Why is it that you’re here, MG?

[Kishkumen]

We've been through this before.

I suppose I should thank you for this expression, but if I flipped it and said that you're welcome here it would be kind of weird, right? You already know you're welcome.

I see it the same way. I already knew I was welcome by some. A majority? Not sure.

But thanks nonetheless.

Regards,
MG

The level and kind of free speech that exists here has its upsides and downsides. I consider the upside the fact that we do get the occasional brave apologist visiting or hanging out. Whether they are desired by the majority or not makes no difference because of the nature of the board's policies. Personally, I thrive on a variety of people and viewpoints, even if I disagree with them.

[Shulem]

Okay, but your next few lines appear to be you speculating on MG's reasons for posting here...

Yeah, more or less. I should have said, "I am usually not eager to speculate," which is essentially what I meant. It is kind of like when people say, "I am not a gambling man," but then proceed to show that there is some inclination to do so anyway.

I really appreciate the fact you didn't try to double down or walk it back but just admitted that it's human nature and our clicking away on this board sometimes gets us in a little trouble. I mean, just look at me! hahahahah! I've got the biggest mouth here, next to Philo!

Anyway, good job Kish!

[MG 2.0]

We've been through this before.

I suppose I should thank you for this expression, but if I flipped it and said that you're welcome here it would be kind of weird, right? You already know you're welcome.

I see it the same way. I already knew I was welcome by some. A majority? Not sure.

But thanks nonetheless.

Regards,
MG

The level and kind of free speech that exists here has its upsides and downsides. I consider the upside the fact that we do get the occasional brave apologist visiting or hanging out. Whether they are desired by the majority or not makes no difference because of the nature of the board's policies. Personally, I thrive on a variety of people and viewpoints, even if I disagree with them.

Same here. I do agree with the poster who began this thread who said that they have noticed the board gradually moving away from basic civility towards those that maintain belief in God and Mormonism in particular.

I've already gone into more detail on that recently so I won't bore anyone by repeating myself.

Regards,
MG

[Marcus]

The level and kind of free speech that exists here has its upsides and downsides. I consider the upside the fact that we do get the occasional brave apologist visiting or hanging out. Whether they are desired by the majority or not makes no difference because of the nature of the board's policies. Personally, I thrive on a variety of people and viewpoints, even if I disagree with them.

Same here. I do agree with the poster who began this thread who said that they have noticed the board gradually moving away from basic civility towards those that maintain belief in God and Mormonism in particular...

Gradually moving away? When it's in response to mentalgymnast's lack of civility toward others when he states how he knows their life is less than his because he has his particular kind of faith and they don't match it, I don't see how people can be blamed for responding in kind.

Mental gymnasts who go places to troll shouldn't be surprised when people notice what they are doing.

[Rivendale]

Same here. I do agree with the poster who began this thread who said that they have noticed the board gradually moving away from basic civility towards those that maintain belief in God and Mormonism in particular...

Gradually moving away? When it's in response to mentalgymnast's lack of civility toward others when he states how he knows their life is less than his because he has his particular kind of faith and they don't match it, I don't see how people can be blamed for responding in kind.

Mental gymnasts who go places to troll shouldn't be surprised when people notice what they are doing.

Many posters have posted with their best commercial for the belief in god. Not long ago Don Bradley gave his pitch for god and a discussion ensued around his book recommendation, David Harts' The experience of God. Many here read the book and we explained why it wasn't convincing and that seems to be where it ended. I thought the conversations were civil they just organically die out. But MG uses inflammatory language and dismissive tactics which is a hallmark of Mormon apologetics.

[Gadianton]

I think apologists in general have a tactic of demanding civility towards themselves (while, of course, not recognizing how they treat others) such that civility turns into forced acceptance of Mormonism. Somehow, they want to make the situation out to be that if you reject Mormonism, you're being uncivil to them -- you're an "anti-Mormon" and associated with all the persecutions of Missouri. It is most definitely a tactic of Mopologists to troll and milk uncivility for all that they can.

Personally, I'm more allergic to bad reasoning and lack of awareness than I am insults. I'm all for civility, but if somebody wants to insult me while otherwise offering interesting information or a coherent perspective then it's a whole lot better than somebody being pleasant toward me but pounding out mental slop and ignorant nonsense. I can't say this has happened often, but I can think of past situations where I learned quite a bit from unpleasant people.

[MG 2.0]

I think apologists in general have a tactic of demanding civility towards themselves (while, of course, not recognizing how they treat others) such that civility turns into forced acceptance of Mormonism. Somehow, they want to make the situation out to be that if you reject Mormonism, you're being uncivil to them…

Not at all. At least in my case. But hey, I’m not an apologist. As many here have said, if I am, I’m an awfully poor one, right?

Mental slop and all…

Regards,
MG

[Everybody Wang Chung]

I think apologists in general have a tactic of demanding civility towards themselves (while, of course, not recognizing how they treat others) such that civility turns into forced acceptance of Mormonism. Somehow, they want to make the situation out to be that if you reject Mormonism, you're being uncivil to them…

Not at all. At least in my case. But hey, I’m not an apologist. As many here have said, if I am, I’m an awfully poor one, right?

Mental slop and all…

Regards,
Fibber

Fibber calling his own arguments "mental slop" is probably the first time he's ever been honest on this board.

[Marcus]

I think apologists in general have a tactic of demanding civility towards themselves (while, of course, not recognizing how they treat others) such that civility turns into forced acceptance of Mormonism. Somehow, they want to make the situation out to be that if you reject Mormonism, you're being uncivil to them…

Not at all. At least in my case...

Also mentalgymnast:

...I do have a problem with a critic being the critic of that which I believe and/or hope to be true in its essence and at its core. The pearl of great price. When you bad mouth the leaders of the church or take it for granted that the church is merely a church 'of one's birth' and nothing else (throwing the baby out with the bathwater of many things observable throughout the Christian world), I see that as rather presumptuous and even arrogant...

[Philo Sofee]

Yeah, more or less. I should have said, "I am usually not eager to speculate," which is essentially what I meant. It is kind of like when people say, "I am not a gambling man," but then proceed to show that there is some inclination to do so anyway.

I really appreciate the fact you didn't try to double down or walk it back but just admitted that it's human nature and our clicking away on this board sometimes gets us in a little trouble. I mean, just look at me! hahahahah! I've got the biggest mouth here, next to Philo!

Anyway, good job Kish!

HEY!!! I resemble that remark.......