Mormonism's OA and the mighty F-S chain

[MG 2.0]

It's time again to repeat from an earlier dedicated thread to this unfortunate dynamic which we see playing out on this board.

We have some folks, just a few, that are unable to let bygones be bygones. They amplify something that occurred in the past...from their own perspective, of course...and then bring it into discussions years later. Knowing that it is only their word against mine in regard to ALL that transpired in a distant past of which we have very little record of at this point. Few isolated posts can be brought to the forefront in which, yes, there were words going back and forth, but no evidence that there was an ongoing ONE WAY effort to tear another down. I, of course, will defend the message and meaning of the Restoration narrative. That should come as no great surprise. I may also, in the heat of battle, call someone out for what I believe to be a false representation of the truth that many hold dear.

But to continually bring back and regurgitate, ad nauseam, something that happened in the past without having full context can be seen as an effort in futility to prove something that was essentially non existent. At least not in the way it is portrayed.

Some posters would like to paint me as a monster with no feelings or empathy for others (such as has been demonstrated by the poster I am indirectly responding to) knowing full well that I, along with others, expressed sympathy and sadness at the passing of an individual who once posted on this board. A person that I had absolutely no idea was going through an ac cute/chronic health issue. His death took me by surprise as I'm sure it did some others.

I would hope this can all be put to rest rather than continually dredged up to "stir the pot" and create bad feelings.

Regards,
MG

[MG 2.0]

Please, let this thread follow its intended trajectory and do not let one poster take it another direction as they step in to throw mud at another poster over past grievances.

I will not go back and forth on this. I do feel it necessary, however, as I have at other times, to step in and protect my good name.

Thank you.

Regards,
MG

[Limnor]

You mentioned something about tracking Joseph's theology with his life events, this is a project of Shulem. I recently read this one:

viewtopic.php?f=3&t=154325

Shulem makes a fascinating suggestion that Joseph began to depart from traditional Christian teachings about God after his purchase of the Egyptian papyri. The mystery of the pictures inspired his imagination.

That thread is fascinating. Great analysis.

[Limnor]

in the heat of battle

Seems a bit oversold.

[MG 2.0]

in the heat of battle

Seems a bit oversold.

Maybe. Maybe not. There are definitely some that would not think so.

Regards,
MG

[I Have Questions]

Please, let this thread follow its intended trajectory and do not let one poster take it another direction as they step in to throw mud at another poster over past grievances.

I will not go back and forth on this. I do feel it necessary, however, as I have at other times, to step in and protect my good name.

Thank you.

Regards,
MG

You don’t have a good name. You’re known to tell lies. Repeatedly. To renege on self declared commitments. To repeatedly break board protocols. To bad mouth women. Etc etc etc.

[Marcus]

...Some posters would like to paint me as a monster with no feelings or empathy for others (such as has been demonstrated by the poster I am indirectly responding to) knowing full well that I, along with others, expressed sympathy and sadness at the passing of an individual who once posted on this board...

No, mentalgymnast didn't. Shortly after grin's death, mentalgymnast posted this bit of assholery:

I thought recently about the poster who went by ‘grindael’ and the huge amount of time he invested in besmirching the Prophet and the work which he performed to bring about the restoration of the gospel. And others who have done the same, but to little or no avail.

Multiple people expressed their dismay and disgust for his ugly jab in this thread:
viewtopic.php?f=4&t=664

So much so that he went back and edited his post. But his ugly intent remained, as he 'explained' himself:

... I had been thinking of this individual in question recently, and without thinking about the hurt it might cause for some, used him as an example representing the critics that have spent a lot of time besmirching Joseph Smith.

It is frustrating in the extreme to see a prophet of God (my opinion) harassed and hounded continuously. So yes, I see the individual in question as having been a devout critic of Joseph. And with the anniversary of the restoration coming up, I’ve been thinking more about him.

I went back and deleted reference to his name so that it doesn’t remain. I am sorry that mentioning a particular name was so disconcerting for those here. I would imagine that there is a degree of ‘protecting one’s own’ that goes into it...

Mentalgymnast's 'ends justify the means' excuse only emphasizes the ugliness of his comment.

[Gadianton]

MG, you've achieved one significant win in this discussion. My revised version of the presentation of the F-S chain will incorporate Blake.

But let me ask you something about Blake's work since you hold it in such high regard. In what way has Blake succeeded that Grindael failed? Other than by stipulation that anyone who defends your favorite incorporated religion is good and anyone who is against it is bad. When you say Grindael failed, you presumably mean he failed to deconvert most Mormons away from Mormonism. But Blake has failed on the same grounds, Mormons simply don't believe his theology. Nobody is converting to it. And it's made zero headway with Evangelicals, they still think Mormonism is weird and that Mormons aren't Christians. He's failed just like Grindael has failed. You only believe Blake on the hope that it makes Mormons look less theologically silly. Since you know nothing about theology, nothing about Aristotle or any church father, Blake hasn't filled any gaps you've ever had in your own thinking. And there is no evidence he's convinced anybody who does and thinks it's important.

[MG 2.0]

But Blake has failed on the same grounds, Mormons simply don't believe his theology.

Honestly, I don't think most members of the church even know who Blake Ostler is or what he's written.

Secondly, I don't think it really matters. Only to those that think Joseph Smith duped everyone. Everyone.

Regards,
MG

[MG 2.0]

MG, you've achieved one significant win in this discussion.

I'm not out to "win" anything as much as to simply provide more context and information to sift through. That is often a needed commodity on this board.

Regards,
MG