Faithful TBM to doubter in 6 hours on ex-Mormon Reddit

[KevinSim]

... Because I am a Latter-day Saint, I believe that a subset of the human race, that Jesus has transformed (over who knows how long a period of time) into good people, is the good thing God will preserve forever....

because you are LDS, you believe a subset "is the good thing God will preserve forever...." Do you believe this subset is comprised of those designated LDS?

The "L" in "LDS" stands for "Latter." There will be many people in that subset who are not Latter-day Saints. And there are many Latter-day Saints who won't be in that subset. Every person in that subset will have been baptized by someone with God's authority, or will have died before reaching the age of accountability.

[KevinSim]

Are you caught in some sort of temporal loop? What’s up with addressing week-old posts you’ve ignored? It’s very trollish behavior since people and the discussion move on after a day or so. Speaking of which:

I've flirted with atheism since early in my mission in 1979

Did you ever figure out why you flirted with atheism AFTER God answered your prayer that the Mormon organization was true? Seems odd one would flirt with that ideology after having had an interaction with a god.

Doc, make up your mind. Do you want me to post about things people posted a long time ago or don't you? You started by advising me to stop addressing "week-old posts," and then you ask me to explain my flirting with atheism which dates from way earlier than those weeks-old posts. So which do you want me to do? (By the way, I explained my flirting with atheism a long time ago.)

[KevinSim]

I'm not sure that's a hard fact.

How hard is a fact supposed to be?

I guess I was trying to say it wasn't a fact at all. It might be true sometimes, but it's not true in general.

[KevinSim]

just continue on with the discussion, kevinsim.

And skip over all the posts I haven't read yet? Why is that better than responding to posts in the order they appear? Sure, there's going to be a backlog, since there are roughly eight posters responding to me and only me to answer them; but the alternative would be missing points that posters have made; how is that preferable?

[malkie]

just continue on with the discussion, kevinsim.

And skip over all the posts I haven't read yet? Why is that better than responding to posts in the order they appear? Sure, there's going to be a backlog, since there are roughly eight posters responding to me and only me to answer them; but the alternative would be missing points that posters have made; how is that preferable?

I won't speak for anyone else, but here's my experience and expectation:

You replied a couple of days ago to something I said almost 10 days earlier, and I in turn commented 2 days later.

When you get around to replying, it will likely be 3 weeks or more from my last-but-one comment. To see the context I will have to go back perhaps a month. I'm not sure that I'm interested in trying to have a conversation like this.

So, for me, if you can't keep up a reasonable pace of exchanges, I don't expect you to waste your time responding at all - especially if your response is to ask me why I think that you think that ... ...

[Marcus]

because you are LDS, you believe a subset "is the good thing God will preserve forever...." Do you believe this subset is comprised of those designated LDS?

The "L" in "LDS" stands for "Latter." There will be many people in that subset who are not Latter-day Saints. And there are many Latter-day Saints who won't be in that subset. Every person in that subset will have been baptized by someone with God's authority, or will have died before reaching the age of accountability.

So, you are here insisting that it is EVERYONE'S obligation to somehow come up with a god concept, and EVERYONE should somehow get that god concept to "preserve" ... only those who are in your special little subset?

Okay, sure. Let's get right on that. the ultimate MLM scheme.

[Marcus]

just continue on with the discussion, kevinsim.

And skip over all the posts I haven't read yet? Why is that better than responding to posts in the order they appear? Sure, there's going to be a backlog, since there are roughly eight posters responding to me and only me to answer them; but the alternative would be missing points that posters have made; how is that preferable?

Here is my quote with the context restored:

i quoted Doc once before, but you still don't seem to get the point:

...He’ll not answer something, wait until ten pages goes by, and then resurrect the issue with a question and claim/assertion that he did x or y...

- Doc

just continue on with the discussion, kevinsim.

Why are you taking comments out of context, and then asking questions unrelated to the comment?

[Everybody Wang Chung]

Okay, sure. Let's get right on that. the ultimate MLM scheme.

[Marcus]

And skip over all the posts I haven't read yet? Why is that better than responding to posts in the order they appear? Sure, there's going to be a backlog, since there are roughly eight posters responding to me and only me to answer them; but the alternative would be missing points that posters have made; how is that preferable?

I won't speak for anyone else, but here's my experience and expectation:

You replied a couple of days ago to something I said almost 10 days earlier, and I in turn commented 2 days later.

When you get around to replying, it will likely be 3 weeks or more from my last-but-one comment. To see the context I will have to go back perhaps a month. I'm not sure that I'm interested in trying to have a conversation like this.

So, for me, if you can't keep up a reasonable pace of exchanges, I don't expect you to waste your time responding at all - especially if your response is to ask me why I think that you think that ... ...

This answer works for me too, malkie. Well said.

[Doctor CamNC4Me]

(By the way, I explained my flirting with atheism a long time ago.)

You didn’t. And you certainly haven’t explained why you continue to shill for an organization that literally protects men who have sex with their children, to include literal babies. I’m looking forward to your dumb and rhetorical question, sure to be asked, in 10-14 days. Because. You know. You just can’t keep up with conversations because you’re so busy.

- Doc