Happy Birthday President Nelson!

[MG 2.0]

I’m not a fanatic.

Why do you think that? What's your reasoning?

I know myself. I’ve been around the block many times and am able navigate quite well between extremes.

Regards,
MG

[Gadianton]

What are examples of "extremes" for you?"

[MG 2.0]

What are examples of "extremes" for you?"

Give me a list of those things that you think would matter if I was to be one extreme or the other. Things that matter to you personally. I’ll let you know where I stand if I am able.

Regards,
MG

[Rivendale]

I’m pretty sure I did. As I said to Marcus, that was a rather long discussion.

Regards,
MG

viewtopic.php?f=4&t=159192&hilit=spirit ... &start=130

viewtopic.php?f=4&t=159192&hilit=spirit ... m&start=90

Whole thread talks about ‘spiritual autism’. Rivendale blew a gasket. Be prepared.

Regards,
MG

It was the moral equivalence of Randy Bott's explanation to the WP as to why people of color were better off without the priesthood. Both instances vaulted Mormon superiority over groups that are perceived as disadvantaged , marginalized and lesser. It was gross and unethical. But I don't think you care.

[MG 2.0]

I’m pretty sure I did. As I said to Marcus, that was a rather long discussion.

Regards,
MG

No you’re not. Marcus has even quoted you so there’s zero chance that you are in any doubt about what you said.

You're right. A lot more than what has been quoted.

Regards,
MG

[Gadianton]

Give me a list of those things that you think would matter if I was to be one extreme or the other. Things that matter to you personally. I’ll let you know where I stand if I am able.

I don't think you are an extremist. The two are often but not necessarily intertwined. The fanaticism I see is within the lengths you'll go to justify anything Joseph Smith related or about your creator God or Book of Mormon origins. The extreme relativism you accept in order to maintain the one and only truth that you know better than anybody else.

Let's back up. A person may have extreme views but not necessarily be a fanatic, in my opinion. It's possible those extreme views are cultural. Non-believers can also be fanatics. There's a reason why I've never read a book about atheism by an atheist. I mentioned elsewhere that secular humanists often strike me as fanatics. I mention that so that you don't think I automatically mark all believers as fanatics.

In the Celestial forum I responded to a thread with Hound and PG. I mentioned that most multi-gen Mormons believe that they can become Gods. I don't consider believing that one can become a God the mark of a fanatic. Many if not most will try and worm their way around the topic, sensing that it's ridiculous, which shows that even if they believe it, they possibly aren't fanatics, or at least that topic doesn't indicate their fanaticism.

You don't have extreme beliefs aside from what you're naturally saddled with as a Mormon, except in rare situations such as threating Everybody Wang Chung with standing at the judgment bar to answer to what he's written on this forum. lol. That isn't very extreme though, that's just a reaction. The absolute vigor and unrelenting effort without really knowing very much about a topic when it comes to Joseph Smith history, the Book of Mormon as ancient, creator God, and whatever else. Any and every argument no matter how good just bounces right off you, yet no argument is too foolish for you to bring to your cause, and most of the time you're caught in epistemic relativism as your primary means to maintain your belief. Nobody can really know one way or the other therefore you are right. Others with similar basic beliefs but less fanatical would avoid the constant confrontations over them, realizing that nothing positive is coming out of it for their cause.

[I Have Questions]

Give me a list of those things that you think would matter if I was to be one extreme or the other. Things that matter to you personally. I’ll let you know where I stand if I am able.

I don't think you are an extremist. The two are often but not necessarily intertwined. The fanaticism I see is within the lengths you'll go to justify anything Joseph Smith related or about your creator God or Book of Mormon origins. The extreme relativism you accept in order to maintain the one and only truth that you know better than anybody else.

Let's back up. A person may have extreme views but not necessarily be a fanatic, in my opinion. It's possible those extreme views are cultural. Non-believers can also be fanatics. There's a reason why I've never read a book about atheism by an atheist. I mentioned elsewhere that secular humanists often strike me as fanatics. I mention that so that you don't think I automatically mark all believers as fanatics.

In the Celestial forum I responded to a thread with Hound and PG. I mentioned that most multi-gen Mormons believe that they can become Gods. I don't consider believing that one can become a God the mark of a fanatic. Many if not most will try and worm their way around the topic, sensing that it's ridiculous, which shows that even if they believe it, they possibly aren't fanatics, or at least that topic doesn't indicate their fanaticism.

