The Long and Winding Road (To Ruin) or Eight Days a Week (Of Woe): Mormon Apostle Blames the Beatles for Society's Ills

[malkie]

However, it's good to see that you don't consider ex-members and non-members to be "sinning" for not following what you think are the proper rules.

Man, it took a long time to get there didn't it?

Regards,
MG

I'm a bit slow sometimes - fairly often - well, lots of times.

[Marcus]

Yes, one sees that with many Mormons, and I think it comes out of the extreme superiority built into the religion.

However, I still believe that the extremes we see here from mentalgymnast are not fully reflective of everyday interactions with Mormons. They are a type of psychopathy wherein he regularly exercises his right to entry into a near perfect setting for online trolling, where he uses the extreme and most negative positions of his religion to disrupt.

He has found a forum where most people have some sort of connection to Mormonism, many have a background in the religion but have moved on, but still like to discuss aspects of it. Mentalgymnast comes in with his extreme form of passive aggressive superiority which he clearly delights in expressing as a way of disrupting and distracting. He repeatedly lies when called on his hypocrisy, and almost always falls back on religious victimhood when pressed. He invariably then lectures "the critics," i.e. everyone here, always ending with a projection of his own tactics.

(Regarding the projection, it is quite fascinating to look back at his posts, and observe that every single strategy of which he accuses critics comes AFTER someone points out he did that.)

And finally, he comes here because any other community forum would simply not allow his repeated, stereotypical and bigoted attacks on the members. Personally, I think his trolling participation here indicates an extreme level of satisfaction in the Mormon life he can't escape.

Marcus, that resonates. You’d think he would get bored with it. It seems to be a well-worn pattern: present brittle apologetic defense or absolutist interpretation, watch room react, immediately shift into wounded innocence and then lecture about tone, humility, and fairness.

I will say that I’ve not met any Mormons in the real world who present themselves this way—most seem nice enough and almost embarrassed if the subject arises. I asked one fellow about the rock in the hat and he was clearly uncomfortable, so I let it go. For the record, I don’t think MG is a standard representative of Mormonism.

There may be something to your bottom line assessment. I’ve called it a trap here before. That might be what makes the victimhood bit brush up against pity or maybe sympathy.

Random thought (and not directed at anyone specifically), sometimes I wonder how hard it would actually be to maintain two accounts over time—one “anti” with a “no holds barred” approach and another folksy supporter whose role is to soften the edges. The choreography would be tricky, not to mention time-consuming, but the voices could reinforce each other quite well. I suppose occasionally you’d have to disagree with yourself about something to keep up the facade, but that could be managed.

If I recall correctly, honorentheos told us of a similar experiment where he created an alternate account, I think at MADD, to see if he could argue positions that were in opposition to his own. It was quite interesting to read his assessment. If you're interested, I'll see if I can find the thread.

Also, regarding mg apparently not getting bored with his pattern, I see that as more evidence of the trolling aspect. I've posted a fair amount of research on this topic, here's an excerpt from a relatively new source:

[published March 6, 2025, CamdenNewJournal ]

...Dr Alan Underwood, a clinical psychologist who works with Camden’s mental health service and also the Metropolitan Police, spoke to the New Journal about his work at the Stalking Threat Assessment Centre (STAC)...

Dr Underwood said: “There’s a mix of motivations. Boredom is a big one. It might be for amusement, looking for a reaction.

“Trolling creates a sense of excitement, it’s novel. It might be they can use to it to inflate their own self-esteem. Maybe they can find control or autonomy in a part of the world where in the rest of their lives they have very little.

"So it often has a function for the person who is doing it. It is externalising behaviour of someone who may not have the internal resources to manage what is going on in their lives...

https://www.camdennewjournal.co.uk/arti ... they-do-it

[Limnor]

It was quite interesting to read his assessment. If you're interested, I'll see if I can find the thread.

I am interested, yes please.

[malkie]

If you think that noting a discrepancy amounts to judging your worthiness to perform callings at church, that's not what I was saying, and I don't recall anyone else saying that. But I could be wrong, and who am I to tell you differently? I'm not sure why you think that only active "worthy" members can take note, but, again, if you say so, who am I to argue?
...
However, it's good to see that you don't consider ex-members and non-members to be "sinning" for not following what you think are the proper rules.

As an aside, I think it's pretty well established that there need not be a strong relationship between being even a decent human being and being considered "worthy" to hold a calling at church, or vice versa.

