Clarification so as to be clear.

[I Have Questions]

I suppose you could say that I was no different with and without the facial hair, but you could also justify the view that I had passed a "test" of obedience. OTOH, my wife, who had never known me without the beard, was not at all happy, for quite some time.

Unfortunate. Years ago while working as an educator I worked part time on the security staff at an LDS temple. During that time the grooming standards changed for male temple workers in that they could no longer have beards. At the time I thought that was like way weird.

Jesus had, and I would imagine still has, a beard. Although I would hazard a guess, he keeps it well cared for and within Godly standards.

One of life's great mysteries is why a beard on a resurrected individual would even need a trimming now and then...but I digress.

Regards,
MG

I think it’s a very good example of how the SLC LDS Church has mingled the teachings of Jesus with the philosophies of man to become a convoluted and corrupted pale imitation of Christ’s teachings. Jesus didn’t teach anything about hair length, naked shoulders, white shirts, body art, body jewellery, facial hair…etc. He wasn’t about outward appearance. Whereas the SLC LDS Church is obsessed about outward appearance.

[Marcus]

When I said that I thought you were trivializing the experiences and commitment of other people, I should have expected that you would double down, but I didn't - silly me!

I'll try to remember this example in the future.

Covenant theology such as that found in the LDS Church gives structure and spiritual weight to service, it’s not just about doing good, but about fulfilling a sacred promise to God. That said, I don’t believe that commitment outside that framework is trivial. People make profound sacrifices for causes, communities, and beliefs that matter deeply to them, and I respect that.

All I've done is try and articulate what makes LDS commitment/service distinct, not necessarily superior. I'm hoping that this might bring further clarification that might help resolve what you see as a problem.

Regards,
MG

It seems as though the mental gymnast has resorted to AI to apologize (sort of) for his most recent gaffes, although his rewrite is absurd. He wasn't simply articulating "what makes LDS commitment/service distinct", and his "clarification" isn't about "what you see as a problem", it's about his problem.

Back to his AI-generated apology, does it mean he is retracting this...

...If you go back and look at my last few posts, you might see that there has been at least a degree of reflection and even existential wrestling going on. Reducing it to a joke misses the depth behind faith commitments that members of the church have. That's why we go to church almost every Sunday while you're doing pretty much what you want, I would expect...

And this...

My point is that when someone is actively involved in the church it takes discipline, devotion, and a willingness to participate regularly in spiritual life practices which require a bit of sacrifice. It’s more or less an act of commitment and communal participation. Week after week and year after year. If a person doesn't have this commitment, they are able to "do pretty much what you want"...

??

It's too bad he can't figure out a way to review what he says before he posts it, instead of only after he gets called on it. On the other hand, it gives readers yet another look into the superiority some Mormons still exhibit. It's too bad it's put on full display by someone who, in my opinion, is just trolling.

[Gadianton]

While these responses aren't written in response to my point that LDS isn't spectacular by any standards worth talking about, why does a SoCal beach bum stand out in excellence above anybody else? They have taken a strange turn, however, to answer it.

The idea of "covenant" is introduced. It's an interesting suggestion and I admit I didn't see it coming. Once again, it's the ebb and flow of offensive and defensive positions of the apologist. The offensive is grand declarations, in this case, "let your light so shine" or "where much is given much is required." The real Christians will stand out by their great works. But when it's pointed out MG isn't doing anything special, the claim turns defensive. Whatever Marcus does for 2 hours on a Sunday might seem no less important than MG going to church for 2 hours (and spending all his time on his phone rather than listening) to outsiders, but MG's activities get a big boost once it's understood they occur as part of a covenant.

Apologist go on the offensive when they claim evidence that proves they are right. When the evidence is met with laughter, they go on the defensive and claim instead that they can't be proven wrong. Outsiders can't see the light radiating from Mormons because "oh wait, it's because you don't know about covenants, if you understood covenants, you'd see what I'm talking about."

[malkie]

I'll write a more complete answer later, Limnor. I just realized that I have created or at least failed to correct a misunderstanding, and I'd like to fix that. I was thinking about a particular situation in which a branch member came to me to confess a series of sins.

