Church Historian Admits “Compelling Evidence to Doubt” Mormonism

[MG 2.0]

McKay is a creep spreading the belief of fear and punishment for those who refuse to accept Mormonism. They seek to intimidate and threaten! It is abusive behavior and practiced for the sole purpose of brainwashing, controlling, and scaring people to stay in the boat lest they drown in sin. The spiritual vibrations of this man are very creepy, indeed. He's not someone I would want to spend my time with.

Well, it's wonderful outside that boat! I so testify of that!

So interesting that we can both hear the same talk and come away with such different conclusions.

Regards,
MG

[MG 2.0]

Brainwashing? Only if you think that his admonition to gain your own testimony of Christ is manipulative. The onus is completely on us to follow through and work on developing a faith/testimony of/in Christ and His Gospel.

Mg, this sounds so weird to me. I do not remember such instruction in the New Testament. I remember in Mormonism at least some memory of the understanding that faith is a gift from God not some tower you labor to create for yourself.

Testify until you have a testimony, how phony can you get?

My experiences on my mission years ago support the concept/idea that it is through the bearing of pure testimony of Christ that the Spirit is truly manifest.

I can’t deny it.

Some of you may have had similar experiences…and have denied it.

Regards,
MG

[MG 2.0]

It sucks to be you!

I beg to differ.

Regards,
MG

[MG 2.0]

I enjoyed the story of Jane Elizabeth Manning James.

She was able to be sealed as a servant for all eternity to Joseph Smith, although that is not what she requested. Doesn't that seem worse than the TK-Smoothie theology of the former Mormon Church? Would you remain a member of the Church if you were consigned to clean the toilets and change the nappies on the spirit babies forever?

We don’t know what Jane Manning’s state of existence is as we speak. What we do know is that she remained firm in her faith in Jesus Christ and the restoration of His gospel. I can’t help but think this will work in her favor.

Regards,
MG

[MG 2.0]

I remain unconvinced that his advice, just choose not to doubt, is the best idea but it is a device to avoid actual considerations of reasons to doubt.

At the end of the day, paraphrasing his talk, there are valid reasons for belief and doubt. We then make a choice. Opposition in ALL things.

Regards,
MG

[Dr Moore]

Among the most compelling "evidences to doubt Mormonism" is this: its leaders will lie and break the law to guard the "good name" of the Church.

[Doctor CamNC4Me]

I remain unconvinced that his advice, just choose not to doubt, is the best idea but it is a device to avoid actual considerations of reasons to doubt.

At the end of the day, paraphrasing his talk, there are valid reasons for belief and doubt. We then make a choice. Opposition in ALL things.

Regards,
MG

I see we’ve looped around to MG’s Step 1 - blathering nonsense.



It’s just an endless cycle of claimed idiocies and ignoring the cumulative effort of thousands of posts, many well researched and consuming so much time- done in good faith, and this is what he does. This ding dong just craps out the same nonsense ad nauseam.

- Doc

[consiglieri]

I remain unconvinced that his advice, just choose not to doubt, is the best idea but it is a device to avoid actual considerations of reasons to doubt.

At the end of the day, paraphrasing his talk, there are valid reasons for belief and doubt. We then make a choice. Opposition in ALL things.

Regards,
MG

I thought this an especially weak part of Kyle’s talk.

He takes a Book of Mormon passage designed to answer why God put the two trees in the Garden of Eden and extrapolates it to include why there are compelling reasons to doubt Mormonism.

Why? Because there must be opposition in ALL THINGS.

But applying this to the question of belief and evidence seems a bridge too far.

Are there compelling reasons to doubt the earth is round?

Are there compelling reasons to doubt the moon landing?

Are there compelling reasons to doubt I am typing this out?

The problem is that as soon as you can find one thing that this does not apply to, it undercut the entire argument that there must be opposition in ALL things, and that this subject is one of those things in which there must exist opposition.

[Doctor CamNC4Me]

At the end of the day, paraphrasing his talk, there are valid reasons for belief and doubt. We then make a choice. Opposition in ALL things.

Regards,
MG

I thought this an especially weak part of Kyle’s talk.

He takes a Book of Mormon passage designed to answer why God put the two trees in the Garden of Eden and extrapolates it to include why there are compelling reasons to doubt Mormonism.

Why? Because there must be opposition in ALL THINGS.

But applying this to the question of belief and evidence seems a bridge too far.

Are there compelling reasons to doubt the earth is round?

Are there compelling reasons to doubt the moon landing?

Are there compelling reasons to doubt I am typing this out?

The problem is that as soon as you can find one thing that this does not apply to, it undercut the entire argument that there must be opposition in ALL things, and that this subject is one of those things in which there must exist opposition.

I think posters here tacked down the issue of what faith is - it’s really a matter of trust. And in order to maintain one’s trust in the “truth” claims of Mormonism and other religions, you simply have to make the conscious choice to mistrust people who have a better handle on whatever factual subjects than you do, and trust people who reaffirm your desire to believe in something that can’t be reliably verified or is outright bananas. You have to engage in wordplay, strain at gnats while ignoring the cureloms, and redefine reality to suit your narrative.

Mormonism is obviously false, but in order to keep the faith, to keep your trust in something that’s obviously false you have to move the goal posts and dick around as described above. The fact that after twenty years MG shows up, yet again, to a thread where people have put a lot of effort into contesting his mistaken notions, and starts spewing BS again, BS that has been repeatedly debunked, just goes to show you that he’s not a serious man.

- Doc

[MG 2.0]

I think posters here tacked down the issue of what faith is - it’s really a matter of trust. And in order to maintain one’s trust in the “truth” claims of Mormonism and other religions, you simply have to make the conscious choice to mistrust people who have a better handle on whatever factual subjects than you do, and trust people who reaffirm your desire to believe in something that can’t be reliably verified or is outright bananas. You have to engage in wordplay, strain at gnats while ignoring the cureloms, and redefine reality to suit your narrative.

Mormonism is obviously false, but in order to keep the faith, to keep your trust in something that’s obviously false you have to move the goal posts and dick around as described above. The fact that after twenty years MG shows up, yet again, to a thread where people have put a lot of effort into contesting his mistaken notions, and starts spewing B.S. again, B.S. that has been repeatedly debunked, just goes to show you that he’s not a serious man.

- Doc

It is a matter of trust. The thing is, many people would question whether or not to trust you and your “better handle” on “factual subjects” than those that may take the position that a theistic view of the world and its purposes/creation is as a matter of ‘fact’ a reasonable position to take.

For example, on another thread I’ve mentioned Stephen Meyer and linked to two interviews he has participated in with atheists/Darwinists. His is an important voice.

Trust will vary from person to person in the facts at their disposal. At best, we will have folks agree to disagree. At worst we will see personal attacks and take downs based on in innuendo, incomplete information, and twisted logic.

I trust the science. I also have reason to trust in God. That’s where we differ. I am perfectly willing to let you take your course even though I believe you are gravely mistaken. That is why I show up here. I believe others/lurkers ought to be able to make up their own minds in relation to differing points of view as they might be encouraged to go out and study MORE deeply and take time to look at ALL the information available.

GenZ, I’m afraid, is being somewhat hoodwinked into a purely materialistic and nontheistic worldview by the ‘powers that be’. Folks like Doc and others that promote a secular humanistic progressive liberal worldview.

I EXPECT to be told that I’m “full of crap”. Just another cancellation technique.

Regards
MG