Mak's failed attempt at new Mormonism.

[_Jesse Pinkman]

I am not quitting because I used to believe that the LDS president and apostles had a red phone connection to Jesus that suddenly went on the fritz. I am quitting because this was an egregious abuse of the trust that is placed in them as men who exercise power as though they had such a special connection to Christ. In other words, the comprehensive nature of their authority over the lives of the members requires, in my view, an enormous amount of care in how they wield that authority, however ill founded their position may be. They have shown very clearly to me their failure to exercise the restraint that should accompany such power. History is full of examples of individuals or small groups who exercised unusual power over their peers, but such regimes have always been contingent upon them maintaining the appearance of a certain goodwill and restraint. Once this perception is dashed by egregious overreaching, the legitimacy of this benevolent tyranny is compromised.

This is beautifully worded, Kish. My feelings are parallel to yours.

[_Ceeboo]

Hey Lemmie!

(Did you see that I took your advice?)

Ceeboo, just to give another perspective

Why would you want to do that!
I already gave my perspective - the thinking is done!

(Kidding)

Ganging up on Sanctorian to force a concession is not really necessary when everyone has a chance to express their opinion.

"Ganging up on Sanctorian?"

Personally, I much prefer hearing from Kishkumen

Then I would suggest that you do just that.

Peace,
Ceeboo

[_Lemmie]

Hey Lemmie!

(Did you see that I took your advice?)

Ceeboo, just to give another perspective

Why would you want to do that!
I already gave my perspective - the thinking is done!

(Kidding)

Ganging up on Sanctorian to force a concession is not really necessary when everyone has a chance to express their opinion.

"Ganging up on Sanctorian?"

Personally, I much prefer hearing from Kishkumen

Then I would suggest that you do just that.

Peace,
Ceeboo

Oops, my bad,

Personally, I would much prefer hearing from Kishkumen and CeeBoo!!

; )

[_maklelan]

But if history repeats itself, most threads that Mak participates in will be derailed by his persecution complex and condescending responses. I guess you're right, he does make a good Mormon.

This is posted in the thread "Mak's failed attempt at new Mormonism," where this was the OP:

Mormon intellectuals took a beating this weekend. The updated church handbook sets new Mormonism back by decades. Instead of creating a church where the weird foundational truth claims are less important and being a good Christian is the goal of the religion, the LDS leadership dealt a knock out punch to Mak and his intellectual friends. It must be hard to have no influence in the COB at the end of the day.

Instead of responding to this juvenile lashing out, I shared a position that I didn't think would be too objectionable, only to be further denigrated by you. And now it's my fault that this thread has been "derailed" by your condescension and concern for my integrity? And I'm being condescending? I consider this to be actual condescension:

Surely a self proclaimed smart man as yourself doesn't believe a God really used a brown stone to produce scripture? No, I think you know better than that. I know you didn't come back to discuss doctrine as you like to avoid anything truly unique to Mormonism. Probably because you are too smart to really believe any of that garbage. It's just unfortunate that in your naïve youth you got suckered into baptism, mission and temple marriage. Now you're committed for life in a religion you don't fully believe and lack the integrity to cut ties.

My guess is you came to brag about some translation project you're working on that is truly meaningless in the grand scheme of things and this is the only place that will discuss it because it's related to Mormonism. It's too bad really, someone with your intellect has his skills wasted at the COB doing some Mormon project and not really contributing to the greatness of his education.

I predict you'll be gone as quick as you came back. It must be lonely in the southwest corner of the salt lake valley with no one to challenge your genius. Mormomism has created church friends for you, but no friends to mentally stimulate you. And so you fight the emptiness of the internets trapped in a hell only you can understand.

You going to blame me for derailing that thread in the OP, too?

[Guest]

I can hardly wait to hear Maklelan's take on this new development.

My take is that it is ill-conceived boundary maintenance and legal prophylaxis that will cause a great deal of harm.

My take is this - the Mormon leaders are visiting the sins of the fathers upon their children - that is Old Testament theology. Let me ask you this, if a young child reaches age 8, but his parents are separated and his Mormon father is living in a HETEROSEXUAL relationship with a woman he is not married to (the child living with his Mormon mother), I understand the LDS would still go ahead and baptize that child. On the other hand, of course, this would not be allowed in the case of a child whose father is living in a same sex relationship. I see a violating of civil rights there.

[_Markk]

My take is this - the Mormon leaders are visiting the sins of the fathers upon their children - that is Old Testament theology. Let me ask you this, if a young child reaches age 8, but his parents are separated and his Mormon father is living in a HETEROSEXUAL relationship with a woman he is not married to (the child living with his Mormon mother), I understand the LDS would still go ahead an baptize that child. On the other hand, of course, this would not be allowed in the case of a child whose father is living in a same sex relationship. I see a violating of civil rights there.

It is creating a new class of unworthy Mormons...they certainly did not learn from the last group of people they deemed unworthy.

[_Abaddon]

I read this whole damn thread.

What is wrong with me? Lol.

[_Ceeboo]

I read this whole damn thread.

What is wrong with me? Lol.

Peace,
Ceeboo

[_Servant]

My take is this - the Mormon leaders are visiting the sins of the fathers upon their children - that is Old Testament theology. Let me ask you this, if a young child reaches age 8, but his parents are separated and his Mormon father is living in a HETEROSEXUAL relationship with a woman he is not married to (the child living with his Mormon mother), I understand the LDS would still go ahead an baptize that child. On the other hand, of course, this would not be allowed in the case of a child whose father is living in a same sex relationship. I see a violating of civil rights there.[/quote]

Well, mak, what's your response to this? You always have something to say, and you know a lot of words, right? So, tell us your response to the above question. Will the Church endanger its tax exempt status by singling out a class of people (children of homosexuals) who are denied the full administration of ordinances due to the sins of a parent?

[_The Erotic Apologist]

My take is...blah...blah...blah...

I don't know for certain, but I suspect whatever creepy little cult you subscribe to is no less homophobic than the LDS Church. But on the off chance that I'm wrong, would you kindly summarize your fruity little cult's attitudes toward sexual relations between consenting homosexual adults?