Making Covenants

[MG 2.0]

I can understand Quinn and the Tanners, but Karen Armstrong, Jared Diamond, Pinker's mind-modularity stuff, and B.F Skinner? This is all material that qualifies for general education about the world. It almost sounds like you're saying that "secular learning" is bad, and we should totally focus on Christ.

You were a teacher, right? So you're honest opinion here. Granted, These four writers don't have much for grade-schoolers, but certainly they could be encountered in High School; in history or psychology classes. In high school, LDS kids have about 7 regular classes along with one seminary class. Would it be better to flip that? Have 7 classes focusing on Mormon topics and apologetics, and one class that covers secular learning? Or maybe just eliminate secular learning all together?

I’m all for secular learning. I’m a big fan. I’m also a fan of balance. So whatever meets that balance, I’m in favor of.

Growing up, fortunately, I lived in an environment where there was a bit more of that balance than in more traditional homes.

Wow. An actual question. Yay! Thanks.

Gadianton, I hope my rather long reply to you a number of pages back helped you understand me a little bit better. I tried to go into some detail. It all got covered and hidden up by The Borg.

I made a mistake even bringing up Pinker. My bad.

Regards,
MG

[Dr Exiled]

Of course you have every right to say whatever you want here. That's not my point. You come here preaching, acting like the unbelievers here need a refresher course on making covenants with a made up being, and are surprised when people push back on that. The comment about Marcus being willing to learn from you was just more of the same misguided condescension. You are no better than anyone merely because of your religious beliefs or because you go to the temple to make your loyalty oaths. Why not come down off of the false mountain you believe you're on and join us mere mortals?

The thing is, Exile, is you are just as free to preach your version of intolerance and disdain for the leaders and doctrines of the LDS Church as I am to come here to support the leaders and doctrines of the LDS Church. Also, I’m not at all convinced that there are not those who don’t participate actively on the board that cannot benefit from the points of view expressed by BOTH of us.

To think that the minority view doesn’t have as much reason to be expressed as the majority view is undemocratic.

So you share what is your dislike and I will share my ‘like’. And we can both give reasons for our own points of view. Of COURSE we will BOTH think that the other is unreasonable and preachy.

I can deal with that. Can you?

Regards,
MG

You still don't get my point and probably on purpose. You started this thread as a way to make claims at how you are better for somehow making covenants with an invisible being. You started it to toot your own horn, to call us sinners to repentance. You deliberately tell us that you can't or didn't comment on this thread because you were going to the temple and doing service projects (and forgot to tell us how you were then going to the hospital to give blessings). You said these things to pat yourself on the back. You're such a good Mormon.

Perhaps climb down off the phony mountain and converse as any human being would do. You might be surprised at how people treat you when the condescension disappears.

[Morley]

I have absolutely NO IDEA of who you are as a person.

Then that's on you, mental gymnast. I've pretty much revealed everything about myself in more than a decade of posting here--some of it was in direct response to your questions. Others you claim to know nothing about have done the same.

[Morley]

An actual question. Yay! Thanks.

...and here's where you disingenuously pretend that you don't have a queue of unanswered questions awaiting your reply. Where you pretend that you're willing to engage in something other than self-righteous testimony-bearing.

[huckelberry]

MG.......


You still don't get my point and probably on purpose. You started this thread as a way to make claims at how you are better for somehow making covenants with an invisible being. You started it to toot your own horn, to call us sinners to repentance. You deliberately tell us that you can't or didn't comment on this thread because you were going to the temple and doing service projects (and forgot to tell us how you were then going to the hospital to give blessings). You said these things to pat yourself on the back. You're such a good Mormon.

Perhaps climb down off the phony mountain and converse as any human being would do. You might be surprised at how people treat you when the condescension disappears.

I can see how MG might appear to be trying to keep himself on a pedestal, studied all the problems and all and still believes. Maybe he intends this or maybe he doesn't realize the image he can project. Dr Exiled you may be making a good suggestion here.

