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

[Gadianton]

I searched and read those arguments—they either claim the later doctrines were “in there all along,” or they say the Book of Mormon is just “milk” so Joseph could add all the “meat” later, or they redefine “add nothing” to mean “add everything except the basics.”

Basically they claim the doctrines were there all along, and if you squint hard enough you can see them… but it looks more like mental gymnastics to retrofit later innovations.

Hugh Nibley claimed the entire endowment is "right there in the Book of Mormon". Presumably he meant as a "type and shadow". The Old Testament manual mentioned that a New Testament reference of "8 saved by water" from the flood was an encoding for baptism at the age of eight. It would have been nice if God could kill fewer people for his Easter Egg hunts.

[Limnor]

I searched and read those arguments—they either claim the later doctrines were “in there all along,” or they say the Book of Mormon is just “milk” so Joseph could add all the “meat” later, or they redefine “add nothing” to mean “add everything except the basics.”

Basically they claim the doctrines were there all along, and if you squint hard enough you can see them… but it looks more like mental gymnastics to retrofit later innovations.

Hugh Nibley claimed the entire endowment is "right there in the Book of Mormon". Presumably he meant as a "type and shadow". The Old Testament manual mentioned that a New Testament reference of "8 saved by water" from the flood was an encoding for baptism at the age of eight. It would have been nice if God could kill fewer people for his Easter Egg hunts.

Nibley’s explanation only works if you assume the conclusion first. Within that thinking, that anything can be a “type and shadow,” you can smuggle in whatever doctrine you want.

[malkie]

You haven’t explained, you listed some excuses for not doing what your Lord has requested from you. You haven’t explained why you don’t trust Him enough to just serve and have faith that He will take care of the other things that you cling on to as reasons not to serve. The fact is you lack the faith to serve a senior mission. And that’s okay.

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.

[Marcus]

... Questions you recently complained to MG about him asking some friendly personal question. Your question here is personal and unfriendly...

Huck, you are mistaken if you think mentalgymnast asks personal questions for 'friendly' reasons. Many times in the past he's fished for details, and then repeatedly attempted to use his distorted and decidedly unfriendly interpretation of those details any time he disagrees with that person's comments, regardless of the context. His 'friendly' method of collecting data he can later distort is the ultimate in pre-planned ad hominem attacks.

Trusting him now, because he appears to be posting in a friendly manner, is a mistake.

[I Have Questions]

You haven’t explained, you listed some excuses for not doing what your Lord has requested from you. You haven’t explained why you don’t trust Him enough to just serve and have faith that He will take care of the other things that you cling on to as reasons not to serve. The fact is you lack the faith to serve a senior mission. And that’s okay.

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.

I haven’t asked him a question (hence why I didn’t use any question marks). MG brought the subject up without any prompting or prying from me, and I responded. And I do respect his personal decision, which is why I’ve said “And that’s okay”. It’s his Church that thinks his decision is wrong. That he’s living a life by convenience (his Church’s terminology, not mine) rather than by covenant (having the faith to trust the Lord will take care of all the personal stuff that he’s using as an excuse not to serve). I’m only holding him to the standards that he claims to live to.

What you see as people not respecting his decision, is really people pointing out the double standards that MG displays between what he preaches and claims to believe, and what he actually does. He criticises people who leave the Mormon church as weak, lazy, lacking faith. Yet his failure to serve a senior mission is weak, lazy, and lacking faith. He’s in a glasshouse and he’s throwing stones. Im simply choosing to point that out.

[Gadianton]

Giving MG a hard time about his mission is just asking him to taste his own medicine. If he believes the church is everything he claims, he would jump to go on a mission. MG freely asks about my past, looking for the weakness in my armor; my Book of Mormon reading; I consider all of this fair game.

In my view, MG searches for that sweet spot with the highest possible personal conviction secured by the lowest possible effort.

MG and I see a Tree of Life growing amid a forever wasteland as fundamentally different. For MG and every other apologist I've met, the goal is believing the revelatory tree is real, and shilling for it with extreme conviction. Eating from the tree is optional. For me, the point of such a pure tree is to eat from it as much as possible.

Consider Michael Saylor, the CEO of MicroStrategy. Like Dan and MG, Saylor must shill for Bitcoin with every breath. He must take on a persecution complex and cry as a lone voice in the wilderness in defense of the Truth of Bitcoin. He must dismiss or attack adversaries to Bitcoin. He must never be critical of Bitcoin.

However, unlike MG or Dan, Saylor doesn't have the luxury of saying, "I already hold enough Bitcoin, let's not be fanatics about it" and quit buying. He must buy every dip with full confidence. He must eat from the tree or drink from the waters, whatever your analogy, with full conviction, or MicroStrategy is done.

[malkie]

Giving MG a hard time about his mission is just asking him to taste his own medicine. If he believes the church is everything he claims, he would jump to go on a mission. MG freely asks about my past, looking for the weakness in my armor; my Book of Mormon reading; I consider all of this fair game.

In my view, MG searches for that sweet spot with the highest possible personal conviction secured by the lowest possible effort.

MG and I see a Tree of Life growing amid a forever wasteland as fundamentally different. For MG and every other apologist I've met, the goal is believing the revelatory tree is real, and shilling for it with extreme conviction. Eating from the tree is optional. For me, the point of such a pure tree is to eat from it as much as possible.

Consider Michael Saylor, the CEO of MicroStrategy. Like Dan and MG, Saylor must shill for Bitcoin with every breath. He must take on a persecution complex and cry as a lone voice in the wilderness in defense of the Truth of Bitcoin. He must dismiss or attack adversaries to Bitcoin. He must never be critical of Bitcoin.

However, unlike MG or Dan, Saylor doesn't have the luxury of saying, "I already hold enough Bitcoin, let's not be fanatics about it" and quit buying. He must buy every dip with full confidence. He must eat from the tree or drink from the waters, whatever your analogy, with full conviction, or MicroStrategy is done.

Some would agree with you about 99%, Dean Robbers, but suggest that you might find an appropriate place in para two for an expression that includes the word "performative".

[MG 2.0]

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...

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

[I Have Questions]

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.

So MG takes umbrage about judging others. And then…

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…

…in the same breath goes right ahead and passes a judgement on someone who is “not under his jurisdiction in any way, shape, or form”. It is this deliberate two-facedness that I point out. It is staggering hypocrisy.

My question for MG is - can you see and acknowledge the clear hypocrisy in the above quote of the interaction between you and malkie? And if you can’t, can you offer a reason why for why you can’t see it?

Huckleberry - Do you see MG’s blatant hypocrisy in the plaice quoted dialogue? Can you see why people might take MG to task for it, especially when it’s a constantly repeating behaviour?

But let me be clear, that has nothing to say about him as a person in his own right.

[Shulem]

You are no longer under the same covenant to obey the teachings/commandments of the church.

This is true to a point, for example, the Church no longer requires/expects me to pay tithing. That is over. I get to keep my money and spend it according to my desires. I'm off the hook for having to maintain and obey commandments as a faithful Mormon. Having broken the covenant, I told Mormon God to go screw himself. I am off the religious hook. Thank God! But, according to Mormon scriptures and revelations given by Joseph Smith: I'M DAMNED AND WILL BURN IN HELL.

And have a nice day.

See you in hell, MG!