You don't have extreme beliefs aside from what you're naturally saddled with as a Mormon, except in rare situations such as threating Everybody Wang Chung with standing at the judgment bar to answer to what he's written on this forum. lol. That isn't very extreme though, that's just a reaction. The absolute vigor and unrelenting effort without really knowing very much about a topic when it comes to Joseph Smith history, the Book of Mormon as ancient, creator God, and whatever else. Any and every argument no matter how good just bounces right off you, yet no argument is too foolish for you to bring to your cause, and most of the time you're caught in epistemic relativism as your primary means to maintain your belief. Nobody can really know one way or the other therefore you are right. Others with similar basic beliefs but less fanatical would avoid the constant confrontations over them, realizing that nothing positive is coming out of it for their cause.

MG 2.0 is a denialist. He is prepared to deny anything in order to maintain a self-important world view about himself and the religion he was born into and raised in. Even if that means denying something that was previously deemed a truth but which has been reversed or changed by his Church leaders. But he only sustains his leaders as a vehicle for promoting himself as special. His constant failure to be kind in his communications, despite promoting Nelson’s birthday message about being kind at all times, belies the notion that he’s defending the Church and sustaining his leaders. He isn’t.

[MG 2.0]

I don't think you are an extremist. The two are often but not necessarily intertwined. The fanaticism I see is within the lengths you'll go to justify anything Joseph Smith related or about your creator God or Book of Mormon origins. The extreme relativism you accept in order to maintain the one and only truth that you know better than anybody else.

Let's back up. A person may have extreme views but not necessarily be a fanatic, in my opinion. It's possible those extreme views are cultural. Non-believers can also be fanatics. There's a reason why I've never read a book about atheism by an atheist. I mentioned elsewhere that secular humanists often strike me as fanatics. I mention that so that you don't think I automatically mark all believers as fanatics.

In the Celestial forum I responded to a thread with Hound and PG. I mentioned that most multi-gen Mormons believe that they can become Gods. I don't consider believing that one can become a God the mark of a fanatic. Many if not most will try and worm their way around the topic, sensing that it's ridiculous, which shows that even if they believe it, they possibly aren't fanatics, or at least that topic doesn't indicate their fanaticism.

You don't have extreme beliefs aside from what you're naturally saddled with as a Mormon, except in rare situations such as threating Everybody Wang Chung with standing at the judgment bar to answer to what he's written on this forum. lol. That isn't very extreme though, that's just a reaction. The absolute vigor and unrelenting effort without really knowing very much about a topic when it comes to Joseph Smith history, the Book of Mormon as ancient, creator God, and whatever else. Any and every argument no matter how good just bounces right off you, yet no argument is too foolish for you to bring to your cause, and most of the time you're caught in epistemic relativism as your primary means to maintain your belief. Nobody can really know one way or the other therefore you are right. Others with similar basic beliefs but less fanatical would avoid the constant confrontations over them, realizing that nothing positive is coming out of it for their cause.

MG 2.0 is a denialist. He is prepared to deny anything in order to maintain a self-important world view about himself and the religion he was born into and raised in. Even if that means denying something that was previously deemed a truth but which has been reversed or changed by his Church leaders. But he only sustains his leaders as a vehicle for promoting himself as special.

Are you kidding me? Jesus taught that he that is the greatest among you let him be a/your servant. Greatest doesn't mean a bloated sense of self as you portray. It means that to where much is given much is expected. Being an active member of the church means that one recognizes their subservience to God and looking to Jesus Christ as the Way, the Truth, and the Light. If one is not humble enough to recognize that they are as dust in comparison to the greatness of God...they MAY fall into a trap of self-importance and self-aggrandizement.

I sustain the Prophet and the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles because they have been given the keys to the Kingdom. The truths and the ordinances of Salvation and Exaltation are found within their stewardship. They are not gods. They are only men with a special assignment with special keys to be stewards of God's Kingdom on earth and protectors of the Doctrine of Christ. Does that mean that they are always right in every instance? No. Does that mean that we ought to hearken to their voice? Yes. Does that mean that we argue and bicker with critics about what is revelation and what is not? No. It's not worth the time of day to do so. Critics have lost something that they may have once had. Can one expect them to retrieve and value the things they left behind? One can hope...but not expect it.

