Mentalgymnast - promoting the Moderate Mormon view.

[_Doctor CamNC4Me]

...if you really had a moderate position, anywhere, you'd simply recall a thread or post and link it...[/i].

Let me ask you this. How would you define a Moderate Mormon...assuming that there is such a creature?

Not Middle Way, mind you. Moderate.

Regards,
MG

And folks, this is what he does. He makes an assertion, can't back it up, and has now twice tried to get me to do his work for him. 11 years of these nonsense "moderate" posts of him that you can squish together and voila: Another turd by MG.

All he has to do is link to a few of his posts that demonstrate his claim that he's a moderate Mormon.

- Doc

[_Lemmie]

That we've gone this far over a simple request to answer some simple question(s)...which were not answered...even though it was asserted that they were.

Yes your habit of bitching about it when others point out you don't answer questions is well established.

Why didn't you berate him for those 'crude joke(s)' which were in very poor taste?

because he didn't make crude jokes in poor taste. You did.

A different standard? Yep.

You joke about having tongues in your ass cheeks, and now you want to argue that you have standards?

And the "observation" is not a 'point in fact' that the poster in question is a "purveyor of sin and sodomy".

So you called someone a "purveyor of sin and sodomy" even though you knew it wasn't a fact. Those lurkers are getting an education tonight.

[_Kittens_and_Jesus]

I'd like to take this moment to remind everyone involved that this thread was started to give MG a chance to answer a question about a term he introduced to the forum.

He never answered that question and now has you guys responding to him accusing you of not answering his questions despite the fact that you did answer his questions...

He also threw in a new term "moderate, not middle way" to muddy the waters further.

In his mind you're playing his game, not yours.

[_mentalgymnast]

So you called someone a "purveyor of sin and sodomy" even though you knew it wasn't a fact. Those lurkers are getting an education tonight.

And now it's time to go to the Wayback Machine to put this in context from Sept. 2017:

MG, I suggest next time pick a battle you might have a chance of winning. I would suggest you take off your garmies and beat the ____ out them, now that's a battle you might be able to win.

We're you ever an active/believing member of the church? If so, I must say, how far some of the mighty and great ones have fallen.

Same applies to some others here. The hate (Shulem). The liars (Doc and others). The purveyors of sin (pornography, sodomy, etc.)

And a blindness/open rebellion to a creator/God in who's image we are created.

Notice that I said, "some others". I enlarged the word for you in case you missed it earlier. I am not making a blanket statement. If you know that it doesn't apply to you, have no fear.

And don't take it personally.

Jersey, you've listed a multitude of 'sins'. It looks like you're in the clear unless you have some secret sin you haven't disclosed. You are apparently someone who doesn't approve of and/or act as a purveyor of porn or approve behavior that results in sodomy.

From having read threads in the past, however, I am inclined to think that there are some folks that are comfortable with porn. Others that are comfortable with homosexual behavior which includes sodomy.

Others, I'm sure...including myself...are not comfortable with the sin of porn and/or sodomy in a homosexual relationship.

Notice also that I used specific names when I mentioned "hate" and "liars".

Just to put it all in context. For education purposes.

Regards,
MG

[_grindael]

That's the thing, I'm not playing games. I'm simply making observations based on what droppings the self proclaimed weasel deposits here. The weasel, of course, is doing what he does best, weaseling out of anything and everything and acting like he's not an amoral animal with no integrity. As long as he comes here and acts like he does, I'll be there to point out these observations.

[_mentalgymnast]

All he has to do is link to a few of his posts that demonstrate his claim that he's a moderate Mormon.

- Doc

As I've said a few times now, Doc, the lion's share of my postings over a LONG period of time demonstrate the thoughts/writings of a Moderate Mormon. I'll leave it to others to actually dig in...if they want to...to my postings and get a flavor of what moderation in religious matters is all about.

Again, I ask YOU...how would you define a Moderate Mormon?

Regards,
MG

[_mentalgymnast]

In his mind you're playing his game, not yours.

No games. Although the closest game I can think of that shows some similarity to what I see going on here is Twister. Remember that game? And it ain't me that's twisting things around.

I'm watching and finding it amusing however. Folks getting themselves tied up in knots.

Regards,
MG

[_grindael]

How stupid. The weasel doesn't know that using "some" in that context IS a blanket statement:

1.
an unspecified amount or number of.

2.
used to refer to someone or something that is unknown or unspecified.

Since it is unspecified, it can be literally ANYTHING or ANYONE. But language skills isn't your strong suit, your Primary level understanding of it is obvious.

So yeah, Lemmie once again, has it right and the weasel is left scurrying about in confusion waiting for another chance to look stupid.

[_grindael]

See, the weasel will now regurgitate his question to Doc over and over again to have something to do here. He will then rant about how Doc won't answer it since he abandoned his first attempt by claiming he won't "bump" it again. (I made sure of that). So the weasel continues on doing his weaselly BS.

[_grindael]

And those poor children, to be around such a weasel. It really is rather sick.