Was I not straightforward? I’ve said from the beginning of posting here a couple of months ago that I don’t trust you.
If I may, Limnor, ...
In one of your early posts you said something to the effect that you believed the Book of Mormon was "true". I suspected at the time that MG might latch onto you as a new "best friend", and fellow something or another, and wondered if he realised that you were not testifying about the "truth" of the Book of Mormon as if you were a Mormon. I could see at that time that there could be trouble ahead, but didn't feel it was my place to say anything.
I guess now I can say: "Didn't tell you so!"
I think that’s fair, and you’re right that the word “true” can mean different things to different people. I did think it was clear that I wasn’t using it in a testimonial sense, but I can see how that misunderstanding could have occurred. I still think the book is “true.”
But, if we believe that God can write straight with crooked lines, one outcome of this whole exchange has made clear that much hangs on shared definitions—and how quickly conversations go off the rails if those aren’t agreed upon upfront.
Was I not straightforward? I’ve said from the beginning of posting here a couple of months ago that I don’t trust you.
If I may, Limnor, ...
In one of your early posts you said something to the effect that you believed the Book of Mormon was "true". I suspected at the time that MG might latch onto you as a new "best friend", and fellow something or another, and wondered if he realised that you were not testifying about the "truth" of the Book of Mormon as if you were a Mormon. I could see at that time that there could be trouble ahead, but didn't feel it was my place to say anything.
I guess now I can say: "Didn't tell you so!"
That only added to my interest in him (originally, I thought a 'her') and what he would have to say and come up with as a result of his explorations in the Book of Mormon. There are lots of ideas out there in regard to where and how the Book of Mormon came to be. It was the proclamation that he made from the get go that I wasn't to be trusted.
More or less because I was a member of the church. That we are all deceivers.
In one of your early posts you said something to the effect that you believed the Book of Mormon was "true". I suspected at the time that MG might latch onto you as a new "best friend", and fellow something or another, and wondered if he realised that you were not testifying about the "truth" of the Book of Mormon as if you were a Mormon. I could see at that time that there could be trouble ahead, but didn't feel it was my place to say anything.
I guess now I can say: "Didn't tell you so!"
I think that’s fair, and you’re right that the word “true” can mean different things to different people. I did think it was clear that I wasn’t using it in a testimonial sense, but I can see how that misunderstanding could have occurred. I still think the book is “true.”
But, if we believe that God can write straight with crooked lines, one outcome of this whole exchange has made clear that much hangs on shared definitions—and how quickly conversations go off the rails if those aren’t agreed upon upfront.
But wouldn't life be insufferably dull without ambiguities, at least in certain areas?
Personal aside: One of my "selling points" when job hunting was the claim that I'm an experienced disambiguator. I used to have a couple of examples ready in case I was challenged on that statement.
You can help Ukraine by talking for an hour a week!! PM me, or check www.enginprogram.org for details. Слава Україні!, 𝑺𝒍𝒂𝒗𝒂 𝑼𝒌𝒓𝒂𝒊𝒏𝒊!
In one of your early posts you said something to the effect that you believed the Book of Mormon was "true". I suspected at the time that MG might latch onto you as a new "best friend", and fellow something or another, and wondered if he realised that you were not testifying about the "truth" of the Book of Mormon as if you were a Mormon. I could see at that time that there could be trouble ahead, but didn't feel it was my place to say anything.
I guess now I can say: "Didn't tell you so!"
That only added to my interest in him (originally, I thought a 'her') and what he would have to say and come up with as a result of his explorations in the Book of Mormon. There are lots of ideas out there in regard to where and how the Book of Mormon came to be. It was the proclamation that he made from the get go that I wasn't to be trusted.
More or less because I was a member of the church. That we are all deceivers.
That concerned me. Obviously.
Regards,
MG
Lol. The bolded section is not even close. Mentalgymnast earned his nontrustworthy status all on his own.
In one of your early posts you said something to the effect that you believed the Book of Mormon was "true". I suspected at the time that MG might latch onto you as a new "best friend", and fellow something or another, and wondered if he realised that you were not testifying about the "truth" of the Book of Mormon as if you were a Mormon. I could see at that time that there could be trouble ahead, but didn't feel it was my place to say anything.
I guess now I can say: "Didn't tell you so!"
That only added to my interest in him (originally, I thought a 'her') and what he would have to say and come up with as a result of his explorations in the Book of Mormon. There are lots of ideas out there in regard to where and how the Book of Mormon came to be. It was the proclamation that he made from the get go that I wasn't to be trusted.
More or less because I was a member of the church. That we are all deceivers.
That concerned me. Obviously.
Regards,
MG
On the contrary, based on conversations with Gad I have learned a great deal about the nuance of Mormon believers and how truth is treated.
But as I said, the exchanges with you personally didn’t help your case much.
That only added to my interest in him (originally, I thought a 'her') and what he would have to say and come up with as a result of his explorations in the Book of Mormon. There are lots of ideas out there in regard to where and how the Book of Mormon came to be. It was the proclamation that he made from the get go that I wasn't to be trusted.
