The Long and Winding Road (To Ruin) or Eight Days a Week (Of Woe): Mormon Apostle Blames the Beatles for Society's Ills

[huckelberry]

It seems likely to me MG decision is based upon good and sound reasons. Questions you recently complained to MG about him asking some friendly personal question. Your question here is personal and unfriendly.

I am at a loss as to why folks fail to respect his personal decision.

Put simply, here's what I think is happening.

in my opinion, from what he says here on this board, MG considers critics of the church to be sinning in thought, word, and (often) deed for not complying with the teachings of his religious leaders, even if we are OK with the teachings of our own religions, or lack thereof. This regardlesss of our personal circumstances.

We, in general, do not expect MG to conform to the teachings of our religions, but (without any expectation that he will actually do so) sometimes point out that he is acting contrary to the teachings and exhortations of his own religion's leaders.

So it's not that we don't respect his decision, per se, but perhaps are more than anything amused or puzzled by what seems like finding excuses to not follow the leaders he claims to believe in. You and he think that his reasons are good and sound. Others disagree, and many of us have already done things that we otherwise would rather not do in order to obey our leaders. As a result, people like IHQ have taken, and no doubt will continue to take, the opportunity to note the difference between talking and doing, between professions of faith and the corresponding actions.

Not to be judgmental but I guess I see a little differently. I do expect others to follow the rules of my religion. I expect others to be truthful responsible helpful and forgiving. I am offended when people do not.

When I was active I never heard of senior missions. Perhaps someone suggested a possibility but it was too remote to remember. I asked Google what rule is for senior mission. It reportes church leaders encourage it and see it as opportunity for those who can. That does not sound like grounds to call MG choice hypocritical.

I see MG at times resorting to saying if people were more active in a Mormon sense of spirituality then they would fi d it much easier to agree with him. I find that a bit of a dead end comment but see no point in getting bothered by it. Is he calling folks terrible sinners,? Too general to be sure. I do not think so but I am a sinner.

[malkie]

Put simply, here's what I think is happening.

in my opinion, from what he says here on this board, MG considers critics of the church to be sinning in thought, word, and (often) deed for not complying with the teachings of his religious leaders, even if we are OK with the teachings of our own religions, or lack thereof. This regardlesss of our personal circumstances.

We, in general, do not expect MG to conform to the teachings of our religions, but (without any expectation that he will actually do so) sometimes point out that he is acting contrary to the teachings and exhortations of his own religion's leaders.

So it's not that we don't respect his decision, per se, but perhaps are more than anything amused or puzzled by what seems like finding excuses to not follow the leaders he claims to believe in. You and he think that his reasons are good and sound. Others disagree, and many of us have already done things that we otherwise would rather not do in order to obey our leaders. As a result, people like IHQ have taken, and no doubt will continue to take, the opportunity to note the difference between talking and doing, between professions of faith and the corresponding actions.

Not to be judgmental but I guess I see a little differently. I do expect others to follow the rules of my religion. I expect others to be truthful responsible helpful and forgiving. I am offended when people do not.

When I was active I never heard of senior missions. Perhaps someone suggested a possibility but it was too remote to remember. I asked Google what rule is for senior mission. It reportes church leaders encourage it and see it as opportunity for those who can. That does not sound like grounds to call MG choice hypocritical.

I see MG at times resorting to saying if people were more active in a Mormon sense of spirituality then they would fi d it much easier to agree with him. I find that a bit of a dead end comment but see no point in getting bothered by it. Is he calling folks terrible sinners,? Too general to be sure. I do not think so but I am a sinner.

I can see your point, huckelberry - at least to some extent. I think, though, that saying you expect others to be truthful responsible helpful and forgiving as obeying your religion is not quite what I meant when I said "not complying with the teachings of his religious leaders, even if we are OK with the teachings of our own religions". I agree that we all fall short of good behaviour, but whether we call that "sinning" likely depends on whether we are talking about failing a religious standard.

