Clarification so as to be clear.

[Limnor]

There are times when I feel really sorry for the emptor

Me too malkie. It’s a trap.

[I Have Questions]

I listened to a podcast yesterday about a 72-year-old man who had spent most of his life in prison for a crime he said he didn't commit. He was offered parole if he would just 'own up' to a heinous murder that had been committed. He said over and over again that he couldn't admit to something that he didn't do.

Interesting, what was the podcast and who was the man?

I’m going to assume this is the case MG is referring to.

Nearly five decades after he was wrongfully convicted of rape, a New York judge has overturned the conviction of Leonard Mack following new DNA testing that eliminated him as the perpetrator and identified a different man who has since confessed to the crime, prosecutors announced.

Mack, 72, served more than seven years in New York prison after a jury found him guilty of a 1975 rape of a high school girl in Greenburgh and a related weapons charge, according to the Westchester County District Attorney’s Office.

What I found really interesting was what caused the wrongful conviction and how it was overturned.

After opening a review of Mack’s claim to innocence last year, the district attorney’s office conducted DNA testing that “conclusively excluded” Mack as the rapist and also found that the initial investigation and prosecution relied on eyewitness identifications that were “tainted by problematic and suggestive procedures used by the police,” the office said in a release.

The parallels to the Book of Mormon are glaringly obvious. Unreliable eye witness testimony, manipulated by someone with a vested interest in what the eye witnesses said, refuted by objective evidence.

Thank you MG for providing this excellent example of why people should be skeptical of the Book of Mormon witnesses, and instead look to more independent, objective information.

[MG 2.0]

The recent emphasis on temporary truths seems to be leaning that way.

It is baffling to me why anyone would place confidence in such a system.

Bedrock truths remain the same. Otherwise, I agree, it would be baffling.

Regards,
MG

[Marcus]

There are times when I feel really sorry for the emptor

Me too malkie. It’s a trap.

My favorite post-movie version:

Between this and his quoting Kahn at Wil Wheaton (who played himself), I can't love the BBT writers anymore.

Sheldon Cooper:
Wil Wheaton, my old friend. I've chased you 'round the moons of Nibia and 'round the Antares Maelstrom and 'round Perdition's Flames!

Raj Koothrappali:
You know, you keep quoting "Wrath of Khan" but he was in "Next Generation?" It's a totally different set of characters.

Sheldon Cooper:
Silence!

[Limnor]

lol

[MG 2.0]

Had to take your clown show to a new thread, huh?

Ad hominem mockery will only get you so far. Or take us/you backwards. You are apparently trying to reassert dominance as you signal to other readers that my post isn't actually worth engaging in on its merits.

As of yet, I hadn't put you on ignore. I will have to rethink that. If I do put you on ignore, you along with some others will be free to continue this strategy which I have underlined above. Hopefully, reasonable people can see it for what it is. Spectacle over substance.

You could do better. We shall see.

Marcus, IHQ, Wang, and some others are pro's at creating spectacle over substance and using rhetorical devices to try and reassert dominance without substantively engaging. It has become transparent enough that I have decided not to engage them, along with a couple of others.

Regards,
MG

*bump

I have noticed a number of posts made by a certain poster or two that have taken advantage of the fact that I have said I will no longer converse with them and not take the time to run through all of their posts. The reasons for doing so...I have laid out previously. The result is that some posters are stooping to calling me a "hack" and other Ad hominems. One poster is back to...rather than responding to my post...simply keeping count of the number of posts I've made as though that is some kind of 'black spot' against me. Sheesh.

I've said that I will not directly respond to those posters when they are making threads 'about MG'. I do feel, however, that I should periodically point out what they are doing and the fact that much of what they have to say is mostly empty rhetoric and not worth spending time with. I've learned this through sad experience and know from whence I speak.

I need to point out Limnor as being an interesting poster with contributions that really do add to the overall 'worth' of the substance of some of the threads. I don't agree with his conclusions and hypotheses but his contributions are 'food for thought'. More than can be said of some other posters who focus more on 'the person' rather than the topic/subject. Posting has been much more enjoyable without having to or feeling obligated to respond to the riff raff/attack contributions of those with vendettas/grudges.

That's all on this for now. Thank you for your time.

Regards,
MG

[I Have Questions]

One poster is back to...rather than responding to my post...simply keeping count of the number of posts I've made as though that is some kind of 'black spot' against me. Sheesh.

Stop lying. It’s not “rather than responding to my posts”, it’s “as well as responding to my posts”. And your prolific posting volumes IS a black mark against you because you started a thread criticising posters for how often they posted and to tell them they should post less and do more real life stuff. Not practicing what you preach IS a black mark against you. It shows a lack of integrity.

[Marcus]

If the baseline truths can be shifted - including changes to foundational truths - “revelation” becomes a mechanism of adaptation and doesn’t place a great value on absolute truth.

