Temples dotting/covering the earth.

[Limnor]

Why do I let myself get sucked into MG world? Sometimes it’s fun.

What I really wanted to talk about was the sincere fraud thing, but frankly I don’t like it when gad and Kish and IHQ disagree, so I’m hesitant to put my post in there…

Someone encourage me and tell me it’s ok.

It's OK - really. You're a big boy, and can disagree with one or other of these fine gentlemen and scholars, or even disagree with both!!

Attaboy malkie, thank you sir.

[malkie]

It's OK - really. You're a big boy, and can disagree with one or other of these fine gentlemen and scholars, or even disagree with both!!

Attaboy malkie, thank you sir

[Limnor]

Attaboy malkie, thank you sir.

lol

[malkie]

Why do I let myself get sucked into MG world? Sometimes it’s fun.

...

On a serious note, I'd like to point out something about MG, and his participation here.

in my opinion, we are fortunate to have him - sincerely. I don't think it's that - as someone suggested - we need MG (perhaps more than he needs us). It's been demonstrated during his absences that we can have excellent discussions without MG's input.

As I mentioned before, most decent sized wards have someone like MG - the guy who:

• knows church teachings (often as a result of teaching classes like the Elders' Quorum, or adult Sunday School)
• has read widely beyond the curriculum, conference talks, and books written by GAs
• is familiar with at least some stuff that may be frowned upon by the "authorities" - Sunstone, Dialog, Fawn Brodie
• is the goto person when someone in the ward has a question, or doubts of some sort

But not every ward has someone who:

• knows a lot about the beliefs and attitudes of disaffected members
• is willing to go toe-to-toe with critics
• comes out of battles with his testimony intact, or even strengthened

In this respect you could consider me to be a fan. I may not believe we need MG, but I definitely believe we are lucky to have him here.

[Shulem]

I haven't read anything during the thread that has any real merit as far as I'm concerned. That's why I just let it go. There wasn't any need on my part to defend anything.

Defend yourself, chicken-boy. Don't think we didn't notice how you just let it go. Ur just chicken. Ur yellow.

Brigham Young prophesied that whenever Latter-day Saints began building a temple, "all hell was in arms against us," meaning Satan and his forces fiercely oppose temple construction because temples provide power and protection against him, allowing for sacred ordinances like baptism for the dead. He famously stated, "We never began to build any temple without the bells of hell beginning to ring," but also expressed eagerness to hear those bells ring again, showing resolve to build despite opposition for the work of salvation.

His prophecy is evident today.

I fail to see how the above statement and citation is a prophecy, per se. It speaks in the present or past tense: "all hell was in arms against us," and yet welcomes future resistance whenever and if it comes.

[Limnor]

In this respect you could consider me to be a fan. I may not believe we need MG, but I definitely believe we are lucky to have him here.

I’ll grant you that the comedy relief is high, but frankly I wish he would do a better job of defending. I’ve been challenged by others regarding faith issues, but with MG it always comes back to something like he’s not being convinced enough to change his mind. I guess I’d like to see more of an argument “for” rather than the constant “dodge” that removes the burden of proof from him.

[Philo Sofee]

but with MG it always comes back to something like he’s not being convinced enough to change his mind.

Yes, his mainstay for maintaining his testimony in tact even when the evidence tells him he is entirely justified in forgetting about it since it is so wrong. This is always his go to defense regardless. Once one sees it, one realizes it is best not to try and convince him of anything since he is immovable, and hence, out of date always. And that's O.K. It's still fun to share ideas that refute his so everyone else can see the light.

[MG 2.0]

but with MG it always comes back to something like he’s not being convinced enough to change his mind.

Yes, his mainstay for maintaining his testimony in tact even when the evidence tells him he is entirely justified in forgetting about it since it is so wrong. This is always his go to defense regardless. Once one sees it, one realizes it is best not to try and convince him of anything since he is immovable, and hence, out of date always. And that's O.K. It's still fun to share ideas that refute his so everyone else can see the light.

We each see light on a spectrum/wavelength don’t we? I’m going to take what you’ve said as a ‘mostly’ compliment.

I think what bothers critics who have left the church either spiritually/intellectually/physically is that there are those that know what they know…some cases more…and yet choose to stay because of both spiritual AND intellectual reasons.

Philo, truth be told, I mostly respect you for various reasons. One is that I met you years ago running around with a video cam at a FAIR Conference. Anyone that has a down to earth sense of humor is not all bad in my book.

I hope the thread I started, crooked…not wicked…met some of your expectations. As you probably observed I like to think out of the box and throw things out to chew on even at the risk of being ridiculed. That actually doesn’t bother me much. It lets me know I may be stepping on some sacred cows/toes.

I do have a question. What do you mean when you say “out of date always”? I’m an old guy so I can’t make it around the block anymore?

Regards,
MG

[MG 2.0]

Why do I let myself get sucked into MG world? Sometimes it’s fun.

On a serious note, I'd like to point out something about MG, and his participation here.

in my opinion, we are fortunate to have him - sincerely. I don't think it's that - as someone suggested - we need MG (perhaps more than he needs us). It's been demonstrated during his absences that we can have excellent discussions without MG's input.

As I mentioned before, most decent sized wards have someone like MG - the guy who:

• knows church teachings (often as a result of teaching classes like the Elders' Quorum, or adult Sunday School)
• has read widely beyond the curriculum, conference talks, and books written by GAs
• is familiar with at least some stuff that may be frowned upon by the "authorities" - Sunstone, Dialog, Fawn Brodie
• is the goto person when someone in the ward has a question, or doubts of some sort

But not every ward has someone who:

• knows a lot about the beliefs and attitudes of disaffected members
• is willing to go toe-to-toe with critics
• comes out of battles with his testimony intact, or even strengthened

In this respect you could consider me to be a fan. I may not believe we need MG, but I definitely believe we are lucky to have him here.

Thanks malkie. I’ll take what you said also as a ‘mostly compliment’.

Generally speaking I enjoy my interactions with you. I know we believe that ‘the other’ is mistaken… and that’s OK. It’s important to have more than one group of ‘agreeable’ voices here.

Even if you and others might consider me to be the comic relief.

Regards,
MG

[Limnor]

I think what bothers critics who have left the church either spiritually/intellectually/physically is that there are those that know what they know…some cases more…and yet choose to stay because of both spiritual AND intellectual reasons.

Would you be willing to explain what the spiritual and intellectual reasons are that keep you staying?

I suppose you go with oscilloscopes and fractals, but I’m not seeing how fractals tell you why Mormonism is true and how you can believe what Joseph said after using God to justify his polygamy and marrying men’s wives while they were away. I guess you see it as a way to live with doubts while staying, but it’s not an argument.

And yeah I think you are funny—sometimes I can’t believe you are being serious and must be joking.