God can write straight with crooked lines.

[Limnor]

A lot of this should be split off, we're ruining MG's thread, and I give MG props for starting a good thread that should be respected. I also do have a few points to defend MG coming up but I'm finishing off my bottle of Wild Turkey and getting blind sided by Whiskey at the same time. (?!)



Seriously dude? I've been a friend or a fan of a few of these posters, but aren't all of them posters from your old stomping ground? The NOM forum or something like that? Of course your team is the best. LOL. How freaking transparent can you get?

And as far as telling people what they think, you keep telling people that I want you banned, even though I never said that. I suggested that as the only viable option if you keep trying to break the rules as much as possible and always looking for a loophole like saying "blah blah blah" was a natural part of an ellipse. But I understand why you made the inference. It's very possible I said what I did while hoping you'd get banned. Instead of asking for clarification, you made an assumption and went with it. The utility of that is it either forces me to clarify, or have a mental breakdown and accuse you of mind-reading. I have no problem clarifying. I would love for you to continue posting, and just switch to sorta keeping the rules.

Oh shutup now. Jesus, Gad. All of those posters were here as much as they were at NOM. Get real. NOM was dead after Arch blasted the place. The View from the Foyer got blasted too. FLAK barely survived for a bit. They were all at Cherry with Some Schmo and Voodoo and also here. Team shmeam. The Dehlin drama with Kish blowing smoke up Dehlin's ass and having a come-apart about anyone not also blowing smoke up Dehlin's ass all happened after everyone here was banned or uninvited at NOM. Dathon and whatshername put a massive lockdown at NOM. So rant away, but get your crap together first. Much of the migration to this forum was out of homelessness when the other forums got creamed and aimoo or whatever it was ate the archives.

Even Cherry seemed to lose traction after the forum passwords were lost and the key-holder died of brain cancer. Right?

The quote in my signature is exact.

"[ B]lah blah blah" can't exist in the alleged required form of an ellipsis (three dots). Get your facts straight. That is not even possible. Nevertheless, you will likely get your wish. Just waiting on Xeno I suppose. If he wants a moderator to crap on the forum and lie to and about posters and generally play nonsense, I have asked to have my Whiskey account deleted. No interest in that crap. You can damned have it. Simple as this. If one or more of the moderators approve of panny's moderation and simultaneous trolling participation, bounce me. No hard feelings. Y'all are free to roam about the planet without me.

Now Gad. Say thank you, goddamnit.

Wow I really missed a lot by only coming around periodically.

[Whiskey]

Oh shutup now. Jesus, Gad. All of those posters were here as much as they were at NOM. Get real. NOM was dead after Arch blasted the place. The View from the Foyer got blasted too. FLAK barely survived for a bit. They were all at Cherry with Some Schmo and Voodoo and also here. Team shmeam. The Dehlin drama with Kish blowing smoke up Dehlin's ass and having a come-apart about anyone not also blowing smoke up Dehlin's ass all happened after everyone here was banned or uninvited at NOM. Dathon and whatshername put a massive lockdown at NOM. So rant away, but get your crap together first. Much of the migration to this forum was out of homelessness when the other forums got creamed and aimoo or whatever it was ate the archives.

Even Cherry seemed to lose traction after the forum passwords were lost and the key-holder died of brain cancer. Right?

The quote in my signature is exact.

"[ B]lah blah blah" can't exist in the alleged required form of an ellipsis (three dots). Get your facts straight. That is not even possible. Nevertheless, you will likely get your wish. Just waiting on Xeno I suppose. If he wants a moderator to crap on the forum and lie to and about posters and generally play nonsense, I have asked to have my Whiskey account deleted. No interest in that crap. You can damned have it. Simple as this. If one or more of the moderators approve of panny's moderation and simultaneous trolling participation, bounce me. No hard feelings. Y'all are free to roam about the planet without me.

Now Gad. Say thank you, goddamnit.

Wow I really missed a lot by only coming around periodically.

Gotta be pushing a timeline of 20 plus years by now. Most of us missed most of it.

