I'm reviewing Dan McClellan's Book "The Bible Says So" Tonight on my BYP LIVE Show

[MG 2.0]

You'll notice he's already equivocating on what he said that people appreciated as a concession that the modern church was engaging in deception. in my opinion, he's trying to repair his reputation as someone who is intellectually dishonest without actually being intellectually honest.

TTOC

[I Have Questions]

I’m sorry but I don’t see it. Malkie tried to clarify what MG was saying, did all the legwork, and it’s resulted in MG saying “I don’t have much of a quibble…” That’s a long way short of “Yes Malkie, I agree with those statements 100%”. Try this, get MG 2.0 to agree that the current Prophet, and current Apostles, have lied, or have likely lied, to the members, and that it is wrong of them to have done so. Then we can talk about MG shifting ground.

You'll notice he's already equivocating on what he said that people appreciated as a concession that the modern church was engaging in deception. in my opinion, he's trying to repair his reputation as someone who is intellectually dishonest without actually being intellectually honest.

Absolutely. He’s trying to walk back already ambiguous language.

[MG 2.0]

You'll notice he's already equivocating on what he said that people appreciated as a concession that the modern church was engaging in deception. in my opinion, he's trying to repair his reputation as someone who is intellectually dishonest without actually being intellectually honest.

Absolutely. He’s trying to walk back already ambiguous language.

Waiting on your five examples.

Regards,
MG

[I Have Questions]

Absolutely. He’s trying to walk back already ambiguous language.

Waiting on your five examples.

Regards,
MG

What five examples?

[I Have Questions]

I’m sorry but I don’t see it. Malkie tried to clarify what MG was saying, did all the legwork, and it’s resulted in MG saying “I don’t have much of a quibble…” That’s a long way short of “Yes Malkie, I agree with those statements 100%”. Try this, get MG 2.0 to agree that the current Prophet, and current Apostles, have lied, or have likely lied, to the members, and that it is wrong of them to have done so. Then we can talk about MG shifting ground.

Five examples?

One thing to make clear. I think that full disclosure of all things at any and all times is potentially harmful. There are times when certain things are better off being held closely to the chest until the time is right. Otherwise more harm than good can be done. That is where there is a matter of trust and patience involved.

Now in regards to the angel and the flaming sword story we have multiple witnesses. Just as we do in early Nauvoo and Utah polygamy. In regards to polygamy we see some people with certain motives saying certain things and other people with conflicting motives saying other things. We then end up with conflicting stories/views that end up traveling through time up until our day. The flaming sword? That's a tough one to swallow. An angel? Not as tough if you believe in heavenly beings.

I'm willing to cut some slack in this instance/story because I don't know how much embellishment there is to the story over time. Joseph was reported to have seen an angel with a flaming sword. Whether he did or whether he didn't the 'greater good' was accomplished in encouraging the practice of polygamy in the early days of the church. Was that a good thing? Various opinions and various objectives/motivations.

How much was truth and how much was essentially untrue in regards to the angel with the sword? I can go either way. But if there was an angel in this instance I would have to trust that God knew what He was doing. But from the outside looking in it is troublesome I must admit.

I'm hesitant on going 100% good or 100% bad on things that come down to us through the lens of history which often have many moving parts and some that are hidden from view. Others are willing to take a stronger position in some situations and examples where historical figures are concerned. I think each example and situation needs to be looked at separately and in depth.

Anyway, five examples?

Regards,
MG

What five examples? What are you talking about?

[MG 2.0]

I’m sorry but I don’t see it. Malkie tried to clarify what MG was saying, did all the legwork, and it’s resulted in MG saying “I don’t have much of a quibble…” That’s a long way short of “Yes Malkie, I agree with those statements 100%”. Try this, get MG 2.0 to agree that the current Prophet, and current Apostles, have lied, or have likely lied, to the members, and that it is wrong of them to have done so. Then we can talk about MG shifting ground.

Five examples?

One thing to make clear. I think that full disclosure of all things at any and all times is potentially harmful. There are times when certain things are better off being held closely to the chest until the time is right. Otherwise more harm than good can be done. That is where there is a matter of trust and patience involved.

Now in regards to the angel and the flaming sword story we have multiple witnesses. Just as we do in early Nauvoo and Utah polygamy. In regards to polygamy we see some people with certain motives saying certain things and other people with conflicting motives saying other things. We then end up with conflicting stories/views that end up traveling through time up until our day. The flaming sword? That's a tough one to swallow. An angel? Not as tough if you believe in heavenly beings.

I'm willing to cut some slack in this instance/story because I don't know how much embellishment there is to the story over time. Joseph was reported to have seen an angel with a flaming sword. Whether he did or whether he didn't the 'greater good' was accomplished in encouraging the practice of polygamy in the early days of the church. Was that a good thing? Various opinions and various objectives/motivations.

