Really. Wow, that is an incredible lack of self-awareness. On the other hand, it is just what a troll would say, so again, I am not sure what we've got here.
If this is a troll, then he is representing his religion in the worst possible way.
What prompted this latest outburst was my pointing out that his defence of Joseph Smith’s ongoing embellishment of the First Vision narrative (MG stated that Joseph was just a child “a boy” when he had it) had the unfortunate consequence of therefore implicitly asserting that Joseph as a 37 year old man married and had sex with a child - Helen Mar Kimball was the same age at her marriage to 37 year old Joseph as Joseph was when he had the First Vision. If Joseph was a child at 14 years of age, so was Helen. So, caught in a trap of his own making, instead of explaining himself (because how could he?) he writes another long screed to try and blame others for his inability to respond.
Zone of the most disgusting things I have ever read from a Mormon came from mentalgymnast:
...One might safely make the conjecture that Joseph not would be obliged or feel it safe to propose to Emma and ask her that she be one of the first sealings. There was a bit of 'stuff' going on there. She would likely have refused. Without a doubt. Later, she was amenable...
mentalgymnast wrote this, referring to a time when Joseph Smith was already married to Emma. I can't even fathom a man who would speak about a woman like this, much less the wife of one he considers a prophet. I really feel sorry for any women in his life, how can they read this and think he has any respect for women??
What prompted this latest outburst was my pointing out that his defence of Joseph Smith’s ongoing embellishment of the First Vision narrative (MG stated that Joseph was just a child “a boy” when he had it) had the unfortunate consequence of therefore implicitly asserting that Joseph as a 37 year old man married and had sex with a child - Helen Mar Kimball was the same age at her marriage to 37 year old Joseph as Joseph was when he had the First Vision. If Joseph was a child at 14 years of age, so was Helen. So, caught in a trap of his own making, instead of explaining himself (because how could he?) he writes another long screed to try and blame others for his inability to respond.
Zone of the most disgusting things I have ever read from a Mormon came from mentalgymnast:
...One might safely make the conjecture that Joseph not would be obliged or feel it safe to propose to Emma and ask her that she be one of the first sealings. There was a bit of 'stuff' going on there. She would likely have refused. Without a doubt. Later, she was amenable...
mentalgymnast wrote this, referring to a time when Joseph Smith was already married to Emma. I can't even fathom a man who would speak about a woman like this, much less the wife of one he considers a prophet. I really feel sorry for any women in his life, how can they read this and think he has any respect for women??
How MG could "safely make the conjecture" that Emma "would likely have refused" is beyond me. Then he follows that "likely" determination with a more definitive but contradictory "Without a doubt."
It looks to me like pure speculation, asserted with, apparently, complete confidence.
You can help Ukraine by talking for an hour a week!! PM me, or check www.enginprogram.org for details. Слава Україні!, 𝑺𝒍𝒂𝒗𝒂 𝑼𝒌𝒓𝒂𝒊𝒏𝒊!
Zone of the most disgusting things I have ever read from a Mormon came from mentalgymnast:
mentalgymnast wrote this, referring to a time when Joseph Smith was already married to Emma. I can't even fathom a man who would speak about a woman like this, much less the wife of one he considers a prophet. I really feel sorry for any women in his life, how can they read this and think he has any respect for women??
How MG could "safely make the conjecture" that Emma "would likely have refused" is beyond me. Then he follows that "likely" determination with a more definitive but contradictory "Without a doubt."
It looks to me like pure speculation, asserted with, apparently, complete confidence.
Hi malkie, I've gone back and looked at the context of this clip. I would suggest others do also. There have been times when what I've said throughout a series of posts in a thread are then mismanaged and/or twisted to fit the narrative/needs of a poster trying to make something more out of something less. Two lines were clipped out of a post. Then a conclusion was made by a poster that I don't have any respect for women. The honest person will, after investigating, find that I'm being 'set up'.
Wouldn't be the first time. And again, for the third or fourth time in this thread...I will repeat...this is why I have decided not to communicate directly with certain posters. I've learned through sad experience that I am essentially communicating with certain people that are willing to lie or deal in half-truths to make a point. Others take it hook, line, and sinker without any question.
Obviously, I don't. But I'm not going to go around in circles. I would simply suggest that others do their due diligence to follow up on what some posters preach as 'gospel truth'.
How MG could "safely make the conjecture" that Emma "would likely have refused" is beyond me. Then he follows that "likely" determination with a more definitive but contradictory "Without a doubt."
It looks to me like pure speculation, asserted with, apparently, complete confidence.
