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

[Shulem]

The second takes a leap of reasoned faith beyond traditional Christianity.

Oh, you mean like:

• King Pharaoh, whose name is given in the characters above his head.
• Prince of Pharaoh, King of Egypt, as written above the hand.
• Shulem, one of the king’s principal waiters, as represented by the characters above his hand.

Do you have that kind of faith, MG?

Bear your testimony you know those things are true.

I know that MG knows that the explanations tendered by Smith are wrong. He knows that.

Now, let's all put on a Beatles record and celebrate MG's enlightenment!

Joins hands everyone!

[malkie]

...

As I've said many times, critics are unable to think/look outside of the box and look at the larger picture.

Regards,
MG

Wow!! Not at all judgmental or pejorative. Being such a broad statement, some may even call it bigoted. I'll refrain from doing so.

Whereas you, and other believers ... what?

[MG 2.0]

I look at the Restoration as more or less a 'reboot' of a 1.0 program that has been corrupted along the way. Moving to a 2.0 then a 3.0 and so on. Adjustments are made along the way. We refer to it now as the ongoing restoration.

Earlier I argued that it would be actually unreasonable to expect that the 'gospel' would be seen/understood in exactly the same way throughout history.

As an obvious example, the implementation of the doctrines/ordinaces concerning sealing of families, baptisms, etc , and the means to do this at wide scale haven't existed until now. Example upon example might be given for the gospel being implemented differently at different times and in different places.

As I've said many times, critics are unable to think/look outside of the box and look at the larger picture.

Regards,
MG

*bump

malkie, I'm really not trying to be snarky or hurt your feelings. I'm just calling a spade a spade.

You ignored the substance of my post.

Think outside the box, man!

Regards,
MG

[malkie]

I look at the Restoration as more or less a 'reboot' of a 1.0 program that has been corrupted along the way. Moving to a 2.0 then a 3.0 and so on. Adjustments are made along the way. We refer to it now as the ongoing restoration.

Earlier I argued that it would be actually unreasonable to expect that the 'gospel' would be seen/understood in exactly the same way throughout history.

As an obvious example, the implementation of the doctrines/ordinaces concerning sealing of families, baptisms, etc , and the means to do this at wide scale haven't existed until now. Example upon example might be given for the gospel being implemented differently at different times and in different places.

As I've said many times, critics are unable to think/look outside of the box and look at the larger picture.

Regards,
MG

*bump

malkie, I'm really not trying to be snarky or hurt your feelings. I'm just calling a spade a spade.

You ignored the substance of my post.

Think outside the box, man!

Regards,
MG

Do you see the "..." (ellipsis) before and after the part of your post that I quoted and responded to?

By convention that means that I considered the parts that I didn't quote (replaced by "...") and chose to comment only on the parts that I did quote.

You frequently reply only to a portion of someone else's comment, but usually without the "...", making it difficult to tell sometimes if you read the rest of the comment at all. This appears to be another example of your expecting others to behave in a certain way, and complaining if they don't, when you are at least as guilty of the behaviour you're complaining about.

By all means "calling a spade a spade", but don't expect others to agree that the spade is really there. As I see it, you are telling us that you are OK with belittling and insulting a class of people, most of whom you have no information about at all, except that they don't accept your version of belief in your version of a god. If you think that's fair and honourable, don't be upset if other people apply the same thinking to "believers".

[Res Ipsa]

The statement is false because you (intentionally?) misrepresent the breadth of God's revelation from the Mormon perspective. God hasn't revealed anything to 99.9% or more of the people of this planet. God revealed everything, including the temple and all the keys of the Melchizedek Priesthood to Adam in the Garden of Eden. While this may be somewhat speculative from an official standpoint today, it seems to be what everyone from Bruce R. McConkie to Hugh Nibley believed. From there it's a little murky as to when God restored the temple ordinances up until the New Testament. For instance, Hugh Nibley believed Noah retained Adam's leather temple garment (or something like that). After the New Testament and the Church of the Devil, the Catholic Church, according to Mormonism, rose to power and stamped out the very last of what God had revealed in purity, baptism, the priesthood, and the temple ordinances were revealed to Joseph Smith.