[malkie]

Oh shutup now. Jesus, Gad. All of those posters were here as much as they were at NOM. Get real. NOM was dead after Arch blasted the place. The View from the Foyer got blasted too. FLAK barely survived for a bit. They were all at Cherry with Some Schmo and Voodoo and also here. Team shmeam. The Dehlin drama with Kish blowing smoke up Dehlin's ass and having a come-apart about anyone not also blowing smoke up Dehlin's ass all happened after everyone here was banned or uninvited at NOM. Dathon and whatshername put a massive lockdown at NOM. So rant away, but get your crap together first. Much of the migration to this forum was out of homelessness when the other forums got creamed and aimoo or whatever it was ate the archives.

Even Cherry seemed to lose traction after the forum passwords were lost and the key-holder died of brain cancer. Right?

The quote in my signature is exact.

"[ B]lah blah blah" can't exist in the alleged required form of an ellipsis (three dots). Get your facts straight. That is not even possible. Nevertheless, you will likely get your wish. Just waiting on Xeno I suppose. If he wants a moderator to crap on the forum and lie to and about posters and generally play nonsense, I have asked to have my Whiskey account deleted. No interest in that crap. You can damned have it. Simple as this. If one or more of the moderators approve of panny's moderation and simultaneous trolling participation, bounce me. No hard feelings. Y'all are free to roam about the planet without me.

Now Gad. Say thank you, goddamnit.

Wow I really missed a lot by only coming around periodically.

I, for one, am greatly pleased that you've stayed and participated (and how!) for so long this time around. I don't think I really appreciated your previous personas.

[Philo Sofee]

I have not once said Tolkien has something better. He isn't interested in that angle. His approach is different, not better or worse. There is no value judgement from Tolkien about his moral ideas other than faithfulness to who someone is and does. So, your misunderstanding is understandable as you are taking an apologetic approach trying to find out what is true. Tolkien isn't, and I am not either by simply showing what Tolkien describes and says.

I suppose what I'm attempting to say is that (well, I said it earlier), is that Tolkien and other classical writers had a lot to say in their fictional works in regards to the human condition and moral behavior. I, for one, have enjoyed the additional 'light and knowledge' you have shared.

When those insights are then placed next to comments that the LDS worldview is myopic, that's what I take issue with.

I do agree with you that they are "different" in some respects.

There does seem to be, to me, a pattern of 'lessening' the value of the belief system of the CofJCofLDS in order to 'increase' the value and/or importance of another system or twist on morality. Ergo, doing the same thing LDS missionaries are accused of doing.

Regards,
MG

You said - When those insights are then placed next to comments that the LDS worldview is myopic,
Philo responds. I did NOT call the LDS view myopic, and you know it. Don't play idiotic word games for a cheap worthless supposed point MG. I said YOUR VIEW that anything compared to the LDS is secondary is MYOPIC. And it is for this reason. Tolkien (once again, I say this, I have actually made this literally abundantly clear, and you appear to be the only one who can't grasp it) Tolkien does not care if what he is saying is true. He is not asking to pray about it. He is asking an ENTIRELY DIFFERENT question....... you ought to quit trying to compare what is what in relation to your preferred religious system and just see what others have to offer without worrying about whether it threatens your belief or not. That is your ulterior motif, as is obvious. And no I am not angry, no I am not upset or mad, because there is literally nothing to get mad at. I am enjoying elaborating on what Tolkien says and enjoy it as is. There is no extra value or meaning in trying to do comparisons because that is entirely foreign to understanding something on its own.

[Gadianton]

Oh shutup now. Jesus, Gad. All of those posters were here as much as they were at NOM. Get real. NOM was dead after Arch blasted the place. The View from the Foyer got blasted too. FLAK barely survived for a bit. They were all at Cherry with Some Schmo and Voodoo and also here. Team shmeam.

I don't know anything about the history of NOM or these other boards, only that some of those names seemed to have mentioned NOM. I never read NOM or other related boards. But any explanation you have will need to face it's Bayesian null that "the best people" are the ones you're familiar with from your home forum.

The Dehlin drama with Kish blowing smoke up Dehlin's ass and having a come-apart about anyone not also blowing smoke up Dehlin's ass all happened after everyone here was banned or uninvited at NOM.

Kish, like you to an extent, is a contrarian. I don't recall him being a Dehlin worshipper, and Dehlin's superficiality at times is certainly at odds with Kish's depth and so I have a hard time believing Kish would not tolerate any criticism of Dehlin. If Dehlin ever comes up again, I'll be sure to launch a brutal case against Dehlin and see if Kish opens a can on me.

