Mentalgymnast - promoting the Moderate Mormon view.

[_grindael]

Be that as it may, it is what it is, right?

He admits that he's a weasel. Again.

[_mentalgymnast]

Be that as it may, it is what it is, right?

He admits that he's a weasel. Again.

Back around the end of August I said this:

I feel it unnecessary, especially in a public forum which has a reputation for being critical of the church and its leadership, to criticize and/or find fault with the Brethren. Same holds true to the church and its mission. Those in the audience that are respectful of that position will understand and not pursue their own agenda (finding fault with the Brethren) by using intimidation, 'gotcha questions' or other means, to try and 'force' me to do so. And yes, I know I will be called a weasel, or the like, by some folks for taking this position.

So be it.

And here we are...

Regards,
MG

[_mentalgymnast]

I love how the weasel can mind read the "critics" and claim what they like or do not like. Another silly assumption by the weasel.

Again. And again.

Regards,
MG

[_mentalgymnast]

When you demonstrate, consistently, the ability to interact with posters on this board with integrity and intellectual honesty...

Still not going to answer my questions, I see.

...I'll reply in kind.

You're usually pretty upfront. I don't understand what's up with not answering my questions. Especially where you have now evaded doing so three or four times, if I'm not mistaken.

Until you do, you're simply a troll who serves merely as a foil to show the lurkers the imbecilic nature of apologetics.

Repeat that enough times and you and your ilk will believe it.

At your next temple recommend interview you'll be asked if you are honest in your dealings with your fellow man.

Thanks for that heads up. Although, truth be told, it's only been a few months ago that I had the TR interview. I remember that question quite well. It's one that I take seriously.

You aren't [honest].

I am.

Your answer should be no.

I hope you understand how silly you're sounding right about now.

Well, if you're being truthful to your God that is.

Here's the thing, IHAQ. I believe that 'my' God is 'your' God too. And I wouldn't lie to my God or yours.

I'll asses samples of your postings over time to see if you are capable of being a poster with whom it's worth interacting.

Oh my. Aren't you the arrogant one? I didn't correct your "asses" misspelling. I thought it was appropriate to leave it as it is...considering who's mouth it's coming from.

Of course, for the benefit of the audience you claim to have...

They are your audience too, IHAQ. I don't lay claim to having any 'groupies'...although my bet is, that you do.

I reserve the right to point out to them when you're talking out of your ass...

Not sure if you're tongue in 'cheek' here. (Pun intended)

But I think you may be.

...but I'd request you don't reply to me until I've signed off on your probation.

I'll do whatever I dang well please.

What's a male board nanny called?

This has evolved into an unproductive use of time, wouldn't you say?

Just say you don't want to answer the questions rather than saying you did. Here they are again:

First iteration:

If you don't mind me asking, which went first...Christianity or the Mormon Flavor of Christianity? Did the shelf building in Christianity act as a catalyst in bringing down Mormonism...or vice versa? I would imagine/think that one of the two went down first.

Second iteration:

What I'm asking is what was the order in which the "obvious evidentiary conclusion [didn't] support what [you] wanted to believe in the first place." Which took the fall first? Christianity or the Mormon Flavor of Christianity? Did one impact/cause the fall of the other...or did they both take the fall off the shelf at the same time?

Then you said:

I’ve answered/responded/replied to your question/enquiry. You might not like/agree/understand/comprehend my answer, but an answer you have had.

I asked you to at least cut and paste your answer...since I apparently either missed it or didn't "comprehend" it, as you said.

Anyway, I'm willing to let you off the hook if you are hesitant about sharing your experience. I understand that it is difficult to do in a public setting. Vulnerability has its risks.

I ought to know, right?

Regards,
MG

*last bump

[_Doctor CamNC4Me]

Another claim, and then an abstraction. Same ____, going on 11 years, different day.

- Doc

I know it drives you nuts.

Be that as it may, it is what it is, right?

Regards,
MG

I don't know if it drives me nuts, so much as it underscores what you've been doing for years. For example, if you really had a moderate position, anywhere, you'd simply recall a thread or post and link it. Too easy.

But you don't. So, you just repeat, ad nauseum, some dumb thing, and basically go on repeater mode. To call you simple would be an insult to simpletons. You're Mormon.

- Doc

[_grindael]

Again. And again.

Yes, again and again you admit to being a weasel and by posting that, a liar to boot.

[_grindael]

*last bump

Why lie? You never tell the truth so there is no reason to believe you this time, poor little weasel.

[_Lemmie]

*last bump

Why lie? You never tell the truth so there is no reason to believe you this time, poor little weasel.

He's gone into full parroting mode again. The only reason he's pretending someone isn't answering his questions is because he just went through a bout of not answering questions himself.

Really though, lecturing people about sex and language, only to make two extremely crude jokes, and then to comment on how satisfying it was to do that even though he knows he shouldn't, is about as hypocritical as a person can be. I'm thinking his calling people "purveyors of sin and sodomy" was just projection of his own conflict, not an actual observation of others.

[_mentalgymnast]

...he's pretending someone isn't answering his questions...

No pretense.

...[MG made] two extremely crude jokes, and then to comment on how satisfying it was to do that even though he knows he shouldn't, is about as hypocritical as a person can be.

I've already commented on that. And I'm happy to let others go back and read exactly what I DID write and decide for themselves whether or not there were "two extremely crude jokes". Oh, and while they're at it...go back to IHAQ'S "little candle" references...and a few other 'choice' comments he's made recently. Why didn't you berate him for those 'crude joke(s)' which were in very poor taste?

A different standard? Yep.

Again, I've commented on this upthread and am not going to comment further. If you feel like you need to make this an ongoing issue, that's up to you. You will have the last word on this.

I'm thinking his calling people "purveyors of sin and sodomy" was just projection of his own conflict, not an actual observation of others.

And now we have the psychobabble routine again. There is no conflict. And the "observation" is not a 'point in fact' that the poster in question is a "purveyor of sin and sodomy".

Sheesh. I think I've mentioned to you before that you are a master at dancing/performing the 'twist and shout'.

Amazing. That we've gone this far over a simple request to answer some simple question(s)...which were not answered...even though it was asserted that they were.

I suppose I should have just let it go when the poster in question didn't answer my question(s) the first time. I may have made too much out of it. I plead guilty on that count.

Moving on...

Regards,
MG

[_mentalgymnast]

...if you really had a moderate position, anywhere, you'd simply recall a thread or post and link it...[/i].

Let me ask you this. How would you define a Moderate Mormon...assuming that there is such a creature?

Not Middle Way, mind you. Moderate.

Regards,
MG