And yes, it's the exact same thing to the tiny groups of people involved. Don't believe me? Read the Sacrament prayer in Moroni to see the exact prayer the Nephites used and compare it to today.

I don't why you're being coy about the apostasy and restoration. My dad had a priesthood manual from the 60s or 70s that was something like 400 pages long delving into the Great Apostasy in general and I read much of it before my mission. The same author who wrote "Jesus the Christ" wrote the book "The Great Apostasy".

Views towards the apostasy have changed as we have learned more. Books and essays have been written about it.

I look at the Restoration as more or less a 'reboot' of a 1.0 program that has been corrupted along the way. Moving to a 2.0 then a 3.0 and so on. Adjustments are made along the way. We refer to it now as the ongoing restoration.

Earlier I argued that it would be actually unreasonable to expect that the 'gospel' would be seen/understood in exactly the same way throughout history.

As an obvious example, the implementation of the doctrines/ordinaces concerning sealing of families, baptisms, etc , and the means to do this at wide scale haven't existed until now. Example upon example might be given for the gospel being implemented differently at different times and in different places.

As I've said many times, critics are unable to think/look outside of the box and look at the larger picture.

Regards,
MG

Project much? Critics are thinking outside of the LDS box you’ve confined yourself to. The larger picture is clear: from Joseph Smith through the present day, the “restoration” is indistinguishable from people making stuff up as the go along.

[MG 2.0]

Views towards the apostasy have changed as we have learned more. Books and essays have been written about it.

I look at the Restoration as more or less a 'reboot' of a 1.0 program that has been corrupted along the way. Moving to a 2.0 then a 3.0 and so on. Adjustments are made along the way. We refer to it now as the ongoing restoration.

Earlier I argued that it would be actually unreasonable to expect that the 'gospel' would be seen/understood in exactly the same way throughout history.

As an obvious example, the implementation of the doctrines/ordinances concerning sealing of families, baptisms, etc , and the means to do this at wide scale haven't existed until now. Example upon example might be given for the gospel being implemented differently at different times and in different places.

As I've said many times, critics are unable to think/look outside of the box and look at the larger picture.

Regards,
MG

Project much? Critics are thinking outside of the LDS box you’ve confined yourself to. The larger picture is clear: from Joseph Smith through the present day, the “restoration” is indistinguishable from people making stuff up as the go along.

Res Ipsa, I would have hoped for a little more engagement on what I said. Both you and malkie ignored the thrust of what I actually said. Truth be told? There have been MANY times when I've presented ideas/concepts that would require thinking outside of the box and I've seen those concepts/ideas be more or less brushed aside...a nothing to see here...kind of response.

The thing is, it is coming up with alternatives other than what you're saying, " The larger picture is clear: from Joseph Smith through the present day, the “restoration” is indistinguishable from people making stuff up as the go along", is what I find interesting and yes, challenging. But in a good way.

Critics, in many cases, have either given up on doing so or never attempted to think outside of the box in regard to faith matters. They simply reject it as 'non sensical' and keep repeating that from their soap box.

Not that you're doing that.

Regards,
MG

[MG 2.0]

As I see it, you are telling us that you are OK with belittling and insulting a class of people, most of whom you have no information about at all, except that they don't accept your version of belief in your version of a god. If you think that's fair and honourable, don't be upset if other people apply the same thinking to "believers".

Chicken or the egg? By the way, you've now used the words "complain" and "belittling/insulting" to describe what I'm doing when I disagree with your worldview. I hope that maybe we can possibly have a 'fresh start' after what I recently said on another post which I assume that you have read.

Oh, and by the way, you've made it quite clear...over and over...that you don't believe in the God members of the LDS Church worship. I've gotten that message loud and clear.

We can both point a finger at God (or no god) and say what we believe in. Square?

Regards,
MG

[malkie]

Project much? Critics are thinking outside of the LDS box you’ve confined yourself to. The larger picture is clear: from Joseph Smith through the present day, the “restoration” is indistinguishable from people making stuff up as the go along.

