could have been eliminated or reworded) that started it all, it's just that it has yet to end.   I also think he could have started out differently, in a way that would have reduced the chance of conflict.  But I don't know that he could have known that, being relatively new.

24 minutes ago, The Folk Prophet said:

When I said I didn't see why being confrontational was a problem I meant challenging ideas. The addition of hostility didn't strike me in the moment as inherent.

Good!

25 minutes ago, The Folk Prophet said:

I can challenge @Just_A_Guy's thoughts all day and he never takes it as if I'm expressing hostility and arguing just to one-up him.

Yes, I think once one has enough experience with you, it's easier to understand that you're not being hostile, because one has more than just the words and their experiences independent of you.  In other words, I think the words / phrases / sequences you use might be similar enough to people's real-life experiences with hostility that they read into your words something you didn't put there.  Once this is figured out, there's not generally a problem.  But someone has to figure this out first.

[brlenox]

1 hour ago, The Folk Prophet said:

For what it's worth, that isn't actually true. What I don't understand is why being confrontational is a problem or why it should be taken as anything but an opportunity to further express one's views. (Edit: Want to explain it to me. I'm sure I'll respond confrontationally...but you could try.)

And also..... Thanks. 

 

Wow, again I find some similarities in how we think.  But again different as well.  My question is why do people consider inquiry and discussion on a forum which invites inquiry and discussion to be confrontational.  It is what we are here for. Yes? No?

[The Folk Prophet]

1 minute ago, brlenox said:

Your statement here of "no worth" and mine of a wave of dismissal meet as one idea. 

They do not. But I'm not going to even bother to explain why as it's quite apparent you have no respect for my thoughts.

Out of curiosity. Is you're use of the phrase "no worth" as if that's the quote a mistake or an intentional deception? 

[anatess2]

4 minutes ago, zil said:

Yes, I think once one has enough experience with you, it's easier to understand that you're not being hostile, because one has more than just the words and their experiences independent of you.  In other words, I think the words / phrases / sequences you use might be similar enough to people's real-life experiences with hostility that they read into your words something you didn't put there.  Once this is figured out, there's not generally a problem.  But someone has to figure this out first.

That's why I tried to help!  

[Guest]

23 minutes ago, brlenox said:

As an example, when you engage people on a forum and they are talking about Joseph Smith let's say this quote is tossed out as a sign of his arrogance:

A person such as me can read that and see it as nothing more than a recitation of fact.  There is nothing arrogant about the quote whatsoever.  Others though sometimes judge through the lens of their perceptions of self-initiated short comings and based on a horribly corrupted societal influence that derides certain styles of commentary.

That is vaguely reminiscent of the Beatles comment about being more popular that Jesus Christ.

[anatess2]

8 minutes ago, The Folk Prophet said:

Hey @anatess2. That's you to a T!

I am offended that I'm "these types".  I'm packing my legos and going home!

 

In all seriousness.  These types... sigh.

[brlenox]

13 minutes ago, anatess2 said:

Hah hah.  No.  Comprehension, dear.

I am smart.  That's cool.  I am smart and you are stupid.  Not cool.

So let's see if you're smart enough to get this:

Which of these statements is not cool?

1.)  I am smart.  So why does he not agree with me?  He must be stupid.

2.)  I am smart.  So why does he not agree with me?  Maybe he is smarter than me and I need to figure out what he's saying.

3.)  I am smart.  So why does he not agree with me?  Maybe we're talking past each other.

Bonus question.  Which of the statements above was brlenox thinking when he wrote his comments?

If your answer is not #1, that means there's a disconnect between what you're thinking and what other people perceived what you're thinking.

The problem with all of your response is you have to fill in the blanks to get beyond my statement of "I am smart".  That's all I said, that's all I meant.  I do not think I have really ever met someone I would characterize as stupid.  Everybody has something that I do not and I find all sorts of different gifts of remarkable worth.  However in your number one above, if you have read my posts you have missed a point I have made a couple of times.  No one is disagreeing with me,  They are disagreeing with prophets and apostles.  I am not making empty opinion based observations. I am very well supported in my development of the criteria I have studied to find meaning beyond the gospel doctrine class material that defines the upper limit of most peoples efforts. I tie my material to witnesses for a reason because that is how the Lord expects us to do it. It it was just me they were disagreeing with I would have absolutely no issue with that and it is only sad that they over step good material and apparently because I am not palatable, they miss the words of far greater men than I.