Dathon and whatshername put a massive lockdown at NOM. So rant away, but get your crap together first. Much of the migration to this forum was out of homelessness when the other forums got creamed and aimoo or whatever it was ate the archives.

You seem to be saying this forum is not ideal, that you only came here out of homelessness, which squares with your opinion that your old-school NOM friends are superior forum participants to the rest of us.

Even Cherry seemed to lose traction after the forum passwords were lost and the key-holder died of brain cancer. Right?

I defer to your expertise here, but it does make me think about making sure the right folks have the forum passwords.

"[ B]lah blah blah" can't exist in the alleged required form of an ellipsis (three dots). Get your facts straight. That is not even possible.

This is the kind of thing that happens when participants keep pushing moderators. In context with your track record it was a reasonable call.

Nevertheless, you will likely get your wish.

oh, so now you're going to double down saying what you think I believe even after I've clarified. Noted.

Just waiting on Xeno I suppose. If he wants a moderator to crap on the forum and lie to and about posters and generally play nonsense, I have asked to have my Whiskey account deleted. No interest in that crap. You can damned have it. Simple as this. If one or more of the moderators approve of panny's moderation and simultaneous trolling participation, bounce me. No hard feelings.

Shades has always been clear that moderators are to moderate as proxies of himself. If you don't like Canpakes moderation, your beef is with Shades.

Y'all are free to roam about the planet without me.

If I were a MAGA Christian I'd say good riddance. But I believe in the Jesus who sought out the one sheep out of the ninety and nine. So I would encourage you to return should it be viable. I would feel a loss to the forum if that becomes your decision.

[Philo Sofee]

The same way Dan said that there can be no valid criticism of the LDS church.

Since the Church is ex hypothesi true, there can be no genuine evidence that it is false. There can be seeming evidence against its claims, evidence that reasonable people might well regard as genuine and damning. In the end, though, on the assumption that the claims of the Church are true, what seems to be genuine, damning evidence against it must ultimately prove not to be such.

O.K., before I play my cards, I sincerely have to ask you to verify that this really is Dan Peterson saying this. I KNOW it isn't Dan McClellan, so I am assuming it's Dan Peterson. But I just want to make sure it really is something he actually did say. Thank you.

[Philo Sofee]

Thank you both, this is helpful, but I want to test my understanding—there seems to be a fine distinction in that you’re not saying members are consciously lying or intending deception, but that their identify becomes reliant upon some sort of distortion to maintain their self-image? Is that a fair restatement?

There is an LDS saying, something along the lines of 'a testimony is found in the giving of it.' It comes, If I recall correctly from an old missionary story where a missionary asked a leader, 'how can I bear my testimony when i'm not really sure I have one?' The answer was to 'keep bearing your testimony and eventually it will come.'

Looking closely at that advice, it's clear the leader is suggesting the missionary lie and pretend he believes, as a method to reach belief. This method seemingly gives permission for a lie, if it's done for a good reason. The testimony becomes performative rather than a real expression of feelings. In my opinion, that performative nature never quite goes away, and it becomes impossible to know who is sincere and who is just performing in order to fit in.

So yes, as you stated, "their identity becomes reliant upon some sort of distortion to maintain their self-image," with the distortion being a lie, but a permissible one given its honorable intent (according to Mormonism).

Reading that now, post-Mormonism, it hardly seems possible for an entire group to maintain such deception and dishonesty, but in my opinion it happens and it's fairly stable, as long as those who question any of it are in the minority and leave, or are shunned. In this sense I agree with Gad's explanation that many don't really believe.

Edited to add: I see Gad has expressed some similar thoughts in his latest post.

That....... THAT right there is really well put, thank you for saying it........

[malkie]

Thank you both, this is helpful, but I want to test my understanding—there seems to be a fine distinction in that you’re not saying members are consciously lying or intending deception, but that their identify becomes reliant upon some sort of distortion to maintain their self-image? Is that a fair restatement?

There is an LDS saying, something along the lines of 'a testimony is found in the giving of it.' It comes, If I recall correctly from an old missionary story where a missionary asked a leader, 'how can I bear my testimony when i'm not really sure I have one?' The answer was to 'keep bearing your testimony and eventually it will come.'