Res Ipsa, I would have hoped for a little more engagement on what I said. Both you and malkie ignored the thrust of what I actually said. Truth be told? There have been MANY times when I've presented ideas/concepts that would require thinking outside of the box and I've seen those concepts/ideas be more or less brushed aside...a nothing to see here...kind of response.

The thing is, it is coming up with alternatives other than what you're saying, " The larger picture is clear: from Joseph Smith through the present day, the “restoration” is indistinguishable from people making stuff up as the go along", is what I find interesting and yes, challenging. But in a good way.

Critics, in many cases, have either given up on doing so or never attempted to think outside of the box in regard to faith matters. They simply reject it as 'non sensical' and keep repeating that from their soap box.

Not that you're doing that.

Regards,
MG

Did I not make it clear that I have chosen not to engage with the part of your comment that I didn't quote? And that that's why I didn't quote it? If so, why bring it up again?

[Res Ipsa]

Project much? Critics are thinking outside of the LDS box you’ve confined yourself to. The larger picture is clear: from Joseph Smith through the present day, the “restoration” is indistinguishable from people making stuff up as the go along.

Res Ipsa, I would have hoped for a little more engagement on what I said. Both you and malkie ignored the thrust of what I actually said. Truth be told? There have been MANY times when I've presented ideas/concepts that would require thinking outside of the box and I've seen those concepts/ideas be more or less brushed aside...a nothing to see here...kind of response.

The thing is, it is coming up with alternatives other than what you're saying, " The larger picture is clear: from Joseph Smith through the present day, the “restoration” is indistinguishable from people making stuff up as the go along", is what I find interesting and yes, challenging. But in a good way.

Critics, in many cases, have either given up on doing so or never attempted to think outside of the box in regard to faith matters. They simply reject it as 'non sensical' and keep repeating that from their soap box.

Not that you're doing that.

Regards,
MG

I responded to exactly what I thought it was worth responding to: a claim by a guy whose presuppositions are a self-built box that he willingly locks himself into that others are unwilling to "think out of the box." Your continuous attempts to create excuses for the church and its leadership are not "thinking out of the box." They are desperate attempts to keep the thinking inside of your box.

[malkie]

Res Ipsa, I would have hoped for a little more engagement on what I said. Both you and malkie ignored the thrust of what I actually said. Truth be told? There have been MANY times when I've presented ideas/concepts that would require thinking outside of the box and I've seen those concepts/ideas be more or less brushed aside...a nothing to see here...kind of response.

The thing is, it is coming up with alternatives other than what you're saying, " The larger picture is clear: from Joseph Smith through the present day, the “restoration” is indistinguishable from people making stuff up as the go along", is what I find interesting and yes, challenging. But in a good way.

Critics, in many cases, have either given up on doing so or never attempted to think outside of the box in regard to faith matters. They simply reject it as 'non sensical' and keep repeating that from their soap box.

Not that you're doing that.

Regards,
MG

I responded to exactly what I thought it was worth responding to: a claim by a guy whose presuppositions are a self-built box that he willingly locks himself into that others are unwilling to "think out of the box." Your continuous attempts to create excuses for the church and its leadership are not "thinking out of the box." They are desperate attempts to keep the thinking inside of your box.

Exactly.

I think it's fair to say that, in general terms, each of us responds to a combination of:

• what we think is worth debating
• what we think we can usefully say something about
• what we find interesting

whether or not that is what the poster/commenter wants to discuss.

Other times the discussion becomes a meta-debate, talking about the framing, or validity etc. of the discussion, because one person believes that this is where the action is. I think that this entire comment is an example of a meta-discussion.

From time to time it may be worthwhile to try to ensure that a point we feel is significant is not missed, but continued attempts to "push" the point are unlikely to produce results.

I could refer back to comments I've made, or questions I've asked, for which no response was forthcoming, but would that be productive? Probably not. I'll just continue to stew about them until my last breath. Or perhaps beyond, if life after death turns out to be a reality.