More or less because I was a member of the church. That we are all deceivers.
That concerned me. Obviously.
Regards,
MG
On the contrary, based on conversations with Gad I have learned a great deal about the nuance of Mormon believers and how truth is treated.
But as I said, the exchanges with you personally didn’t help your case much.
Such is a message board with unknowns that can only be known through personal interaction in person. We get something in our head and it doesn't go away. I think online interactions lend themselves to false negatives. False positives too, I expect. We're also influenced by group behavior and purported reputational precursors that have been cemented in place.
I'm sorry that we will not be able to trust each other. That does make a difference.
On the contrary, based on conversations with Gad I have learned a great deal about the nuance of Mormon believers and how truth is treated.
But as I said, the exchanges with you personally didn’t help your case much.
Such is a message board with unknowns that can only be known through personal interaction in person. We get something in our head and it doesn't go away. I think online interactions lend themselves to false negatives. False positives too, I expect. We're also influenced by group behavior and purported reputational precursors that have been cemented in place.
I'm sorry that we will not be able to trust each other. That does make a difference.
Regards,
MG
Just to be clear, the lack of trust didn’t come from anyone else “infecting” me or from group dynamics. It came from my own reading of what you wrote and how you engaged over time. I’m comfortable owning that assessment. Screen names and reputations can color expectations, sure—but ultimately people are judged by their words and actions from the conversations themselves.
In fact, with a screen name like mentalgymnast a person might hesitate to trust anything from that alone. You might want to reconsider a new name. It implies that you are comfortable with mental pretzel logic.
Such is a message board with unknowns that can only be known through personal interaction in person. We get something in our head and it doesn't go away. I think online interactions lend themselves to false negatives. False positives too, I expect. We're also influenced by group behavior and purported reputational precursors that have been cemented in place.
I'm sorry that we will not be able to trust each other. That does make a difference.
Regards,
MG
Just to be clear, the lack of trust didn’t come from anyone else “infecting” me or from group dynamics. It came from my own reading of what you wrote and how you engaged over time. I’m comfortable owning that assessment. Screen names and reputations can color expectations, sure—but ultimately people are judged by their words and actions from the conversations themselves.
In fact, with a screen name like mentalgymnast a person might hesitate to trust anything from that alone. You might want to reconsider a new name. It implies that you are comfortable with mental pretzel logic.
I look at it more as, "Maybe all the bases haven't been covered. Let's explore what we can."
We're made to think people!
That's why I spent time pushing that very thing on the "crooked" thread. Some folks picked up the ball and ran with it. Kudos to them.
In one of your early posts you said something to the effect that you believed the Book of Mormon was "true". I suspected at the time that MG might latch onto you as a new "best friend", and fellow something or another, and wondered if he realised that you were not testifying about the "truth" of the Book of Mormon as if you were a Mormon. I could see at that time that there could be trouble ahead, but didn't feel it was my place to say anything.
I guess now I can say: "Didn't tell you so!"
That only added to my interest in him (originally, I thought a 'her') and what he would have to say and come up with as a result of his explorations in the Book of Mormon. There are lots of ideas out there in regard to where and how the Book of Mormon came to be. It was the proclamation that he made from the get go that I wasn't to be trusted.
More or less because I was a member of the church. That we are all deceivers.
That concerned me. Obviously.
Regards,
MG
The bolded part is not true. You originally referred to Limnor as a “he” by default. You always default to assuming posters are male. When I asked you why you’d assumed Limnor was male, you didn’t respond. Instead you just started referring to Limnor as a female. And then, when Limnor finally articulated that he was male, you reverted back to referring to him as a male.
Premise 1. Eyewitness testimony is notoriously unreliable.
Premise 2. The best evidence for the Book of Mormon is eyewitness testimony.
Conclusion. Therefore, the best evidence for the Book of Mormon is notoriously unreliable.
That only added to my interest in him (originally, I thought a 'her') and what he would have to say and come up with as a result of his explorations in the Book of Mormon. There are lots of ideas out there in regard to where and how the Book of Mormon came to be. It was the proclamation that he made from the get go that I wasn't to be trusted.
More or less because I was a member of the church. That we are all deceivers.
That concerned me. Obviously.
Regards,
MG
Lol. The bolded section is not even close. Mentalgymnast earned his nontrustworthy status all on his own.
I second that. But sadly MG 2.0 lacks self awareness and won’t be able to take ownership of his own behaviours that have resulted in people being disappointed in him (not in Mormons generally, but him as an individual) and in his well earned status as a deceitful person who projects his posting faults onto others. I know many trustworthy Mormons. MG 2.0 ain’t one of them, and that’s nothing to do with what he believes and everything to do with how he conducts himself on this board.
Premise 1. Eyewitness testimony is notoriously unreliable.
Premise 2. The best evidence for the Book of Mormon is eyewitness testimony.
Conclusion. Therefore, the best evidence for the Book of Mormon is notoriously unreliable.
