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

[Res Ipsa]

LOL. Do you see how explicitly contradictory your posts are. First, you scold critics for not thinking out of the box and not looking at the big picture. Then, with no sign of self awareness, you turn right around and scold critics for focusing on the big picture and not focusing on the “brush strokes.”

You have misconstrued what I've said. This leads to a response built upon a faulty/sandy foundation. It goes downhill from there.

Read what I've said at least one more time.

Regards,
MG

What have I misconstrued? Did you not say both that critics need to step back and look at the whole picture and that critics need to step back from the whole picture and look at brush strokes?

Nothing in what you quoted is a foundation for the rest of my post. I’m guessing you have no substantive response.

[Limnor]

It’s your book, MG.

I'm still curious as to your response to the questions I asked you in my previous post.

Regards,
MG

Ok.

Nothing I’ve said implies closed heavens, you’ve introduced that, but it’s not an argument I’m making. The issue isn’t whether God can reveal more; the issue is what the Book of Mormon itself defines as the fixed “doctrine of Christ.”

3 Nephi 11 isn’t a ban on revelation. It’s a ban on adding “more or less” to Christ’s doctrine. That’s a textual claim, not a theological one.

Deuteronomy and Revelation aren’t helpful parallels—they warn against altering what is written in those book, not against God revealing anything anywhere else. The Book of Mormon is different because it warns against altering Christ’s doctrine after defining it.

A loving parent can teach endlessly. Nothing in what I’ve said denies that. But a good parent wouldn’t teach contradictory doctrines and call both the “fullness.”

So the question isn’t “what kind of God do I believe in?” The question is still the same: How can later, necessary “restored doctrines” be missing from the book that claims to preserve the ancient, complete doctrine of Christ—and directly warns against additions to that doctrine?

That question doesn’t go away by shifting to questions about my theology.

[Marcus]

...What have I misconstrued? Did you not say both that critics need to step back and look at the whole picture and that critics need to step back from the whole picture and look at brush strokes? ...

Yes he did.

...Very little wiggle room for exploring. I've mentioned Claude Monet the artist and that critics tend to look at isolated brushstrokes rather than the larger picture to make more/greater sense out of it.

I haven't changed my mind...

No?

The non responses I've received over time to some of my thought exercises and alternate ways of viewing the internals of the issues have only reinforced my belief that die hard critics are either unwilling or unable to step back from the larger picture and look at how the details and/or brush strokes might lead to a greater whole that is beautiful in its composition...

Mentalgymnast can't seem to make up his mind what he thinks is wrong with those dang critics. Stereotyping an entire group is a complicated endeavor.

[malkie]

Exactly.

I think it's fair to say that, in general terms, each of us responds to a combination of:

• what we think is worth debating
• what we think we can usefully say something about
• what we find interesting

whether or not that is what the poster/commenter wants to discuss.

Other times the discussion becomes a meta-debate, talking about the framing, or validity etc. of the discussion, because one person believes that this is where the action is. I think that this entire comment is an example of a meta-discussion.

From time to time it may be worthwhile to try to ensure that a point we feel is significant is not missed, but continued attempts to "push" the point are unlikely to produce results.

I could refer back to comments I've made, or questions I've asked, for which no response was forthcoming, but would that be productive? Probably not. I'll just continue to stew about them until my last breath. Or perhaps beyond, if life after death turns out to be a reality.

Bite your tongue, malkie!! (which is what is said around me when a jinx might be forthcoming--such as an afterlife coming into existence simply to cause eternal stewing. )

People see your questions and empathize with the irritation of non-answers. We don't wish stewing on you, to your last breath or to an imaginary beyond.

Ouch!!

I hope you didn't expect a long reply from a guy with a mouthful of blood, and half of his tongue hanging out

[MG 2.0]

You have misconstrued what I've said. This leads to a response built upon a faulty/sandy foundation. It goes downhill from there.

Read what I've said at least one more time.

Regards,
MG

What have I misconstrued? Did you not say both that critics need to step back and look at the whole picture and that critics need to step back from the whole picture and look at brush strokes?

Nothing in what you quoted is a foundation for the rest of my post. I’m guessing you have no substantive response.

Again, I'll leave this with what I've already said:

What I've presented here (earlier) and at other times in the past are exercises in thinking outside the constraints of absolute and dogmatic disbelief and/or doubt. THAT is the definition of thinking outside the box.

It takes time, patience, and effort. Faith isn't always an easy road although some might like it to be.

The non responses I've received over time to some of my thought exercises and alternate ways of viewing the internals of the issues have only reinforced my belief that die hard critics are either unwilling or unable to step back from the larger picture and look at how the details and/or brush strokes might lead to a greater whole that is beautiful in its composition.