I did not, at any time, see my role as Branch President as standing between the members of my branch and God, rather, I was the local representative of the organization.

So when I told the person that there would be nothing for them to confess in the future regarding their actions, I was not telling them that their sins were forgiven - only that, as far as the church as an organization was concerned the matter was dealt with, and she was not being disciplined in any way. They still had to make themselves right with God, but I would not be recommending church court action, or restricting their membership in any way.

[malkie]

I'll write a more complete answer later, Limnor. I just realized that I have created or at least failed to correct a misunderstanding, and I'd like to fix that. I was thinking about a particular situation in which a branch member came to me to confess a series of sins.

I did not, at any time, see my role as Branch President as standing between the members of my branch and God, rather, I was the local representative of the organization.

So when I told the person that there would be nothing for them to confess in the future regarding their actions, I was not telling them that their sins were forgiven - only that, as far as the church as an organization was concerned the matter was dealt with, and she was not being disciplined in any way. They still had to make themselves right with God, but I would not be recommending church court action, or restricting their membership in any way.

However, a Bishop or above (e.g., Stake Pres, Mission Pres) can impose penalties that have eternal consequences. For example, If I recall correctly, excommunication breaks the bonds of sealings, and (in the case of an endowed member) cancels all eternal blessings, like entry to the Celestial Kingdom, and the priesthood authority of a man.

[Limnor]

Thank you for clarifying malkie, I really appreciate it.

That makes perfect sense, and I can see the distinction you’re drawing between organizational responsibility and spiritual accountability.

It sounds like you handled that situation with a lot of care and respect for both the individual and the limits of your role. I’ll look forward to your longer answer when you have time.

[MG 2.0]

I'm glad I started this thread and said what needed to be said back towards the beginning of the thread and a couple of other places along the way as the thread continued. I have gone back and looked at some of the posts, not all by any means, that some of those folks whom I have now blocked and will not communicate with (for reasons already stated), and believe my decision was justified. The innuendo and false accusations and twisting of my words continues among those few people. In the past I could have spent hours trying to untangle the twisted, and to put it simply, silly crap they threw my way. Truthfully, I think that others have been able to see it also but for the sake of protecting 'their own good name/reputation' will not actually say anything to stop what had (and apparently continues to be) been a waste of time for posters to read and have to muddle their way through.

Now folks can simply read the responses of some of these folks and simply make a decision/observation as to whether or not they are worth listening to on merit rather than the amount of crap that has been (and continues) to be thrown around.

As I've said, in life and online it is very difficult to have any kind of positive and/or productive relationship with someone that carries grudges and has a chip on their shoulder. I've found that any effort at trying to communicate effectively with these people is a lost cause from the beginning. Admittedly I fell into some of their purposefully laid out traps that I have described elsewhere, here and there, for the sake of trying to 'protect my own good name'.

Nothing stops them though.

Even though I'm not a diehard Trump supporter and disagree with some of the things he has done I do think that he has been, in some cases, unduly attacked over and over. Weaponization of government to take down opponents is bad for the country and weaponization against those that one doesn't agree with in online discussions is also bad. It shuts things down. Kind of like what we're seeing back in D.C. right now.

That's why I've decided to step back from the ongoing 'weaponization' against opponents that happens here. Communication has to be a two-way street with both 'sides' willing to honestly entertain questions from the 'other side'. In most cases I believe I have made an honest attempt to do so. I can't say the same thing for the 'other side' in regard to some participants on this board. Others, I've been able to go back and forth with and let the cards remain on the table after a 'back and forth' exchange of ideas. Other cannot LET GO and continue to run things into the ground dealing the 'Trump card' of shouting "TROLL!!" Or the final Trump card (which they believe to be the winning hand) of bringing up past grievances from a long while ago.

I'm done responding to that kind of crap or getting sucked into it even though I've seen/noticed, here and there, it continues anyway.

Such is life.

Regards,
So. Cal Beach Bum

P.S. I get so tired of having others put words in my mouth, by the way.

