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!

I have been enlightened and educated by both Gad and Kish during many of our interactions that started as disagreements (or discussions from different viewpoints). I don’t think either of those two intelligent posters would be daunted by robust discussion. And I know that this much less intelligent poster is more than happy with a strong and direct exchange of ideas. It’s how good learning happens. It’s healthy.

Thank you!

[Limnor]

Limnor, you may think my conclusions are wrong, but you and others apparently find them worth engaging at length. And then coming back and coming back for more. That seems to be evidence that my participation is not objectively worthless.

There have been a few posters that explicitly said they would no longer engage with me and that they would put me on ignore, but they have changed their tune. Why is that?

It might also be worth remembering that being labeled “absurd” is a value judgment from critics who strongly disagree with my premises, not an objective measure of the contribution I add to the board. Your irritation is at least partly a function of the deep divide between believing and critical lenses that at times you have acknowledged.

Regards,
MG

I don’t think engagement is a good measure for the strength of your arguments. I continue to engage because it is unresolved for me why you continue to believe something that is so clearly false—not because anything you say is persuasive. Plus it humors me at times. But as Philo said it is worth pointing out when you fail to address issues.

I think the word you are looking for is exasperated, not irritated. Because questions continue to be answered with absurdity instead of direct explanations.

[MG 2.0]

Limnor, you may think my conclusions are wrong, but you and others apparently find them worth engaging at length. And then coming back and coming back for more. That seems to be evidence that my participation is not objectively worthless.

There have been a few posters that explicitly said they would no longer engage with me and that they would put me on ignore, but they have changed their tune. Why is that?

It might also be worth remembering that being labeled “absurd” is a value judgment from critics who strongly disagree with my premises, not an objective measure of the contribution I add to the board. Your irritation is at least partly a function of the deep divide between believing and critical lenses that at times you have acknowledged.

Regards,
MG

I don’t think engagement is a good measure for the strength of your arguments. I continue to engage because it is unresolved for me why you continue to believe something that is so clearly false—not because anything you say is persuasive. Plus it humors me at times. But as Philo said it is worth pointing out when you fail to address issues.

I think the word you are looking for is exasperated, not irritated. Because questions continue to be answered with absurdity instead of direct explanations.

My point was simply that if my views were truly worthless, people wouldn’t keep choosing to respond to them. You find my beliefs ‘clearly false’ and my answers ‘absurd’. I see them as coherent within a believing framework that you reject. I’m not asking you to agree, only to recognize that from my side I am addressing the issues as I honestly understand them, even when that leaves you exasperated.

Have you considered the possibility that a believing member of the CofJCofLDS might find your views absurd/unreasonable?

Regards,
MG

[Limnor]

I’m not asking you to agree, only to recognize that from my side I am addressing the issues as I honestly understand them, even when that leaves you exasperated.

Have you considered the possibility that a believing member of the CofJCofLDS might find your views absurd/unreasonable?

Regards,
MG

I’ve absolutely considered that—and I’ve said so here. Being questioned forces me to give reasons and think those reasons through, which I value.

Here’s how it looks, MG—when someone consistently avoids answering why an action occurred and instead explains why it shouldn’t count as a problem, that raises questions about sincerity, and it’s reasonable to question whether the intent is to answer the question at all.

[MG 2.0]

I’m not asking you to agree, only to recognize that from my side I am addressing the issues as I honestly understand them, even when that leaves you exasperated.

Have you considered the possibility that a believing member of the CofJCofLDS might find your views absurd/unreasonable?

Regards,
MG

I’ve absolutely considered that—and I’ve said so here. Being questioned forces me to give reasons and think those reasons through, which I value.

Here’s how it looks, MG—when someone consistently avoids answering why an action occurred and instead explains why it shouldn’t count as a problem, that raises questions about sincerity, and it’s reasonable to question whether the intent is to answer the question at all.

I think at this point you will need to explain in some detail what you’re referring to. I’ve been transparent. As it is, I’m typically the one on the hot seat and, at least from where I sit, often misinterpreted and/or misrepresented.