[I Have Questions]

I agree that we all fall short of good behaviour, but whether we call that "sinning" likely depends on whether we are talking about failing a religious standard.

A good example of your point is tea and coffee. Drinking tea and coffee is a sin as far as MG is concerned. Whether you are a Mormon, an Ex Mormon, or a Non Mormon, you are sinning when you drink those beverages, either out of a desire to sin, or ignorance. But in the same breath MG was more than happy to drink Snapple, an iced tea drink, because he rationalised it away as not sinning because it was cold, rather than hot. But let me be clear, that has nothing to say about him as a person in his own right.

[malkie]

Put simply, here's what I think is happening.

in my opinion, from what he says here on this board, MG considers critics of the church to be sinning in thought, word, and (often) deed for not complying with the teachings of his religious leaders...

Not at all. You are no longer under the same covenant to obey the teachings/commandments of the church. If you are outside the covenantal structure of the gospel you are either only accountable to yourself and those within your sphere of life and/or those that you look to as religious leaders or mentors.

We, in general, do not expect MG to conform to the teachings of our religions, but (without any expectation that he will actually do so) sometimes point out that he is acting contrary to the teachings and exhortations of his own religion's leaders.

That is debatable, of course. In my opinion, this is not the place to 'judge' my worthiness/unworthiness. Also, I am a bit puzzled as to why this judgement is coming from those that no longer believe?

So it's not that we don't respect his decision, per se, but perhaps are more than anything amused or puzzled by what seems like finding excuses to not follow the leaders he claims to believe in.

Amused and puzzled, heh? Why? I've explained why my wife and I have chosen to do what we are doing at this time. As it is, within the parameters of that decision, we both serve the Lord and His church in our callings and in our families. Most recently I have been serving in the EQP and am now the financial clerk in our ward. Apparently the Lord and His leaders think I am worthy to do so.

You and he think that his reasons are good and sound. Others disagree...

Again, I would say, who are YOU to judge? It is between my wife and I, our local leaders, and God.

...and many of us have already done things that we otherwise would rather not do in order to obey our leaders.

OHH, so that gives YOU the right and responsibility to judge someone who is not under your jurisdiction in any way, shape, or form. Got it.

As a result, people like IHQ have taken, and no doubt will continue to take, the opportunity to note the difference between talking and doing, between professions of faith and the corresponding actions.

He can do that if he so chooses. I give little or no credence to what he has to say. For one thing, he is an apostate (whether or not he has an ax to grind, I don't know). I would expect his opinions and pronouncements to align accordingly. I would also expect that you would support him as you now have jaundiced views towards the LDS Church. But let me be clear, that has nothing to say about you or him as a person in your own right.

I appreciate huckelberry's more holistic, fair, and even-handed view.

Regards,
MG

If you think that noting a discrepancy amounts to judging your worthiness to perform callings at church, that's not what I was saying, and I don't recall anyone else saying that. But I could be wrong, and who am I to tell you differently? I'm not sure why you think that only active "worthy" members can take note, but, again, if you say so, who am I to argue?

However, it's good to see that you don't consider ex-members and non-members to be "sinning" for not following what you think are the proper rules.

[Limnor]

I can see your point, huckelberry - at least to some extent. I think, though, that saying you expect others to be truthful responsible helpful and forgiving as obeying your religion is not quite what I meant when I said "not complying with the teachings of his religious leaders, even if we are OK with the teachings of our own religions". I agree that we all fall short of good behaviour, but whether we call that "sinning" likely depends on whether we are talking about failing a religious standard.

I think everyone agrees with the ethical norms Huck describes—honesty, responsibility, forgiveness. But those aren’t uniquely religious rules, they are more like basic human expectations.

I’d point out that, from the outsider, never been a Mormon point of view, when someone applies those kinds of expectations to others more than to themselves, it can look a bit like what Jesus mentions with the Pharisees—where the standard is applied outward more so than inward.

