So then what are you saying about my opinion of him?
It is underdeveloped, and I have missed some substantially large percent of his posts that would change my opinion of him.
I’ve been posting here longer than you have and remember some tamer version of Monty (this is actually the opposite of the truth. When I first got here I thought Monty was a self-righteous asshole). If anything I’d say Monty has mellowed with age, so to speak, and that where he used to go off on people when they did not deserve it, I don’t recall that he’s done that in a good long while.
Something else. I mean, I’m not going to posit myself as someone who has read every single post of Monty’s, but I don’t see how two people reading Monty’s posts could come to such polar decisions about him from that.
You see people using anti-Mormon websites and books as scholarly research and thinking low of Mormons for things that aren’t true (or aren’t true of all of them) and then you see Monty come in to clean up the mess and that strikes you not as fighting ignorance but as someone who simply can’t stand anything bad to be said about his faith. If someone came here attacking Catholicism based on the works of Jack T Chick, or attacking Christianity based on Phelps’ perturbation of it, there would be (and has been in the past) Hell Raised. That isn’t due to anti-religion thought per se but due to faulty premises.
I mean, Hell, I’ve stated (I think) on more than one occasion on this MB that I disagree with Monty’s take on religion viz. God’s nature, etc. However, I’m not about to base that on what some 14-year-old wrote on a fucking geocities website nor on the website www.exmormon.com. And if I did I would be surprised if Monty et al. (including vanilla, polycarp, etc) didn’t at first gently correct me and then start slapping me upside the head to see if a brain was rattling around in there.
But at least you stated your refutation of my position eloquently … you know, with supporting evidence, instead of “No, I don’t think so.”
I think my post that you quote was pretty clear, but perhaps it would have been clearer if it read:
But apart from that you seem to have a strange view of my above posts. As is made quite clear, my comments were not about your opinion, they were about my opinion.
You are quite entitled to your views, your experience of Monty may well have been different, hell I quite concede that my view of Monty may well be less well rounded, because I haven’t been here as long and haven’t participated in as many debates with him.
However, my experience of him left a very bad taste in my mouth. Maybe not in yours. So what? I never stated what your opinion of him should be, only what mine was.
As for the rest of your post, there’s a hellava straw man going on right there. I realise that Monty does not and should not have to put up with crap of the type you describe. That is not and was not the issue.
The issue was a couple of threads which consisted of me and others debating aspects of mormonism from negative and positive viewpoints, and Monty chipping in every now and again with ad hominem attacks. Interestingly, there were other mormons participating in those debates who appeared to have no difficulty in carrying on a debate using facts, reasoning etc and who did not feel the need to stoop to Monty’s level.
Do a search on my name, Monty’s and Joseph Smith and you will probably find the threads I’m talking about. See what you think. Try to imagine what your opinion of Monty would be if his attitude towards you in those threads was a major part of your experience of him.
Rico: Yeah, I read your whole post, but I figured that first part had enough stupid in it that the rest didn’t need to be directly addressed. I can go into more depth, if you really want.
Yes, but you still have to believe in Jesus. In other words, “Our religion is right, all other religions are wrong.” That the Mormons and Catholics draw their boundries a little narrower than the Southern Baptists or the Methodists in no way invaldiates the over all point: the Mormon’s aren’t doing anything virtually every other religion on the planet does.
Ever consider attending a non-Christian service? Just for variety’s sake?
I’m just going to cut the joke out, if for no other reason than it’s not terribly funny.
I’m not sure if you’re saying “non-Christian” equates with “non-mainstream.” But that’s beside the point: you already subscribe to a “belief that excludes certain people from an afterlife because of non-adherence to certain principles.” Namely, that Jesus is our savior and the son of God. If that’s not part of your beliefs, if you believe that a good Hindu is guaranteed a place in a Christian heaven, that’s spiffy. But that’s not what virtually every Christian denomination preaches, and judging by your next quote, it doesn’t sound like that’s what you believe, either:
So, you’re saying you don’t even have to be Mormon to get into heaven, you just have to be Mormon to get into the extra-special Heaven where God hangs out? Those elitist, exclusionary bastards! :rolleyes: Incidentally, do only non-Mormon Christians get the Economy Afterlife package, or is that available to all non-Mormons regardless of their relationship with Jesus?