It simply is what it is. Members of the church should not elevate themselves above anyone else on the planet. They have been called to serve. Stating something on what one sees to be factual such as the last four sentences in my last paragraph is NOT the same as portraying and/or demonstrating an inflated ego. It is seeing the world through the eyes of a believer. I have NOTHING against the critic as a person. I do have a problem with a critic being the critic of that which I believe and/or hope to be true in its essence and at its core. The pearl of great price. When you bad mouth the leaders of the church or take it for granted that the church is merely a church 'of one's birth' and nothing else (throwing the baby out with the bathwater of many things observable throughout the Christian world), I see that as rather presumptuous and even arrogant.

Regards,
MG

[Everybody Wang Chung]

MG 2.0 is a denialist. He is prepared to deny anything in order to maintain a self-important world view about himself and the religion he was born into and raised in. Even if that means denying something that was previously deemed a truth but which has been reversed or changed by his Church leaders. But he only sustains his leaders as a vehicle for promoting himself as special.

Are you kidding me? Jesus taught that he that is the greatest among you let him be a/your servant. Greatest doesn't mean a bloated sense of self as you portray. It means that to where much is given much is expected. Being an active member of the church means that one recognizes their subservience to God and looking to Jesus Christ as the Way, the Truth, and the Light. If one is not humble enough to recognize that they are as dust in comparison to the greatness of God...they MAY fall into a trap of self-importance and self-aggrandizement.

I sustain the Prophet and the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles because they have been given the keys to the Kingdom. The truths and the ordinances of Salvation and Exaltation are found within their stewardship. They are not gods. They are only men with a special assignment with special keys to be stewards of God's Kingdom on earth and protectors of the Doctrine of Christ. Does that mean that they are always right in every instance? No. Does that mean that we ought to hearken to their voice? Yes. Does that mean that we argue and bicker with critics about what is revelation and what is not? No. It's not worth the time of day to do so. Critics have lost something that they may have once had. Can one expect them to retrieve and value the things they left behind? One can hope...but not expect it.

It simply is what it is. Members of the church should not elevate themselves above anyone else on the planet. They have been called to serve. Stating something on what one sees to be factual such as the last four sentences in my last paragraph is NOT the same as portraying and/or demonstrating an inflated ego. It is seeing the world through the eyes of a believer. I have NOTHING against the critic as a person. I do have a problem with a critic being the critic of that which I believe and/or hope to be true in its essence and at its core. The pearl of great price. When you bad mouth the leaders of the church or take it for granted that the church is merely a church 'of one's birth' and nothing else (throwing the baby out with the bathwater of many things observable throughout the Christian world), I see that as rather presumptuous and even arrogant.

Fibber,

What could possibly be less arrogant than writing a multi-paragraph treatise on one's own correct beliefs, all while claiming to be as humble as dust. It’s a remarkable lack of self-awareness.

I must applaud your new commitment to staying above the fray, even as your public conduct demonstrates a clear interest in continuous dishonest engagement with critics. One can only hope that future interactions will be as brief and irrelevant as you claim, because your behavior suggests the opposite. Given the counterproductive nature of your contributions here, it raises a legitimate question about the purpose of your participation. Your behavior has served as a horribly ineffective form of missionary work/outreach for the church, as it has only alienated both members and nonmembers.

But hey, at least people here view you as honest, right?

[Marcus]

...Critics have lost something that they may have once had. Can one expect them to retrieve and value the things they left behind? One can hope...but not expect it...

So, mg is elevating himself above critics, whom he has stereotyped as all the same, and then disparaged.

...Members of the church should not elevate themselves above anyone else on the planet.

Which mg just did.

Stating something on what one sees to be factual such as the last four sentences in my last paragraph is NOT the same as portraying and/or demonstrating an inflated ego. It is seeing the world through the eyes of a believer.

Stereotyping all nonbelievers is not "factual." It is disparaging and bigoted.

I have NOTHING against the critic as a person.

then why the bigoted and syereotyping disparagement?

I do have a problem with a critic being the critic of that which I believe and/or hope to be true in its essence and at its core.

But he has no poblem being critical of those who believe what he doesn't believe.

When you bad mouth the leaders of the church or take it for granted that the church is merely a church 'of one's birth' and nothing else..I see that as rather presumptuous and even arrogant...

But he doesn't see it as presumptous and arrogrant when he engages in sterotyping and bigotry..