2 Ne 2:13 last sentence

[Shulem]

All voices/context/information are welcome, right?

No.

Liars and cheats are not welcome. I prefer not to make conversation with liars and deniers like you.

Here is an example of someone who lies:

1. Fig. 2. King Pharaoh, whose name is given in the characters above his head.
2. Fig. 4. Prince of Pharaoh, King of Egypt, as written above the hand.
3. Fig. 5. Shulem, one of the king’s principal waiters, as represented by the characters above his hand.

Joseph Smith was a dirty f-ing liar. Period. You don't agree? Prove me wrong.

Just try. I'll swat you down like a fly. You, MG, are a bug.

[malkie]

There would be more discussion of topics if MG were banned.

Yep. You'd surely end up with one way results and narrowly approached topics without further context that critics might like to avoid (this is the root cause of why AI has been put into a box).

C'mon, sock puppet. That's obvious. It doesn't take an ivory tower degree to figure that out.

Reminds me of something that was prevalent in the United States until recently. Cancel culture.

We don't want to go there. Do we?

Regards,
Mg

My emphasis.

By continuing to make this complaint, I believe that you are, in effect, calling many of your fellow board members liars.

[Morley]

MG: If one smoking gun shouldn't be enough to "throw the Restoration narrative under the rug," how many smoking guns should there be? Are two smoking guns sufficient? Or should it take three or four? It's not really a question for most of us--because we're facing an entire infantry division of smoking guns.

But since you frame it this way, I'm curious. How many smoking guns would it take for you to change your mind and give up on Joseph and Brigham? I suspect that there's nothing that would make you budge. You could be staring down an entire nuclear annihilation of smoking guns and you wouldn’t waver. Am I right?

My experience has been that when the dust settles after presentation of "smoking guns" many if not most of the so-called problems dissapate and/or go away when more context or information is given. That's why I'm such a proponent of "more information is better". In my opinion, there have been many times on this board when I've provided more information and context to a so-called problem the 'smoking gun' turns out to have been a cap gun or smoke machine set up by someone to cause a distorted view of 'the facts'.

I suppose, in answer to your question, I would say that if someone came along with a plausible alternative that explains the whole Restoration narrative/story, including the spiritual/experiential side, better than the one that believing Latter-day Saints accept, I'd have to give things fiftieth or fifty-first look (I've already been through one through forty-nine ).

As it is, most critics tend to focus on one thing at a time intending...wanting(?)... that thing to be the ONE thing that proves that the Restoration narrative has been cooked up as a fraud by self serving power hungry individuals seeking fame, fortune, and power. It really doesn't look that way to me.

And I've looked forty-nine times so far.

I think there are not a few people that have gotten to number four, five, or six and jumped out of the Good Ship Mormon. Not to say that others have given it a more in depth look. Unless one meets another individual face to face, however, it's difficult to know. Folks here like to give off the persona of being way up past fifty.

But then there's methods and means to get to where one is, right?

[Blatant reference to the A.I. megathread deleted]

Regards,
MG

I'm still not sure why you would castigate someone who leaves for one good reason. You're saying your own one good reason would be "if someone came along with a plausible alternative that explains the whole Restoration narrative." Still, others' good reasons are not enough, and seem to bother you.

Those forty-nine smoking guns, the ones that weren't enough to chase you away, were apparently sufficient to coax others to leave. It makes sense to me. But not to you.

Let me try to reason this out. I guess there could be other explanations. Perhaps you have a higher threshold for moral ambiguity than others--and the Church's sins just don't bother you that much. Or maybe it's because you're smarter than the rest of us and are able to suss out things that confuse everyone else. It could be that you're discounting other's lived experiences. Or it might be that, unlike you, we're all sinners. Maybe you're the only person who understands nuance. Or that we don't get the depth of your spiritual experience. Or it could even be that after forty-nine times of the Holy Ghost witnessing to you and whispering for you to leave, that you enjoy turning your back on him. There are so many choices.

But never mind. I think you should rant away about it some more. Only, please, if you would: Tell us why.

[Morley]

[Blatant reference to the A.I. megathread deleted]

Why the ever-living-fork does anyone have an obligation to engage your AI?