[I Have Questions]

I'm glad I started this thread and said what needed to be said back towards the beginning of the thread and a couple of other places along the way as the thread continued. I have gone back and looked at some of the posts, not all by any means, that some of those folks whom I have now blocked and will not communicate with (for reasons already stated), and believe my decision was justified. The innuendo and false accusations and twisting of my words continues among those few people. In the past I could have spent hours trying to untangle the twisted, and to put it simply, silly crap they threw my way. Truthfully, I think that others have been able to see it also but for the sake of protecting 'their own good name/reputation' will not actually say anything to stop what had (and apparently continues to be) been a waste of time for posters to read and have to muddle their way through.

Now folks can simply read the responses of some of these folks and simply make a decision/observation as to whether or not they are worth listening to on merit rather than the amount of crap that has been (and continues) to be thrown around.

As I've said, in life and online it is very difficult to have any kind of positive and/or productive relationship with someone that carries grudges and has a chip on their shoulder. I've found that any effort at trying to communicate effectively with these people is a lost cause from the beginning. Admittedly I fell into some of their purposefully laid out traps that I have described elsewhere, here and there, for the sake of trying to 'protect my own good name'.

Nothing stops them though.

Even though I'm not a diehard Trump supporter and disagree with some of the things he has done I do think that he has been, in some cases, unduly attacked over and over. Weaponization of government to take down opponents is bad for the country and weaponization against those that one doesn't agree with in online discussions is also bad. It shuts things down. Kind of like what we're seeing back in D.C. right now.

That's why I've decided to step back from the ongoing 'weaponization' against opponents that happens here. Communication has to be a two-way street with both 'sides' willing to honestly entertain questions from the 'other side'. In most cases I believe I have made an honest attempt to do so. I can't say the same thing for the 'other side' in regard to some participants on this board. Others, I've been able to go back and forth with and let the cards remain on the table after a 'back and forth' exchange of ideas. Other cannot LET GO and continue to run things into the ground dealing the 'Trump card' of shouting "TROLL!!" Or the final Trump card (which they believe to be the winning hand) of bringing up past grievances from a long while ago.

I'm done responding to that kind of crap or getting sucked into it even though I've seen/noticed, here and there, it continues anyway.

Such is life.

Regards,
So. Cal Beach Bum

P.S. I get so tired of having others put words in my mouth, by the way.

You've responded 3 or 4 times saying you’re done responding. You’re repeating yourself. Everyone knows you’re done responding.

TTOC, snore…

[Marcus]

<snipped>

You've responded 3 or 4 times saying you’re done responding. You’re repeating yourself. Everyone knows you’re done responding.

TTOC, snore…

Especially this...

Communication has to be a two-way street with both 'sides' willing to honestly entertain questions from the 'other side'. In most cases I believe I have made an honest attempt to do so.

Really. Wow, that is an incredible lack of self-awareness. On the other hand, it is just what a troll would say, so again, I am not sure what we've got here.

If this is a troll, then he is representing his religion in the worst possible way.

[I Have Questions]

You've responded 3 or 4 times saying you’re done responding. You’re repeating yourself. Everyone knows you’re done responding.

TTOC, snore…

Especially this...

Communication has to be a two-way street with both 'sides' willing to honestly entertain questions from the 'other side'. In most cases I believe I have made an honest attempt to do so.

Really. Wow, that is an incredible lack of self-awareness. On the other hand, it is just what a troll would say, so again, I am not sure what we've got here.

If this is a troll, then he is representing his religion in the worst possible way.

What prompted this latest outburst was my pointing out that his defence of Joseph Smith’s ongoing embellishment of the First Vision narrative (MG stated that Joseph was just a child “a boy” when he had it) had the unfortunate consequence of therefore implicitly asserting that Joseph as a 37 year old man married and had sex with a child - Helen Mar Kimball was the same age at her marriage to 37 year old Joseph as Joseph was when he had the First Vision. If Joseph was a child at 14 years of age, so was Helen. So, caught in a trap of his own making, instead of explaining himself (because how could he?) he writes another long screed to try and blame others for his inability to respond.