Complex, but beautiful.

I'm not a lawyer, as you are, but I know when I've said something that is either being misrepresented or ignored.

I'll leave it there recognizing that, in my opinion, you have no substantiative response to looking at the crux of the presentation which I gave. I was hoping either you or malkie would do so.

I look at the Restoration as more or less a 'reboot' of a 1.0 program that has been corrupted along the way. Moving to a 2.0 then a 3.0 and so on. Adjustments are made along the way. We refer to it now as the ongoing restoration.

Earlier I argued that it would be actually unreasonable to expect that the 'gospel' would be seen/understood in exactly the same way throughout history.

As an obvious example, the implementation of the doctrines/ordinaces concerning sealing of families, baptisms, etc , and the means to do this at wide scale haven't existed until now. Example upon example might be given for the gospel being implemented differently at different times and in different places.

As I've said many times, critics are unable to think/look outside of the box and look at the larger picture.

Regards,
MG

[MG 2.0]

The issue isn’t whether God can reveal more...

I think it is. This seems to always be the bugaboo with those that are traditionalists in regards to the creeds and settled belief.

Regards,
MG

[Limnor]

The issue isn’t whether God can reveal more...

I think it is. This seems to always be the bugaboo with those that are traditionalists in regards to the creeds and settled belief.

Regards,
MG

I think we’ve reached the point where we are talking about two completely different ideas.

I’m looking at the internal logic of the text and the contradictions that arise when later doctrines are revealed. You’re approaching the discussion as a defense of ongoing revelation, which probably means the textual issue is not going to be addressed.

I’ve said what I can say from the text itself, so I’ll step back here.

[MG 2.0]

I think it is. This seems to always be the bugaboo with those that are traditionalists in regards to the creeds and settled belief.

Regards,
MG

I think we’ve reached the point where we are talking about two completely different ideas.

I’m looking at the internal logic of the text and the contradictions that arise when later doctrines are revealed. You’re approaching the discussion as a defense of ongoing revelation, which probably means the textual issue is not going to be addressed.

I’ve said what I can say from the text itself, so I’ll step back here.

That's fine. I'm saying that the text isn't the only thing/reason to throw all our marbles into one bag. Common sense, for one thing.

But yeah, we can leave it there if you want to.

Regards,
MG

[Marcus]

Bite your tongue, malkie!! (which is what is said around me when a jinx might be forthcoming--such as an afterlife coming into existence simply to cause eternal stewing. )

People see your questions and empathize with the irritation of non-answers. We don't wish stewing on you, to your last breath or to an imaginary beyond.

Ouch!!

I hope you didn't expect a long reply from a guy with a mouthful of blood, and half of his tongue hanging out

[Res Ipsa]

What have I misconstrued? Did you not say both that critics need to step back and look at the whole picture and that critics need to step back from the whole picture and look at brush strokes?

Nothing in what you quoted is a foundation for the rest of my post. I’m guessing you have no substantive response.

Again, I'll leave this with what I've already said:

What I've presented here (earlier) and at other times in the past are exercises in thinking outside the constraints of absolute and dogmatic disbelief and/or doubt. THAT is the definition of thinking outside the box.

It takes time, patience, and effort. Faith isn't always an easy road although some might like it to be.

The non responses I've received over time to some of my thought exercises and alternate ways of viewing the internals of the issues have only reinforced my belief that die hard critics are either unwilling or unable to step back from the larger picture and look at how the details and/or brush strokes might lead to a greater whole that is beautiful in its composition.

Complex, but beautiful.

I'm not a lawyer, as you are, but I know when I've said something that is either being misrepresented or ignored.

I'll leave it there recognizing that, in my opinion, you have no substantiative response to looking at the crux of the presentation which I gave. I was hoping either you or malkie would do so.

I look at the Restoration as more or less a 'reboot' of a 1.0 program that has been corrupted along the way. Moving to a 2.0 then a 3.0 and so on. Adjustments are made along the way. We refer to it now as the ongoing restoration.

Earlier I argued that it would be actually unreasonable to expect that the 'gospel' would be seen/understood in exactly the same way throughout history.

As an obvious example, the implementation of the doctrines/ordinaces concerning sealing of families, baptisms, etc , and the means to do this at wide scale haven't existed until now. Example upon example might be given for the gospel being implemented differently at different times and in different places.

As I've said many times, critics are unable to think/look outside of the box and look at the larger picture.

Regards,
MG

As I said, simply repeating things you posted before I posted is non responsive. And I shouldn't have to point you to my posts where I responded to the claims in your quoted post. Scroll up.

Apparently, you don't know when you have been misrepresented or ignored. You haven't shown an example of either. You do know how to play the martyr.