[MG 2.0]

Not to be judgmental but I guess I see a little differently. I do expect others to follow the rules of my religion.

I expect others to be truthful responsible helpful and forgiving. I am offended when people do not.

I don't think that having the expectation that others follow the basic principals of moral behavior is unreasonable at all. Telling the truth being a primary one. If one cannot trust that someone else is telling the truth as they know it without subterfuge, then there is no reasonable conversation that can take place.

When I was active I never heard of senior missions. Perhaps someone suggested a possibility but it was too remote to remember. I asked Google what rule is for senior mission. It reportes church leaders encourage it and see it as opportunity for those who can. That does not sound like grounds to call MG choice hypocritical.

There has been too much made of this on this board. I've asked myself why this might be. The only reason that makes any real sense, to me, is that others are looking for a reason to distrust my honesty and integrity...and even my faith.

I see MG at times resorting to saying if people were more active in a Mormon sense of spirituality then they would fi d it much easier to agree with him.

Not necessarily. I don't want to call out people here as being something 'less than'. There have been times when I might say I think others are mistaken and/or misguided in their views and the way that they have come to certain conclusions. They then say that I am in turn calling them 'less than'. That is not true. But they have a difficult time separating the two.

Is [MG] calling folks terrible sinners,? Too general to be sure. I do not think so but I am a sinner.

I do not know anyone here as a close friend and/or associate in real life. I only know them from what what words they put into a keyboard. Whether or not one person or another is a 'sinner' is conditional (what malkie said) on whether the definitions of 'sinner' fits the perceived sin by any one person. In other words, from the point of view of many here I suspect, sin is relative. And that's why I said the many folks of the humanist/secular stripe are making up as they go along. Malkie then said that Mormons are doing the same thing. From his perspective and that of many others here, that would be their 'truth'. I can't change that so I have no option (although I suspect this isn't always true with a few, so I ignore them...not knowing who they REALLY are), but to accept them at their word that they are, as you said, moral people with principles of behavior and action that are productive, helpful, and don't harm others, etc.

I have perceived/concluded that there are a good number of folks here that have a basic sense/attribute of honesty in their motives even though they no longer believe. I actually have no problem with these folks. That's what makes for an interesting discussion.

I do believe the New Testament scripture that says that if we say that we have no sin we are only deceiving ourselves. Many folks have done away with any hard fast definition of what sin is and they look at it as being relativistic or fluid. I just don't see it that way. But that's me. I don't expect that of someone who is a materialist and doesn't believe in God.

As an addendum, again, if there are certain posters I am not responding to (there are some on this thread) it is more than likely that I'm finding that it is not worth my time. As a result, they may say things that I do believe are either untrue or distorted (from past experience)...and I am willing to live with that knowing that they will in some cases be able to sway people to their corner.

My first paragraph in this post fits the bill in regards to the way I have come to view some folks here by reading their contributions over and over and over again and finding that their motives seem to be suspect. To me anyway. It is what it is.

Back to the Beatles, Led Zeppelin, and other rock groups of the sixties and seventies. That some here are judging others by the music they found engaging and fun fifty plus years ago is actually hilarious.

Regards,
MG

[MG 2.0]

However, it's good to see that you don't consider ex-members and non-members to be "sinning" for not following what you think are the proper rules.

Man, it took a long time to get there didn't it?

Regards,
MG

[MG 2.0]

I’d point out that, from the outsider, never been a Mormon point of view, when someone applies those kinds of expectations to others more than to themselves, it can look a bit like what Jesus mentions with the Pharisees—where the standard is applied outward more so than inward.

Oh my gosh. You've got that back-ass backwards.

You apparently don't know many Mormons.

Regards,
MG

[Marcus]

I can see your point, huckelberry - at least to some extent. I think, though, that saying you expect others to be truthful responsible helpful and forgiving as obeying your religion is not quite what I meant when I said "not complying with the teachings of his religious leaders, even if we are OK with the teachings of our own religions". I agree that we all fall short of good behaviour, but whether we call that "sinning" likely depends on whether we are talking about failing a religious standard.

