Beyond Mitt's Underwear: Part 3: The Preexistence, Creation, and Plan for Salvation

[tongodeon]

Father in Heaven (Elohiem) and His wives live near the star called Kolob on a pair of magic stones. They were once mortal humans just like we are and have retained their physical bodies of flesh and bone, but instead of blood they have “spirit matter, a substance which is more refined and pure and glorious than blood”. At the time of creation

Comments

[ianvass]

Father in Heaven (Elohiem) and His wives live near the star called Kolob on a pair of magic stones.

Let's clarify - if you took the fastest starship, perhaps one that could fold space and teleport from one place to another, you could not find Kolob anywhere in our universe. It cannot be reached physically. I couldn't tell you anything beyond that, since we're not entirely sure what was meant by all of that.

Brigham Young once taught that Adam was the son of Elohiem, father of Jesus, and God of our world, a teaching which was incorporated into the “lecture at the veil” portion of the Temple Endowment ceremony, but this was removed in 1877 when Brigham Young died and the modern church no longer teaches it.

Son of Elohiem = true, just like we all are
Father of Jesus = true in the sense that if Adam was the first man, he is physical father to us all
God of our world = true in the sense that he helped create it, and since he is the father of us all, he is invested in the lives and salvation of all of us. Like Revelations says, Michael

[ianvass]

I do. But I think it's critical to catch that I don't think *you* understand the arguments you're making, or the logical results of them.And that is because, when it is boiled down, we are really having two different conversations. You are trying to convince me through pure logic that there is no God, and that my beliefs are nothing short of insanity at worst, and ridiculousness at best. The specifics of my particular theology have no bearing on your basic arguments one way or another

[theweaselking]

You are trying to convince me through pure logic that there is no God, and that my beliefs are nothing short of insanity at worst, and ridiculousness at best.

More, I'm trying to convince you that your assumptions are unjustifiable, and thus your conclusions irrelevant, and that this reflects an ongoing trend in your epistemology - both within theology and without.

The fact that you're a member of one of only two major modern religions to make concrete claims as an article of faith that have been absolutely and conclusively proven to be false? Is just gravy.

I have zero expectation that anything I say will change anyone's mind (and I am not here to have my mind changed, either)

See also: You're DOING IT WRONG.

Logic is but one of them, but it seems to be the sole tool in your toolbox when you have these discussions."Rationality", not logic, and it's the only tool that *can* be used, and the only tool that has ever produced results

[ianvass]

PART 1:

I have been pondering this all weekend to see if I could clearly explain in such a way that might help you in understanding where I'm coming from. Let's see if I have been successful.

"Rationality", not logic, and it's the only tool that *can* be used, and the only tool that has ever produced results.This is demonstrably, verifiably, absolutely false. Let me give you some very concrete examples

[moiread]

> How many people who have been told by their doctors that if they do not change their diet and start exercising, they will die of heart disease that then turn around and do not make those changes?

Rationality dictates that for their survival, they change their habits. They have had it empirically proven to them that they will die if they do not stop, and they do not stop.I think you need to take a class on psychology. There is a whole other system for why this happens that explains a great deal more than just addiction, and while you may decide afterwards that the root of that system is "God created humans to have brains that function in this way", if you skip the system itself, you are doing your clients a massive disservice. For you to say that there is no rational way to deal with these problem is completely provably false. There is absolutely a rational way of dismantling the systems that lead people to have those issues in the first place (and also to ignore them until they stop ignoring them), and that system is something you

[ianvass]

Huh. I was responding directly and specifically to TWK's statement that rationality is the only tool that should ever be used, and the only tool that produces results. I never said anywhere that logic was stoopid,and dat peepl who tink dat logik is dum r de best peepl evr!

Goodness, I would never get any results from my clients if I believed that. Logic and rationality is a fantastic tool! It just isn't the *only* tool. I've taken many classes on psychology, and I am well aware of this.

I'm sorry that you misconstrued my words to mean something they didn't.

But I suspect that's only half the case. I suspect that the other half of what you do does involve giving them some of those tools, but only up to a point, and then you attribute the rest to God, without being willing to see that those same tools could go the full distance if you and/or your client actually wanted to push to get there. Which is half intellectual laziness and half intellectual dishonesty.It's a good thing you said you only suspected instead of saying you knew,

[moiread]

On the one hand:

> I never said anywhere that logic was stoopid,and dat peepl who tink dat logik is dum r de best peepl evr!

On the other:

> Logic has zero ability to change us or drive action.

You said logic on its own was useless. I said it's not, and can IN FACT be the sole tool and still produce results (please see: me), and that I think your ideas about emotions are bunk and I can prove it with one simple example, which I did. I'm not misconstruing anything. I think you just suck at communicating.

[ianvass]

I said it's not, and can IN FACT be the sole tool and still produce results (please see: me), and that I think your ideas about emotions are bunk and I can prove it with one simple example, which I did.

Anecdotal. :) Lest anyone accuse me of being a hypocrite, I think anecdotal evidence is great when defending an emotional argument. But when you use anecdotal evidence to support your claim that rationality is fundamentally true, you are so shooting yourself in the foot.