Hi malkie, I've gone back and looked at the context of this clip. I would suggest others do also. There have been times when what I've said throughout a series of posts in a thread are then mismanaged and/or twisted to fit the narrative/needs of a poster trying to make something more out of something less. Two lines were clipped out of a post. Then a conclusion was made by a poster that I don't have any respect for women. The honest person will, after investigating, find that I'm being 'set up'.
Really? The mental gymnast would like his post to be looked at in context. Here it is:
... Emma threw Fanny out not long after she and Oliver made the observation of Joseph and Fanny in the barn. One might safely make the conjecture that Joseph not would be obliged or feel it safe to propose to Emma and ask her that she be one of the first sealings. There was a bit of 'stuff' going on there. She would likely have refused. Without a doubt. Late, she was amenable.
So, the context mental gymnast would like to be noted is that his previous sentence noted that a man was caught cheating on his wife. Then, he posts his disparaging remarks about Emma.
...And again, for the third or fourth time in this thread...I will repeat...this is why I have decided not to communicate directly with certain posters. I've learned through sad experience that I am essentially communicating with certain people that are willing to lie or deal in half-truths to make a point. Others take it hook, line, and sinker without any question.
Zone of the most disgusting things I have ever read from a Mormon came from mentalgymnast:
mentalgymnast wrote this, referring to a time when Joseph Smith was already married to Emma. I can't even fathom a man who would speak about a woman like this, much less the wife of one he considers a prophet. I really feel sorry for any women in his life, how can they read this and think he has any respect for women??
How MG could "safely make the conjecture" that Emma "would likely have refused" is beyond me. Then he follows that "likely" determination with a more definitive but contradictory "Without a doubt."
It looks to me like pure speculation, asserted with, apparently, complete confidence.
What might also be helpful is a direct link to the page within the thread where the quoted material is coming from. THEN highlight what was said. It's then easier to read everything that was said back and forth in context.
I can say, in advance, that I don't have any fear of having something I've said posted again as long as it is done so in a contextual manner where 'all is seen'.
How MG could "safely make the conjecture" that Emma "would likely have refused" is beyond me. Then he follows that "likely" determination with a more definitive but contradictory "Without a doubt."
It looks to me like pure speculation, asserted with, apparently, complete confidence.
What might also be helpful is a direct link to the page within the thread where the quoted material is coming from. THEN highlight what was said. It's then easier to read everything that was said back and forth in context.
I can say, in advance, that I don't have any fear of having something I've said posted again as long as it is done so in a contextual manner where 'all is seen'.
As I've said many times, more is better.
Regards,
MG
As I've said more accurately, and better able to be defended, more may be better, but is not guaranteed to be.
For example, in general, I believe that more a la Gad is more likely to be better than more from a lot of other posters, myself included.
You can help Ukraine by talking for an hour a week!! PM me, or check www.enginprogram.org for details. Слава Україні!, 𝑺𝒍𝒂𝒗𝒂 𝑼𝒌𝒓𝒂𝒊𝒏𝒊!
What might also be helpful is a direct link to the page within the thread where the quoted material is coming from. THEN highlight what was said. It's then easier to read everything that was said back and forth in context.
I can say, in advance, that I don't have any fear of having something I've said posted again as long as it is done so in a contextual manner where 'all is seen'.
As I've said many times, more is better.
Regards,
MG
As I've said more accurately, and better able to be defended, more may be better, but is not guaranteed to be.
For example, in general, I believe that more a la Gad is more likely to be better than more from a lot of other posters, myself included.
I also enjoy hearing what he has to say. I don't ignore him, even though I think he is mistaken in his conclusions in reference to Mormonism.
But I don't hold that against him.
Most of the time, with a few exceptions, he is rather civil. Although he does, at times, overstate things. But I can forgive him for that.
How MG could "safely make the conjecture" that Emma "would likely have refused" is beyond me. Then he follows that "likely" determination with a more definitive but contradictory "Without a doubt."
It looks to me like pure speculation, asserted with, apparently, complete confidence.
What might also be helpful is a direct link to the page within the thread where the quoted material is coming from. THEN highlight what was said. It's then easier to read everything that was said back and forth in context...
Direct links were given in every quote of the mental gymnast. Context was provided. This is standard mental gymnast obfuscation.
How MG could "safely make the conjecture" that Emma "would likely have refused" is beyond me. Then he follows that "likely" determination with a more definitive but contradictory "Without a doubt."
It looks to me like pure speculation, asserted with, apparently, complete confidence.
What might also be helpful is a direct link to the page within the thread where the quoted material is coming from. THEN highlight what was said. It's then easier to read everything that was said back and forth in context.
I can say, in advance, that I don't have any fear of having something I've said posted again as long as it is done so in a contextual manner where 'all is seen'.
As I've said many times, more is better.
Regards,
MG
*apparently that's not going to happen for some reason...