How much was truth and how much was essentially untrue in regards to the angel with the sword? I can go either way. But if there was an angel in this instance I would have to trust that God knew what He was doing. But from the outside looking in it is troublesome I must admit.

I'm hesitant on going 100% good or 100% bad on things that come down to us through the lens of history which often have many moving parts and some that are hidden from view. Others are willing to take a stronger position in some situations and examples where historical figures are concerned. I think each example and situation needs to be looked at separately and in depth.

Anyway, five examples?

Regards,
MG

Bolded above.

Regards,
MG

[I Have Questions]

Five examples?

One thing to make clear. I think that full disclosure of all things at any and all times is potentially harmful. There are times when certain things are better off being held closely to the chest until the time is right. Otherwise more harm than good can be done. That is where there is a matter of trust and patience involved.

Now in regards to the angel and the flaming sword story we have multiple witnesses. Just as we do in early Nauvoo and Utah polygamy. In regards to polygamy we see some people with certain motives saying certain things and other people with conflicting motives saying other things. We then end up with conflicting stories/views that end up traveling through time up until our day. The flaming sword? That's a tough one to swallow. An angel? Not as tough if you believe in heavenly beings.

I'm willing to cut some slack in this instance/story because I don't know how much embellishment there is to the story over time. Joseph was reported to have seen an angel with a flaming sword. Whether he did or whether he didn't the 'greater good' was accomplished in encouraging the practice of polygamy in the early days of the church. Was that a good thing? Various opinions and various objectives/motivations.

How much was truth and how much was essentially untrue in regards to the angel with the sword? I can go either way. But if there was an angel in this instance I would have to trust that God knew what He was doing. But from the outside looking in it is troublesome I must admit.

I'm hesitant on going 100% good or 100% bad on things that come down to us through the lens of history which often have many moving parts and some that are hidden from view. Others are willing to take a stronger position in some situations and examples where historical figures are concerned. I think each example and situation needs to be looked at separately and in depth.

Anyway, five examples?

Regards,
MG

Bolded above.

Regards,
MG

I have no idea what you are asking. I could guess, I could speculate about what you are asking, but that’s unsatisfactory. Try and put it into a properly structured sentence so that I know exactly what it is you are asking me.

[Morley]

Absolutely. He’s trying to walk back already ambiguous language.

Waiting on your five examples.

Regards,
MG

Why your arbitrary "five examples"? One example of lying would demonstrate that they have lied.

[MG 2.0]

Bolded above.

Regards,
MG

I have no idea what you are asking. I could guess, I could speculate about what you are asking, but that’s unsatisfactory. Try and put it into a properly structured sentence so that I know exactly what it is you are asking me.

IHQ: I’m sorry but I don’t see it. Malkie tried to clarify what MG was saying, did all the legwork, and it’s resulted in MG saying “I don’t have much of a quibble…” That’s a long way short of “Yes Malkie, I agree with those statements 100%”. Try this, get MG 2.0 to agree that the current Prophet, and current Apostles, have lied, or have likely lied, to the members, and that it is wrong of them to have done so. Then we can talk about MG shifting ground.

Your words. I'm asking you a question.

What are five examples of the current prophet, and current apostles, lying or have likely lied, to the members, and that it was wrong of them to do so?

Is that clear enough now?

Regards,
MG

[I Have Questions]

I have no idea what you are asking. I could guess, I could speculate about what you are asking, but that’s unsatisfactory. Try and put it into a properly structured sentence so that I know exactly what it is you are asking me.

IHQ: I’m sorry but I don’t see it. Malkie tried to clarify what MG was saying, did all the legwork, and it’s resulted in MG saying “I don’t have much of a quibble…” That’s a long way short of “Yes Malkie, I agree with those statements 100%”. Try this, get MG 2.0 to agree that the current Prophet, and current Apostles, have lied, or have likely lied, to the members, and that it is wrong of them to have done so. Then we can talk about MG shifting ground.

Your words. I'm asking you a question.

What are five examples of the current prophet, and current apostles, lying or have likely lied, to the members, and that it was wrong of them to do so?

Is that clear enough now?

Regards,
MG

That's far clearer and far more polite. I’d hate to think you walk in the house and just blurt out “Dinner?” as some kind of demand of your wife.

The First Presidency have recently caused the Church to be fined $5 million for authorising a decades long complex web of shell companies, which coerced members to sign dishonest statements. All so that the Church could hide the true level of its hoarded wealth from the SEC and from members. I think that counts as an example. Don’t you?

Why do you need four more?