Here's the truth - I don't doubt you applied logic to solve a problem. But you applied logic and emotion together, not just logic. If you didn't care about logic, you would not act on it. Logic is awesome to help guide emotion, but logic alone is useless.

I think you just suck at communicating.

Awesome. Love me an ad homimen before I go to bed in the evening.

You are totally welcome to your opinion. :)

[theweaselking]

You said: "X is never true".

She said "X is true in at least one case, here's proof"

That's not "anecdotal", that's "it only takes one counterexample to disprove a universal. Which she did.

PS: Ad Hominem is "you are a bad person, therefore you are wrong". What she said was "you are a terrible communicator, therefore your points are communicated terribly". This is not ad hominem, and only someone who was really bad ar arguing, like you, would confuse the two.

[ianvass]

PART 2

[theweaselking]

Shorter you: "Irrational people are irrational, and therefore my irrationality when discussing rational things is more correct thatn your rationality when discussing rational things"

And no - you may get more people agreeing with you that the sky is red, but that's irrelevant, because regardless of how many people agree with you, you're still wrong. More particularly, you still can't demonstrate your correctness or defend your assertion, and thus you fail miserably in the face of challenge that *does* address facts.

it's not a tonal argument when I tell you, "You attract more flies with honey than with vinegar."

Yes, it is. It is the definition of a tone argument. It is an argument that my position is wrong because it is not presented nicely enough, which is, say it with me, A TONE ARGUMENT.

None of which addressed the ACTUAL issue, of course, which I note you have attempted to deflect.

[ianvass]

Yes, it is. It is the definition of a tone argument. It is an argument that my position is wrong because it is not presented nicely enough, which is, say it with me, A TONE ARGUMENT.It's only a tone argument if I say *I'm* blowing you off because you're being a jerk, which I'm not. I disagree with you on a completely different level. I may not choose to engage with you if you're being a jerk, but that's still not a tonal argument because you could be a jerk and tell me that the sky is blue, and I'd still not want to engage. I desire to have polite, respectful debate, and when that vanishes, I have no desire to be a part of it

[theweaselking]

It's only a tone argument if I say *I'm* blowing you off because you're being a jerk, which I'm not.

Oh, I see, you're just CONCERNED that if I keep talking that way OTHER PEOPLE might blow me off because I'm not nice enough - but not you, no, not you at all, you're just CONCERNED that I might offend OTHER PEOPLE.

Which is to say: it's still a tone argument, but you've couched it as a concern troll.

Not better.

I can totally understand how it might look like that. The truth is that

Oh you WOULD have responded to what was actually said, but you have a REAL LIFE and you're just TOO BUSY so you spent all that time not answering the question but ran out of time to answer the question because you do REAL things, right? Someone who had enough time would obviously not understand the REAL WORLD, right?

Hint: "deflection for dummies" and "how to hide when you're losing an argument" are not guides, nor are they checklists. You should not be running through them and making sure to hit every point.

[ianvass]

Which is to say: it's still a tone argument, but you've couched it as a concern troll.

Not better.

You= not interested in hearing any kind of constructive feedback (probably just from me, since I cannot imagine you'd be like this in your IRL world), and actively re-construing said constructive feedback as offensive. Check. That's cool, I'll stop.

Hint: "deflection for dummies" and "how to hide when you're losing an argument" are not guides, nor are they checklists. You should not be running through them and making sure to hit every point.

*shrug* I can say that I'm not doing that, but it seems as though you are in "Take offence where none was intended" mode. That's fine - I don't think anything I say will change your mind at all, but I *am* having a lot of fun challenging myself to express myself better.

[ianvass]

PART 1:

Shorter you: "Irrational people are irrational, and therefore my irrationality when discussing rational things is more correct thatn your rationality when discussing rational things"

Actually, no. I was directly refuting that single statement you made ("Rationality", not logic, and it's the only tool that *can* be used, and the only tool that has ever produced results.)that I quoted at the beginning of my comments. This statement is putting words in my mouth and stretching the argument beyond where it was intended.

And no - you may get more people agreeing with you that the sky is red, but that's irrelevant, because regardless of how many people agree with you, you're still wrong. More particularly, you still can't demonstrate your correctness or defend your assertion, and thus you fail miserably in the face of challenge that *does* address facts.And I'm telling you that rational facts only make up a part of the total whole, since emotional facts are just as (and usually more) important than the rational facts. Rationality

[ianvass]

PART 2:

So here's where all of this applies on the level of our larger discussion:

Religion is emotional. Being that emotion is more important than pure rationality, I see how religion provides emotional support and healing to people on a level that atheism (or non-religion) cannot match.

But you try to justify your position of atheism with pseudo-rationality disguising the passionate emotion underneath, all while attacking me with the claim that I am being irrational and emotional about a rational subject, when you are the one that is actually guilty of it (not saying that I am not, but I've never claimed it).

In other words, you reject any emotional evidence that I may bring to the table, while whole-heartedly embracing your own emotions as absolutely accurate and trust-worthy at the same time. Indeed, your emotions are proof that you are right and I am wrong, because they are your emotions