[MG 2.0]

[Blatant reference to the A.I. megathread deleted]

Why the ever-living-fork does anyone have an obligation to engage your AI?

They don't. Not when it is over in/at a self selected thread. I might possibly, at times (if it's not against the rules), lead and/or point someone over there...but not link. Someone would have to self select the AI megathread, not link to it.

No one is under any obligation to that. If they want to ignore it that's their/your own choice.

Clear enough?

Regards,
MG

[MG 2.0]

Yep. You'd surely end up with one way results and narrowly approached topics without further context that critics might like to avoid (this is the root cause of why AI has been put into a box).

C'mon, sock puppet. That's obvious. It doesn't take an ivory tower degree to figure that out.

Reminds me of something that was prevalent in the United States until recently. Cancel culture.

We don't want to go there. Do we?

Regards,
Mg

My emphasis.

By continuing to make this complaint, I believe that you are, in effect, calling many of your fellow board members liars.

You would be wrong. Selective, at times, in the information provided? Sure. I've seen that.

If anything it's the sin of omission. But I wouldn't call it outright lying.

Regards,
MG

[MG 2.0]

I think you should rant away about it some more.

Here we are. Back to "ranting". Other people can express themselves and condemn leaders of the church, its doctrines, or its members. Yeah, that's fine.

But I'm "ranting"? C'mon Morley. Don't cave into taking the easy way out.

I'm not ranting. That is a mischaracterization.

I could point to many instance of other posters ranting however. But I'm not gonna' do it. It's a waste of time and doesn't go anywhere. Life has been much better since limiting my exposure and communication with some posters.

Basically, you've been mostly civil.

One poster (that I will very rarely interact with anymore) in the last couple of days seems to have gone stark raving mad though. I hope they're OK. Seriously. Sheesh. I'm not worth that much attention.

Regards,
MG

[Morley]

But I'm "ranting"? C'mon Morley. Don't cave into taking the easy way out.

I'm not ranting. That is a mischaracterization.

You're right to correct me. It wasn't ranting as much as it was whinging.

What's your response to the rest of my post? Here it is again:

I'm still not sure why you would castigate someone who leaves for one good reason. You're saying your own one good reason would be "if someone came along with a plausible alternative that explains the whole Restoration narrative." Still, others' good reasons are not enough, and seem to bother you.

Those forty-nine smoking guns, the ones that weren't enough to chase you away, were apparently sufficient to coax others to leave. It makes sense to me. But not to you.

Let me try to reason this out. I guess there could be other explanations. Perhaps you have a higher threshold for moral ambiguity than others--and the Church's sins just don't bother you that much. Or maybe it's because you're smarter than the rest of us and are able to suss out things that confuse everyone else. It could be that you're discounting other's lived experiences. Or it might be that, unlike you, we're all sinners. Maybe you're the only person who understands nuance. Or that we don't get the depth of your spiritual experience. Or it could even be that after forty-nine times of the Holy Ghost witnessing to you and whispering for you to leave, that you enjoy turning your back on him. There are so many choices.

But never mind. I think you should rant away about it some more. Only, please, if you would: Tell us why.

Basically, you've been mostly civil.

Alas, for the most part, you are not. I try to respond to you anyway.

[malkie]

My emphasis.

By continuing to make this complaint, I believe that you are, in effect, calling many of your fellow board members liars.

You would be wrong. Selective, at times, in the information provided? Sure. I've seen that.

If anything it's the sin of omission. But I wouldn't call it outright lying.

Regards,
MG

Let me be more explicit, then. Shades has explained over and over "the root cause of why AI has been put into a box", You don't believe him - fine in and of itself. But you keep bleating that it's to put you at a disadvantage, that it's to disallow "further context that critics might like to avoid", and in that you are tacitly calling Shades a liar.

I agree with Shades. Am I a liar too? What about others who agree with Shades? All liars as well?

[MG 2.0]

Basically, you've been mostly civil.

Alas, for the most part, you are not. I try to respond to you anyway.

Oh well. See ya' round.

Regards,
MG