Mak's failed attempt at new Mormonism.

[_Ceeboo]

Hi Sanctorian!

Because I think it was probably good advice, I am going to take Lemmie's advice and cut you a little slack.

Thus, I passed on your last long post (I have major issues with it) and I will keep this one very short.

Thanks for asking, but I'll pass. You represent everything I hate about Mormonism.

in my opinion, we should all be very careful and we should all use extreme caution that we do not direct our personal emotions (no matter what those emotions happen to be) at other individual human beings.

Mak, among many other things, is a Mormon.

Mak is not Mormonism.

Peace,
Ceeboo

[_maklelan]

You represent everything I hate about Mormonism.

No, I don't. The version of me you've conjured up in your imagination does. Belligerently refusing to keep that demonstrable fact straight isn't healthy.

[_Darth J]

Can this thread get moved as a personal attack? There's absolutely no point to this except Sanctorian arbitrarily projecting his personal issues onto a person he doesn't know.

[_Darth J]

isn't healthy.

Oh, I'd say that train left the station a while ago.

[_Doctor CamNC4Me]

I vote to move the thread when Sanctorian starts asking Mak if he'd give blowies to a member of the 1st Presidency if directed to do so!

- Doc

[_Darth J]

I vote to move the thread when Sanctorian starts asking Mak if he'd give blowies to a member of the 1st Presidency if directed to do so!

- Doc

I'm happy to help you understand that. When there's a substantive issue being discussed as to whether someone has a sense of ethics beyond going along with whatever their church says, reductio ad absurdum is a legitimate way of exploring it. It's not remotely comparable to ranting and raving in a lengthy thread with no purpose besides the creepy decision to use a specific individual as a caricature that represents your personal emotional problems.

[_Doctor CamNC4Me]

I'm happy to help you understand that. When there's a substantive issue being discussed as to whether someone has a sense of ethics beyond going along with whatever their church says, reductio ad absurdum is a legitimate way of exploring it. It's not remotely comparable to ranting and raving in a lengthy thread with no purpose besides the creepy decision to use a specific individual as a caricature that represents your personal emotional problems.

IT'S JUST A PRANK, BRO!

Of course your postings are clear. I think Sanctorian is attacking Mak's posting here as being substantively empty. He's also using Mak's MDB persona as a whipping boy since Mak is the Schrodinger's Cat of Mormon apologists, and inevitably whatever one insinuates his meaning to be as derived by the plain words he posts here he'll inevitably cry foul and act like a maligned victim.

It's understandably frustrating and dishonest to a degree.

- Doc

[_Darth J]

He's also using Mak's MDB persona as a whipping boy

If someone started, and kept going and going and going, a thread singling out you specifically as a person he has built up in his mind as personifying everything he hates about former Mormons, would you be hearing scare chords? I would.

Particularly if you had shared your real name? Wouldn't you be creeped out by that?

[_RockSlider]

now wait a minute, seems I saw talk of a ball sack on this make believe person somewhere, and now talk of the penis test. How am I to interpret these sexual connotations of this person model?

I was watching this crazy show last night where these guys were in these confession type booths, but instead of a sliding mini window at face level, it was crotch level and they would hang their manliness out.

Is all this somehow related?

Sorry, country hick here.

[_Doctor CamNC4Me]

He's also using Mak's MDB persona as a whipping boy

If someone started, and kept going and going and going, a thread singling out you specifically as a person he has built up in his mind as personifying everything he hates about former Mormons, would you be hearing scare chords? I would.

Particularly if you had shared your real name? Wouldn't you be creeped out by that?

I would. But then again I wouldn't participate as much as Mr. Mak has participated, thus propagating the inevitable victim complex Mormons have perfected. I'm surprised people fall for it repeatedly, but it is what it is since this is really the only thing they (Mormon apologists) can do when it comes to the topic of Mormonism.

You'll note originally the thread was about the idea Mr. Mak was pushing for a kinder, more inclusive Mormonism and its subsequent failure as an idea thanks to the Church's new conservative policy on homosexuality. I'm pretty certain he played a large role in making it personal rather than discussing the topic and pushing for the topic to be talked about, rather than him being the point of discussion.

But, maybe I expect too much from someone who possesses multiple degrees and is regarded by this community as an intellectual?

Anyway. I see your point. I think you're probably a little heavy handed on this issue, but then again Sanctorian has gotten personal. I would like to see OP's topic discussed, but Mr. Mak has demonstrated he isn't interested in doing so.

- Doc