While that can make sense within a theology that treats truth as progressive, it also complicates bedrock claims of consistency and continuity.

Because, under those conditions, revelation is able to redefine the foundation it builds on.

Houses built on sand and all that.

If the brethren one day said the Book of Mormon was a catalyst towards establishing revelation, I’d expect the majority of the faithful to nod in agreement.

That potentiality is fascinating to me.

The recent emphasis on temporary truths seems to be leaning that way.

It is baffling to me why anyone would place confidence in such a system.

I agree. In the last several days, however, the major proponent of this system who posts here has posted an astonishing array of his opinions, defining them as truths. (the ones explaining that god is pushed around by people, and is overly sensitive to human's opinions about his godly decisions were priceless.)

Somehow this system has given this poster the confidence to simply make up supernatural attributes, so why wouldn't they stick with such a system? On the other hand, they were born into it and every relative they know of is LDS, so why not go along with the flow?

Personally, I define that as intellectual dishonesty in the extreme. I don't think this poster is fully comfortable in that religious milieu, hence his need to come here and express his disdain for those he is so very sure (but not really) are inferior to him. I walked away from that exact religious environment decades ago, and I have never regretted it.

[huckelberry]

The recent emphasis on temporary truths seems to be leaning that way.

It is baffling to me why anyone would place confidence in such a system.

I agree. In the last several days, however, the major proponent of this system who posts here has posted an astonishing array of his opinions, defining them as truths. (the ones explaining that god is pushed around by people, and is overly sensitive to human's opinions about his godly decisions were priceless.)

Somehow this system has given this poster the confidence to simply make up supernatural attributes, so why wouldn't they stick with such a system? On the other hand, they were born into it and every relative they know of is LDS, so why not go along with the flow?

Personally, I define that as intellectual dishonesty in the extreme. I don't think this poster is fully comfortable in that religious milieu, hence his need to come here and express his disdain for those he is so very sure (but not really) are inferior to him. I walked away from that exact religious environment decades ago, and I have never regretted it.e

Marcus, I understood MG to mean that God wants people and leaders to use there own mind and will so gives people ev en leaders space to move closer to understanding . This space creates incomplete teaching even allowing limited mistakes. I would not see this to be God being pushed around by people. It does see God respecting human freedom more than some fundamentalist thinking allows.

[Marcus]

I agree. In the last several days, however, the major proponent of this system who posts here has posted an astonishing array of his opinions, defining them as truths. (the ones explaining that god is pushed around by people, and is overly sensitive to human's opinions about his godly decisions were priceless.)

Somehow this system has given this poster the confidence to simply make up supernatural attributes, so why wouldn't they stick with such a system? On the other hand, they were born into it and every relative they know of is LDS, so why not go along with the flow?

Personally, I define that as intellectual dishonesty in the extreme. I don't think this poster is fully comfortable in that religious milieu, hence his need to come here and express his disdain for those he is so very sure (but not really) are inferior to him. I walked away from that exact religious environment decades ago, and I have never regretted it.e

Marcus, I understood MG to mean that God wants people and leaders to use there own mind and will so gives people ev en leaders space to move closer to understanding . This space creates incomplete teaching even allowing limited mistakes. I would not see this to be God being pushed around by people. It does see God respecting human freedom more than some fundamentalist thinking allows.

I'll have to disagree, Huckelberry. He was quite specific:

...There have been other times in early church history and beyond where the Lord may have given a signal/nudge towards one thing and because of the response of people with their own moral compasses composed and/or made of their own prejudices/biases/conditioning God either backs off or readjusts to the 'group dynamics' in play. How that all plays out in the mind of God vs. what's happening 'on the ground', I don't know (obviously)....

God backs off??? After giving what the leaders stated publicly was divine revelation??.

He attributes these made-up weaknesses of his god to try to justify a very harmful policy. From the same post:

...When it comes down to it, the policy caused significant pain, confusion, and alienation, not just for LGBTQ members and their families, but for many others who saw it as unjust.

The emotional toll may have outweighed the intended doctrinal clarity (doctrine which had its roots in revelation and scripture), prompting reconsideration...

Agency is a messy thing. How that dovetails with Divine Revelation/Inspiration is above my pay grade. As it is, things did work out the best that they could have under the circumstances while still adhering to core gospel principles and doctrines...

That's what I mean by having to pretzel beliefs into a virtually unrecognizable shape because he canNOT admit that his assumption about the LDS church may not be right. He has made up the wildest attributes, which of course he says have an explanation 'above his paygrade'.

He is making up attributes, says his god has them, and doesn't explain where or how he gets those ideas, other than the obvious. In other situations, he may state god does not have that attribute, or has a completely different theologically unsound explanation. There is no consistency to his flights of god-attribute fancy, other than so he can keep his assumptions intact. It's illogical and fallacious thinking.