You are incorrect about me “chipping in with ad hominem” attacks. I just reread those threads you referred to in the bit about the search. What I saw just now is what I saw then from you and that is what caused me to talk to you you as I did then. If you’re referring to my characterization of H4E as a liar, then that is not an ad hominem attack; it is an accurate description of her posting methodology here when it comes to that which she doesn’t understand: religion. And that is a factual description regardless of your obstinate refusal then to recognize that my use of the word is correct dictionary-wise.
I also saw your holding onto one set of miracles but dismissing another based solely on the time which has passed since the purported miracles were supposed to have occurred.
IIRC the GD mods have said that calling someone a liar, when factual evidence shows it to be applicable, is not an ad hominem attack. So if that is, in fact, what Princhester is referring to (I have no desire whatsoever to read any more of His4ever’s posting than absolutely necessary. I already ran out of cheeks with that girl), then … I dunno. Calling someone a bigot is also not an insult when applicable, nor is calling someone a hypocrite (last I checked … applying same logic as has been used by the relevant mods before). Calling someone, however, a jackass or moron is strictly verboten.
Just in case someone wants to infer something from that last sentence, I pulled those two out of the air. I could just as easily have said cumstain or fuckbucket.
I wasn’t referring to the His4ever/lying thread. And in that thread I acknowledged that you had found a definition that suited your usage, which is hardly “being obstinate”.
Whether I was right or wrong in those threads is not the issue. Let’s assume for the sake of this argument that my viewpoint was wrong. The issue I am discussing here is your attribution of my motives: that is, I consider it obnoxious that you assumed that I continued to espouse a viewpoint because (according to you) I was in some way prejudiced, rather than because I found that viewpoint to have validity.
The utter obtuseness of which I speak is not obtuseness in having the “temerity” to believe in mormonism. It is in failing to recognise that others (viz myself) can have negative views on mormonism based on rational assessment, not blind prejudice.
Finally, your comment about ad hominem attacks is a non sequitur. An ad hominem attack is illogical if the person in question is not the subject matter. There is nothing inherently illogical about an ad hominem attack if the person in question is the subject matter. The subject matter of the threads in question was mormonism not me. The subject matter of this thread is you.
Well, since gobear disagrees with Mormonism and I don’t attribute his stance on prejudice (because he isn’t prejudiced), Polycarp disagrees with Mormonism and I don’t attribute his stance on prejudice (because he isn’t prejudiced), and Diane disagrees with Mormonism and I don’t attribute her stance on prejudice (because she isn’t prejudiced), I’ll infer that it must’ve been something in H4E’s postings, and yours also, that caused me to attribute your stance on prejudice.
That you would set yourself up as the arbiter of who is and who is not prejudiced and then seek to infer something from your own judgements does not surprise me in the least. Doing so evidences precisely the type of arrogance I am talking about.
I’ll be kind to you and assume this is an error based on the passing of time since the threads in question, rather than a deliberate attempt to distort my position, although given that you just said that you have just re-read the relevant threads, one can’t but wonder.
I have no religion. I believe in no miracles at all, as I made quite clear in the thread in question. My position was that there is no convincing evidence of any miracles, but given that one would expect more by way of corroborating evidence for modern miracles, the lack of such evidence allowed a greater inference that those miracles never occurred than the same lack of corroborating evidence would allow in respect of ancient miracles.
Your above characterisation of my position fits with your attempt to paint me as prejudiced against mormonism in particular, but does not fit with reality.
Funny, I told it to my sister, one of the finest LDS ladies you’d ever want to meet, and she thought it was one of the best jokes that she’d heard. Oh well, senses of humor differ, I guess.
I have my own sets of beliefs and do not subscribe to any organized religion.
Precisely. God goes by many names and idealogies. And if you believe in the Higher Power, I’ll see you in the afterlife. And if you don’t believe in the afterlife, I’ll probably see you there as well. We don’t know for sure, do we? I’ll be the first to admit that I don’t know for sure what awaits us on the other side.
Let’s just face the facts - no one knows for sure and your faith is all that you have. Your faith is yours, mine is mine. No one in here has wrong faith. We formulate our belief system over many years. Several here believe the LDS way is the only way. I do not believe that. Are we right? Our faith sustains our belief system here on Earth, but we will never know for sure until we actually get to the other side.