To the point that there are some folks that have a track record which necessarily demands I don’t interact with them. It’s a fool’s errand to reason with them. From my perspective you are ‘borderline-ish’ in that you are, as a matter of fact, calling out what you believe to be “absurdities” without any evidence that your so-called conclusions are true.

You are operating behind a firewall of critical support in that you don’t believe in the core messages of the Restoration. You are free to criticize that which you don’t believe or do not fully understand and are able to be called “safe!” to each base you run to.

You are not called out on absurdities because, for one, we/I actually know very little about your own beliefs. You’re safe. I, for one, have not challenged you to explain any of your theological views. Not that I really know much about what they are…

Just sayin'’.

Regards,
MG

[MG 2.0]

Limnor, a while back you as a matter of fact said that you don’t trust me. Yet I have taken the time to be rather transparent with you. A good amount of my time has been used in doing so.

As I said on the other thread, critics are prone to beating a dead horse.

I think, for now, I would like to move on from talking with you. At least for now. And it’s not like we haven’t yacked back and forth a good deal already.

Peace.

Regards,
MG

[Limnor]

I think at this point you will need to explain in some detail what you’re referring to. I’ve been transparent. As it is, I’m typically the one on the hot seat and, at least from where I sit, often misinterpreted and/or misrepresented.

To the point that there are some folks that have a track record which necessarily demands I don’t interact with them. It’s a fool’s errand to reason with them. From my perspective you are ‘borderline-ish’ in that you are, as a matter of fact, calling out what you believe to be “absurdities” without any evidence that your so-called conclusions are true.

You are operating behind a firewall of critical support in that you don’t believe in the core messages of the Restoration. You are free to criticize that which you don’t believe or do not fully understand and are able to be called “safe!” to each base you run to.

You are not called out on absurdities because, for one, we/I actually know very little about your own beliefs. You’re safe. I, for one, have not challenged you to explain any of your theological views. Not that I really know much about what they are…

Just sayin'’.

Regards,
MG

I’m not asking you to account for my beliefs, my support system, or how “safe” I am on the board. I’m asking about Joseph’s actions, and I’ll be specific since you’ve asked.

Joseph publicly denied practicing polygamy while privately practicing it. He authorized secrecy by invoking God, threatened spiritual consequences for disclosure, and allowed others to bear false public testimony on his behalf. Those are documented actions, not metaphors. Again, the question isn’t whether Joseph believed he was commanded by God—it’s why he told people things he knew were false and invoked God to enforce that deception.

Calling that an “absurdity” isn’t a value judgment, it’s a description of the contradiction between public denial and private practice.

If you think that contradiction is being misrepresented, I’m open to correction—but it needs to address those actions directly, not my presumed motives or lack of vulnerability. It’s a discussion board about Mormonism, not limnorism.

[Limnor]

Limnor, a while back you as a matter of fact said that you don’t trust me. Yet I have taken the time to be rather transparent with you. A good amount of my time has been used in doing so.

As I said on the other thread, critics are prone to beating a dead horse.

I think, for now, I would like to move on from talking with you. At least for now. And it’s not like we haven’t yacked back and forth a good deal already.

Peace.

Regards,
MG

Fair enough MG. My lack of trust in you isn’t personal. I don’t trust anyone pushing a specific religion, especially if there are authority claims about who can speak for God involved.

[MG 2.0]

Limnor, a while back you as a matter of fact said that you don’t trust me. Yet I have taken the time to be rather transparent with you. A good amount of my time has been used in doing so.

As I said on the other thread, critics are prone to beating a dead horse.

I think, for now, I would like to move on from talking with you. At least for now. And it’s not like we haven’t yacked back and forth a good deal already.

Peace.

Regards,
MG

Fair enough MG. My lack of trust in you isn’t personal. I don’t trust anyone pushing a specific religion, especially if there are authority claims about who can speak for God involved.

You have a right to question that. I have.

Regards,
MG

[MG 2.0]

Stepping out of this conversation for now. Taking a breather.

Regards,
MG