Man, it took a long time to get there didn't it?

Regards,
MG

I'm a bit slow sometimes - fairly often - well, lots of times.

If I had the energy I'd go back through some recent threads, and perhaps some older ones, to see if I can confirm that you really don't think the critics are sinning by not following "Mormon" rules. Because I don't, I won't challenge your assertion. Of course, it's always possible that someone else will.

[MG 2.0]

When there is no valid argument of substance to be made, just throw out "troll!".

Yeah, that always works.

And that's why it is not worth my time responding to the actual troll. Gird up, grin, and bear it.

Regards,
MG

[Limnor]

If I had the energy I'd go back through some recent threads, and perhaps some older ones, to see if I can confirm that you really don't think the critics are sinning by not following "Mormon" rules. Because I don't, I won't challenge your assertion. Of course, it's always possible that someone else will.

It’s not so much “sinning” as it is that in Mormon theology, the system is technically universalist—almost everyone is “saved”—resurrected.

But only those who align fully with covenant obligations, ordinances, and doctrinal requirements enter the kingdom where God and Christ dwell. The rest of us get to be, colloquially, “smoothies,” or worse.

When MG talks about alignment, obedience, covenant-bound living, or spiritual receptivity, that’s the background—so it’s less about “sinning” and more about “choosing your own adventure.”

Unless you are an apostate, in which case it’s essentially about sinning.

That’s my understanding, anyway. I’m sure someone with deeper theological expertise can refine it.

[bill4long]

You are no longer under the same covenant to obey the teachings/commandments of the church.

This is true to a point, for example, the Church no longer requires/expects me to pay tithing. That is over. I get to keep my money and spend it according to my desires. I'm off the hook for having to maintain and obey commandments as a faithful Mormon. Having broken the covenant, I told Mormon God to go screw himself. I am off the religious hook. Thank God! But, according to Mormon scriptures and revelations given by Joseph Smith: I'M DAMNED AND WILL BURN IN HELL.

And have a nice day.

See you in hell, MG!

[MG 2.0]

If I had the energy I'd go back through some recent threads, and perhaps some older ones, to see if I can confirm that you really don't think the critics are sinning by not following "Mormon" rules. Because I don't, I won't challenge your assertion. Of course, it's always possible that someone else will.

It’s not so much “sinning” as it is that in Mormon theology, the system is technically universalist—almost everyone is “saved”—resurrected.

But only those who align fully with covenant obligations, ordinances, and doctrinal requirements enter the kingdom where God and Christ dwell. The rest of us get to be, colloquially, “smoothies,” or worse.

When MG talks about alignment, obedience, covenant-bound living, or spiritual receptivity, that’s the background—so it’s less about “sinning” and more about “choosing your own adventure.”

Unless you are an apostate, in which case it’s essentially about sinning.

That’s my understanding, anyway. I’m sure someone with deeper theological expertise can refine it.

I think that at the end of the day, or at the end of life, all people freely choose what kind of relationship with God they ultimately want, and God honors those choices. Essentially, I don't think you, I, or anyone else really has anything to worry about. Do you?

Regards,
MG

[Marcus]

...If I had the energy I'd go back through some recent threads, and perhaps some older ones, to see if I can confirm that you really don't think the critics are sinning by not following "Mormon" rules. Because I don't, I won't challenge your assertion. Of course, it's always possible that someone else will.

Maybe I can help you out. From September of this year.

...You are constantly criticizing the leaders of the church. I am assuming that at one time you may have been an active and temple worthy member of the church. If so, I think this may apply to you:

Many of us have made a sacred covenant in holy places to avoid evil speaking of the Lord’s anointed. I believe if we violate those covenants, we lose the protection of the Spirit and are vulnerable to the power of evil adversaries. As we succumb to their influences, thoughtful analysis with an intent to help and bless turns into criticism and bad mouthing with the intent to harm and debase. That negativity is not only habit forming, it’s contagious as well.

https://latterdaysaintmag.com/article-1-13005/

As we can see on this board. The contagion is spread and reinforced when in a closed room.

Regards,
MG

[Limnor]

The three-tiered heaven idea from D&C 76 has dependencies on the Book of Abraham—exposed as mistranslated—and the Book of Mormon’s own teachings (plus Whitmer) condemn later additions to the foundation. I’m not worried about the next life, but if someone is banking everything on that foundation, they might want to take a closer look.