There's not a damn Mormon on here worth engaging with...

[_KimberlyAnn]

Moksha is a man. I peeked behind the fig leaf and all I can say is, "Yee Haw!"

Also, your thread may or may not be your most unbecoming, but the title is by far your most unbecoming. What's with the preposition dangling there on the end? That may be an arcane rule, and I agree that sometimes ending with a preposition is fine, but not in the case of your thread title. The "with" is completely unnecessary. "There's not a damn Mormon here worth engaging." That would have been much better, and may have attracted Mormons to debate who are disinclined to engage ex-Mormons with bad grammar.

KA

[_KimberlyAnn]

I missed the memo where "wet exmo" was defined. Did Abman actually give it up?

Sethbag, I'll go in with you to hire Hassan to rescue Abman. :)

KA

[_rcrocket]

Where are the Mormons you can have a rational conversation with about Mormonism?

Because your opening posts are lessons in unfocused verbosity, and then you rarely do much more than post an opening post.

As I recall, in the past, I offered to go mano to mano on any point you wished. After all, I am a multiple-published FARMS author, multiply-published in my professional field, a former college (well community) professor and admitted to the US Supreme Court and have appeared there. But, you demurred. You just like to pick your adversaries.

Start a new OP; try to limit your bleh to one particular topic, and let's have at it.

rcrocket

[Reflexzero]

I think you can have a pretty rational conversation with Jason Bourne. And Doctor Stuess. And Cinepro. And, I think, Asbestosman. Note that each of these people I think would admit to disbelieving quite a few things that most chapel Mormons would claim is ironclad truth.

Wow, Seth, thank you for the compliment (really… I’m a bit gob-smacked).

And yes, you are correct that I would admit to disbelieving quite a few things that most chapel Mormons would claim is ironclad truth. In the end there’s nothing I “know,” as I haven’t been dead nor do I remember half the stuff that happened last week (not to mention what supposedly happened prior to my mortal existence). For some odd reason though, I keep believing much (with considerable effort). I guess I’m just a hopeful agnostic pantheistic deistic mystic Mormon trying to make sense of it all.

Doc Stuess --> Inactive Jack NOM

I don't know that I'm a New Order Mormon. Just too lazy to shower and get out of my PJs on Sundays.

And Tal,
Perhaps there hasn’t been a wealth of things from you worth engaging, eh? We all have our little “pet topics.” Mine are more-so ancient Judaism and first century Christianity (and early Christian mysticism), and of course early Mormon history (in particular OP Rockwell). If you want to discuss one of those topics, I’d be more than happy to “engage” you… but I imagine it would only lead to disappointment as the well has already been laced with a carcinogen.

All-in-all though, I don't engage in "apologetics" here, as that's not why I participate on this board. I'm in it for the chicks. That, and once your ego enters a thread, it's kind of hard to find room to squeeze in a post (unbecoming statements like company, don't they[?]).

[Guest]

I embrace my poor grammar!

Like KA said, Moksha is a man. I adore asbestosman and he's quite creative which I enjoy, immensely. BCSpace has a special lil spot that is nestled in my chest cavity when he reminds me I'm an ugly feminist -- for that alone he is one of my favorite LDS! Gaz is our resident scripture provider. Nehor is quite deep in the LDS theological mind screw. He sits right up there with Hammer with being a fervent believer, yet, he's just not as nasty, and at times he's rather witty. Coggies is a joy to read as he brings a predictability that is quite amusing, to me, for some odd reason, or another. Rcrockett gives ample of snort worthy material. Stu, is a lovely LDS -- the first I ever conversed with on Mad, if I recall correctly, and I consider him rather fun, witty, intelligent, and insightful.

There's quite a few believers that I enjoy conversing with.

[_harmony]

Where are the Mormons you can have a rational conversation with about Mormonism?

How very nice for you... you're so high above us all. Is this a preliminary thread to you high-tailing it out of here again? Or has MAD banned you permanently, so there's really not that many places left where just about everyone isn't just like you?

A lesson in manners: one must first be what one wants the other to be. Only at that point can one complain about what the other is not.

[_KimberlyAnn]

<--------------------------------------------------------- The feet of one of Stu's chicks.



Kimberly Ann

[_Jason Bourne]

You are about to read my most unbecoming post ever (and that's really saying something :P).

There doesn't seem to be one damn Mormon on here worth engaging with seriously about the church.

Nehor seems like a nice enough guy - but that's probably because he doesn't seem to take the church all that seriously. Moksha likes to imagine she's a Mormon even though she rejects Mormonism's most fundamental authority claims. BCSpace sounds like a total pothead, spontaneously inventing pure nonsense and believing it as though it were a collection of the most profound insights ever.

Coggins sounds like one of those older inactive guys who just sits around reading church books, fancying himself a real expert on everything, a guy who's gotten just to that point where Mormonism seems to make sense, but hasn't taken that next step of analysis, which would reveal that it makes no sense at all. Schryver kind of reminds me of myself as a Mormon, though I'm sure he would snort at that. He says many of the same sorts of things I used to.

For reasons of charity, Wade's comments probably shouldn't even be responded to, ever. I've never seen Ray A produce one original, thought-provoking comment on Mormonism, ever. Charity - 'nuff said.

Where are the Mormons you can have a rational conversation with about Mormonism?

I am not sure what to make of the fact that you left me out. Some of your topics bore me. Some of the topics where I have responded to you, you have tended to ignore. So maybe I don't meet you ideal of worthy of discussion.

Frankly, and I think I can be frank since you are, I find many of your comments naïve and immature. You have tunnel vision. On a recent thread you made a long list of what the Church had changed. Sorry I have not had time to respond to that. Some of the things you listed were valid. A number were just plain silly. But I understand how difficult this is. In a Church that teaches pretty much black and white it is hard to be an in betweener. And often, after one reaches a point where for them the Church is just not what they thought it was they often end up where you and many others are at. Few seem to be able to be a NOMer sort of like I have chosen.

[_KimberlyAnn]

I embrace my poor grammar!

There's quite a few believers that I enjoy conversing with.

Moniker, you don't have bad grammar when you try! You've no choice but to end with a preposition after using the pronoun "that" in your sentence. You could have constructed it differently, more formally, but it's perfectly acceptable the way it is.

by the way, I've never noticed that you have bad grammar. Most of us use poor grammar at times, anyway. I just think it's inadvisable to use poor grammar when one complains that there are no conversation-worthy Mormons on the board.

KA

[_Canucklehead]

I guess I’m just a hopeful agnostic pantheistic deistic mystic Mormon trying to make sense of it all.

LOL