Wow, infer much? Monty nowhere said “I, as self-appointed president of the SDMB Factfinding Mission to Determine Who is Prejudiced, have discovered the following things…”. It is not under dispute that Diane or Polycarp or gobear is not prejudiced. Monty has certainly had disagreements with them, but as they bring facts and logic to the table in GD rather than what their 2nd grade history teacher told them, or what they read on some website ending in.org or .com, their disagreements tend to be idealogical rather than factual.
His4ever, on the other hand, subscribes to the mantra “If it isn’t physically making you ill or bleed, then don’t worry about it.” This is less than ideal for someone who strives to be an evangelical christian.
Any time someone posts something, part of the subject matter becomes that person. One’s credibility is in question (however small that question may be). I’d be just as quick to ask His4ever for a cite as Polycarp, if I were unsure as to the origin of something.
Lastly:
Ultimately, this becomes a question of what you believe and what you do not. Dogma, miracles etc. are part of a person’s belief system (assuming said system includes such). It’s like saying “My position is that there is no convincing evidence of the existence of a deity.” That there is none ot you doesn’t mean jack shit about anyone else’s position, and to use it to say that because you personally do not believe that something happened, in a religious forum, is a logical fallacy. or something. Religion ultimately doesn’t fall under the rules of logic because it requires faith … mostly because what it comes down to in the end is “It’s what I believe”. Regardless of faith system.
Courtesy of iampunha, who brings much straw to the table, we have the following:
**
No, nothing at all. I simply characterised what Monty posted.
No he did not say that. Nor did I say that he said that.
You are beginning to give me the shits. How about you start dealing with what I am actually saying instead of fantasizing?
1/ For the last time, this has nothing whatsoever to do with His4ever. I never brought her up, I never brought any thread involving her up. I have already told you that. Get it into your head. The only person who has brought her up is Monty. He did so for reasons best known to himself. Perhaps because by doing so he could avoid discussing the actual threads I am talking about, in which his actions were not defensible
2/ I have never brought up anything my second grade history teacher told me. I have probably at some time brought up some web site or other. Are you seriously suggesting that to be inappropriate? Perhaps we should let DDG know.
Is this supposed to have something to do with me, or is this just another topic you have segued into?
I’m sorry I seem to have accidentally clicked on something and dropped out of the SDMB. Surely nobody here would seriously be suggesting that it is not appropriate to apply logic and reason and fact to a topic on this messageboard, and that doing so (to revert to the topic at hand) opens you up to justified claims that you are prejudiced?
If you’ll excuse me, I’m going back to the boards I know and love. You are welcome to the atmosphere at wherever the hell it is that I now find myself.
I merely took apart your bed for you, Princhester, since you made it so well but seemed unwilling to lay in it.
Then I wrote that post. The straw you are seeing is strewn on your monitor; why you put it there I have no idea. It might make reading comprehension troublesome, though. You should probably look into that before you post again in this thread or GD…
Some people, when they realise their debating position is untenable, get an attack of the vagues.
They stop making definite points, stop quoting and attacking particular parts of the opposition’s position and just instead make generalised comments to the effect that their opposition is being disingenuous (without saying why even when challenged to do so) or that they have taken apart the opposition’s sleeping quarters or some such nonsense.
Indeed they seem to just go limp.
At that point, for them to suggest that their opposition should look into their debating skills before posting in GD or a particular thread seems kinda backwards, don’t you think?
And some people, rather than trying to teach a sheep to sing contratenor, realize the inherent futility and try to amuse the by-now beleaguered reader with a light joke.
Pigs sing much better, anyway. Four legs good, two legs better…
Monty is an adult convert to Mormonism, so I think his defense of Mormonism is to be expected and quite admirable. Converts, especially while catechists, do tend to be more engaged for their church and can often be a positive force for the reputation of their faith.
But Monty, you go overboard way too much and try to stifle all negative viewpoints against the church, even if they are true. I as a Christian will not deny that the Crusades happened, the medieval RCC was super-corrupt, and that the community of Christ has made a lot of other mistakes, but too often I see you trying to stamp out people bringing legitimate facts against Mormonism by puerile name calling. People with valid criticisms are not bigots, for example.