[Doctor CamNC4Me]

I’m all for secular learning. I’m a big fan.

[kairos]

Forgive if this has been addressed already, but what is the difference of this covenant making or being on the covenant path you are discussing and having and developing a personal relationship with Jesus Christ which to me as an evangelical Christian is the most important element/activity in my life and in the lives of billions of Christians in many Christian denominations.
by the way I actually saw the words “personal relationship with Jesus” in writing on page 9 of the current Come follow me manual.
To see that in writing wow! Has Russell M. Nelson developed a personal relationship with Jesus as an element in his covenant path- just wondering!

k

[MG 2.0]

I have absolutely NO IDEA of who you are as a person.

Then that's on you, mental gymnast. I've pretty much revealed everything about myself in more than a decade of posting here--some of it was in direct response to your questions. Others you claim to know nothing about have done the same.

Must be that dang memory of mine then. Have you said much about what kind of belief system you have? Institutional vs. private? Have you posted a fairly detailed timeline of your faith journey and whether or not you remained active or not during that time? Have you posted the actual materials that you came across that were the determining factors in your disaffection? Is your wife still an active member and are you still married? Your kids. How have they taken dad’s leaving the church? Did you serve a mission? What was your experience like? Actually, I can’t remember whether or not you’ve said if you’re still on the records or not. What is your age…or at least the decade you’re in? How active have you been in the church when you were active? Callings? Did you have spiritual experiences along the way that you’ve reconfigured as to their actual spirituality and/or influence from outside yourself? What were the shelf breakers for you? Do you still consider yourself a Christian in the sense of belief/faith in a resurrected Christ?

I’ll stop there. It would only take you a few minutes to answer all of these questions. I, for one, along with others that my not know you would appreciate your transparency and openness. And yes, even your vulnerability.

My estimation and respect for you would rise a notch rather than the comparative low estimation I have of you being just another critic with a bone to pick or a chip on their shoulder. If you would rather start a new thread, that’s fine.

Honestly, if the critics on this board were open enough to answer my questions and possibly a few more, nothing of an intimate personal nature obviously, my estimation would arise considerably. As it is I see more or less a unified Borg mentality/echo chamber and not a whole lot more.

I expect you may find reasons not to entertain all of my questions. Be that as it may, I’d be pleasantly surprised if you and others did. You could even use my questions in your opening post on a new thread.

I feel like I may know and/or have a feel for some of the personalities on this board.

But not you. I pretty much see you as a person that I can’t begin to put a face to. Only that you’re a mainstay critic.

Regards,
MG

[huckelberry]

I am not sure just how the comparison applies to this subject but to my mind there is significant different between a promise to aim at being honest helpful trustworthy and kind compared to a loyalty promise.

I am sort of stuck with my boy scout age Christian connection.

Huck, are you forgetting that there was something about loyalty in the Boy scout code ,or what ever those goals were called?

Well in truth I was not a real devoted boy scout. I liked hiking camping and basketball.

I have had reason, we all have, to think about that loyal thing. It is a good thing to be a loyal friend.Similarly there is loyalty to larger groups. There can be limits to that of course. There is reason to not let loyalty blind you to friends bad actions,bad influence or just plain errors. Perhaps loyalty has to be subjected to criticism wherein true loyalty, or perhaps good loyalty owes good judgement not unwavering agreement.

Perhaps caution towards loyalty is necessary to maintain a certain fundamental freedom for making judgments.

[MG 2.0]

An actual question. Yay! Thanks.

...and here's where you disingenuously pretend that you don't have a queue of unanswered questions awaiting your reply. Where you pretend that you're willing to engage in something other than self-righteous testimony-bearing.

I spent a good chunk of my day answering and responding to questions. As far as I know I covered the lion’s share of them. I think others would agree that I generally get around to answering questions. Much more so than say IHAQ.

But I can’t do that ALL the time.

Regards,
MG