I think everyone agrees with the ethical norms Huck describes—honesty, responsibility, forgiveness. But those aren’t uniquely religious rules, they are more like basic human expectations.

I’d point out that, from the outsider, never been a Mormon point of view, when someone applies those kinds of expectations to others more than to themselves, it can look a bit like what Jesus mentions with the Pharisees—where the standard is applied outward more so than inward.

Yes, one sees that with many Mormons, and I think it comes out of the extreme superiority built into the religion.

However, I still believe that the extremes we see here from mentalgymnast are not fully reflective of everyday interactions with Mormons. They are a type of psychopathy wherein he regularly exercises his right to entry into a near perfect setting for online trolling, where he uses the extreme and most negative positions of his religion to disrupt.

He has found a forum where most people have some sort of connection to Mormonism, many have a background in the religion but have moved on, but still like to discuss aspects of it. Mentalgymnast comes in with his extreme form of passive aggressive superiority which he clearly delights in expressing as a way of disrupting and distracting. He repeatedly lies when called on his hypocrisy, and almost always falls back on religious victimhood when pressed. He invariably then lectures "the critics," i.e. everyone here, always ending with a projection of his own tactics.

(Regarding the projection, it is quite fascinating to look back at his posts, and observe that every single strategy of which he accuses critics comes AFTER someone points out he did that.)

And finally, he comes here because any other community forum would simply not allow his repeated, stereotypical and bigoted attacks on the members. Personally, I think his trolling participation here indicates an extreme level of satisfaction in the Mormon life he can't escape.

[Limnor]

Yes, one sees that with many Mormons, and I think it comes out of the extreme superiority built into the religion.

However, I still believe that the extremes we see here from mentalgymnast are not fully reflective of everyday interactions with Mormons. They are a type of psychopathy wherein he regularly exercises his right to entry into a near perfect setting for online trolling, where he uses the extreme and most negative positions of his religion to disrupt.

He has found a forum where most people have some sort of connection to Mormonism, many have a background in the religion but have moved on, but still like to discuss aspects of it. Mentalgymnast comes in with his extreme form of passive aggressive superiority which he clearly delights in expressing as a way of disrupting and distracting. He repeatedly lies when called on his hypocrisy, and almost always falls back on religious victimhood when pressed. He invariably then lectures "the critics," i.e. everyone here, always ending with a projection of his own tactics.

(Regarding the projection, it is quite fascinating to look back at his posts, and observe that every single strategy of which he accuses critics comes AFTER someone points out he did that.)

And finally, he comes here because any other community forum would simply not allow his repeated, stereotypical and bigoted attacks on the members. Personally, I think his trolling participation here indicates an extreme level of satisfaction in the Mormon life he can't escape.

Marcus, that resonates. You’d think he would get bored with it. It seems to be a well-worn pattern: present brittle apologetic defense or absolutist interpretation, watch room react, immediately shift into wounded innocence and then lecture about tone, humility, and fairness.

I will say that I’ve not met any Mormons in the real world who present themselves this way—most seem nice enough and almost embarrassed if the subject arises. I asked one fellow about the rock in the hat and he was clearly uncomfortable, so I let it go. For the record, I don’t think MG is a standard representative of Mormonism.

There may be something to your bottom line assessment. I’ve called it a trap here before. That might be what makes the victimhood bit brush up against pity or maybe sympathy.

Random thought (and not directed at anyone specifically), sometimes I wonder how hard it would actually be to maintain two accounts over time—one “anti” with a “no holds barred” approach and another folksy supporter whose role is to soften the edges. The choreography would be tricky, not to mention time-consuming, but the voices could reinforce each other quite well. I suppose occasionally you’d have to disagree with yourself about something to keep up the facade, but that could be managed.