Looking closely at that advice, it's clear the leader is suggesting the missionary lie and pretend he believes, as a method to reach belief. This method seemingly gives permission for a lie, if it's done for a good reason. The testimony becomes performative rather than a real expression of feelings. In my opinion, that performative nature never quite goes away, and it becomes impossible to know who is sincere and who is just performing in order to fit in.

So yes, as you stated, "their identity becomes reliant upon some sort of distortion to maintain their self-image," with the distortion being a lie, but a permissible one given its honorable intent (according to Mormonism).

Reading that now, post-Mormonism, it hardly seems possible for an entire group to maintain such deception and dishonesty, but in my opinion it happens and it's fairly stable, as long as those who question any of it are in the minority and leave, or are shunned. In this sense I agree with Gad's explanation that many don't really believe.

Edited to add: I see Gad has expressed some similar thoughts in his latest post.

to have a missionary say, ‘How can I bear testimony until I get one? How can I testify that God lives, that Jesus is the Christ and that the gospel is true? If I do not have such a testimony would that not be dishonest?’

Oh, if I could teach you this one principle! A testimony is to be found in the bearing of it. Somewhere in your quest for spiritual knowledge, there is that ‘leap of faith,’ as the philosophers call it. It is the moment when you have gone to the edge of the light and step into the darkness to discover that the way is lighted ahead for just a footstep or two. The spirit of man, as the scripture says, indeed is the candle of the Lord.

It is one thing to receive a witness from what you have read or what another has said; and that is a necessary beginning. It is quite another to have the Spirit confirm to you in your bosom that what you have testified is true. Can you not see that it will be supplied as you share it? As you give that which you have, there is a replacement, with increase!

Quoted in Bearing Pure Testimony, by Robert L. Millet

ETA: Limnor, you may see how this applied to me, and how I trapped myself with this concept.

[Whiskey]

Shades has always been clear that moderators are to moderate as proxies of himself. If you don't like Canpakes moderation, your beef is with Shades.

That is fair. I do not believe that panny's moderation resembles Shades' in any way. Not, even, close. Which is another reason to remove me from the board. I value my friendship with Shades over my contribution or entertainment on this board. I damn sure don't want that twat panny creating an actual conflict. It is enough that he is a petulant damned nuisance on a forum.

[Limnor]

There is an LDS saying, something along the lines of 'a testimony is found in the giving of it.' It comes, If I recall correctly from an old missionary story where a missionary asked a leader, 'how can I bear my testimony when i'm not really sure I have one?' The answer was to 'keep bearing your testimony and eventually it will come.'

Looking closely at that advice, it's clear the leader is suggesting the missionary lie and pretend he believes, as a method to reach belief. This method seemingly gives permission for a lie, if it's done for a good reason. The testimony becomes performative rather than a real expression of feelings. In my opinion, that performative nature never quite goes away, and it becomes impossible to know who is sincere and who is just performing in order to fit in.

So yes, as you stated, "their identity becomes reliant upon some sort of distortion to maintain their self-image," with the distortion being a lie, but a permissible one given its honorable intent (according to Mormonism).

Reading that now, post-Mormonism, it hardly seems possible for an entire group to maintain such deception and dishonesty, but in my opinion it happens and it's fairly stable, as long as those who question any of it are in the minority and leave, or are shunned. In this sense I agree with Gad's explanation that many don't really believe.

Edited to add: I see Gad has expressed some similar thoughts in his latest post.

to have a missionary say, ‘How can I bear testimony until I get one? How can I testify that God lives, that Jesus is the Christ and that the gospel is true? If I do not have such a testimony would that not be dishonest?’

Oh, if I could teach you this one principle! A testimony is to be found in the bearing of it. Somewhere in your quest for spiritual knowledge, there is that ‘leap of faith,’ as the philosophers call it. It is the moment when you have gone to the edge of the light and step into the darkness to discover that the way is lighted ahead for just a footstep or two. The spirit of man, as the scripture says, indeed is the candle of the Lord.

It is one thing to receive a witness from what you have read or what another has said; and that is a necessary beginning. It is quite another to have the Spirit confirm to you in your bosom that what you have testified is true. Can you not see that it will be supplied as you share it? As you give that which you have, there is a replacement, with increase!

Quoted in Bearing Pure Testimony, by Robert L. Millet

ETA: Limnor, you may see how this applied to me, and how I trapped myself with this concept.

Yes I do see.