God can write straight with crooked lines.

[bill4long]

It was an honest question.

I see you’ve succumbed to the mind virus.

I've asked you several honest questions that you won't answer.

But you take care, okay?

[I Have Questions]

Many people that leave religion or God behind take the moral compass, the external moral code/teachings they had, with them unless they find something that has a better fit.

Mix and match.

LGBTQ folks are going to be more than likely to do this.

You have made some assertions here as if they are confirmed facts. I don’t think you can support them in any way. But I’m prepared to let you prove me wrong. So please put up the data, the studies etc. that have led you to those firm conclusions.

I don’t think you will provide them. I don’t think you can. Because your assertions are simply untrue.

[I Have Questions]

That’s half the question. How does your moral compass react to the institution that protected the perps and failed the victims?

Hoping that in a large institution such as the CofJCofLDS that changes can be made to get a better handle on it.

Regards,
MG

Why don't you have the same hope for the perpetrators?

[Limnor]

Honestly this is a somewhat stunning reveal to me, but I’m trying to understand something. Mercy and nuance seem very appropriate in the way you’re describing your own situation and family, which I appreciate. I’m wondering why that same mercy isn’t afforded to those outside the Church—some of whom are living through their own moral dilemmas the best they can.

I think that it should be. Contrary to what you might think, most of my posts over time have taken that position.

Regards,
MG

Maybe it’s a Sorites trap here. When do enough posts count for mercy for outsiders? It’s hard to tell exactly when we crossed from “it should be” to “it feels like it isn’t.”

Occasionally you ask for examples of your posts that don’t quite land the way you want (or something along those lines). This is one of those times. The “contrary to what you might think” phrasing feels less like adding clarity and more like telling someone that their observations are wrong.

Not quite “gaslight” but more “gaslight-adjacent.”

[Doctor CamNC4Me]

That’s half the question. How does your moral compass react to the institution that protected the perps and failed the victims?

Hoping that in a large institution such as the CofJCofLDS that changes can be made to get a better handle on it.

Regards,
MG

That, and his previous answer about perps being nabbed, is a bald faced lie:

viewtopic.php?p=2804029#p2804029

[Morley]

This is gibberish because you know better. You're just echoing a trope that you've heard mouthed in church--without really thinking about what you're saying...

It is gibberish, but embedded within is an admission from mentalgymnast that within his church he doesn't have his own personally developed moral compass--he just swallows whole everything his church feeds him. Why else would he state that leaving the lds church meant a person needed to develop a moral compass for themselves? Midgley admitted this as well when he stated that he wouldn't know rape was wrong without his church telling him it was.
Now that people have explained more, mentalgymnast suddenly flipflops, saying he believes people develop their own moral compasses, albeit he still assumes (and tells us) the non-lds are bad at it. He apparently doesn't see the inconsistency in this new opinion.

Marcus, you've changed my mind about this. Because we have so many other cultural inputs, I would normally say that any specific religion plays a pretty small part in shaping our overall moral compasses. But in MG's case, I think both you and he are right. I may owe MG an apology, for I might be the one here who is mumbling gibberish.

I think it's true that MG would probably have to completely recalibrate without the Church. Truth, to MG, is fungible and open to reinterpretation, depending on whether or not it supports Mormonism. For instance, MG values honesty, marital fidelity, and loyalty--but only to the extent that they reinforce his support of Joseph and the Church. MG thinks that Joseph's polygamy was okay, not because he believes in any guiding principle that endorses it, but because Joseph said it was okay. He thinks that the LDS Church breaking laws so they can compile a hoard of dragon treasure in the base of Mount Timpanogos is okay, because the fifteen are the ones doing it--anyone else would be heartily condemned. He can brush off the religion's atrocious handling of pedophilia because, um, free agency or something. Any other organization that protected molesters at the cost of creating and ignoring childhood victims would be pilloried by him. His morality is entirely subsumed and dictated by whatever is endorsed by the baker's dozen plus two in SLC.

In this way, MG is like one of the MAGA crowd. There are no red lines that can't be crossed, no unbreakable truths or eternal principles that cannot be renegotiated. There is only the cult of personality--only in place of Trump, MG substitutes Joseph and the Brighamite branch of the LDS Church. What the leader says is what is always right. It may be beyond our understanding, but in the larger picture, it's always right, no matter what ethical principles are trampled. The Church's ways (what MG would refer to as God's ways), like Donald Trump's ways, are not our ways--but they are, overall, what is the best for mankind.

When it comes down to it, I see that MG is flummoxed and confused by this whole personal morality idea. This is because his own personal morality is wholly based, not on Christianity and Jesus, but on the how the Church's brethren and their PR department lawyers interpret Jesus. And that, as we know, is always a moving target. It's difficult to establish a defined personal morality when the rules are apt to change tomorrow--so you're reduced to just saying, "I believe whatever they believe."

[I Have Questions]

It is gibberish, but embedded within is an admission from mentalgymnast that within his church he doesn't have his own personally developed moral compass--he just swallows whole everything his church feeds him. Why else would he state that leaving the LDS church meant a person needed to develop a moral compass for themselves? Midgley admitted this as well when he stated that he wouldn't know rape was wrong without his church telling him it was.
Now that people have explained more, mentalgymnast suddenly flipflops, saying he believes people develop their own moral compasses, albeit he still assumes (and tells us) the non-lds are bad at it. He apparently doesn't see the inconsistency in this new opinion.

Marcus, you've changed my mind about this. Because we have so many other cultural inputs, I would normally say that any specific religion plays a pretty small part in shaping our overall moral compasses. But in MG's case, I think both you and he are right. I may owe MG an apology, for I might be the one here who is mumbling gibberish.

I think it's true that MG would probably have to completely recalibrate without the Church. Truth, to MG, is fungible and open to reinterpretation, depending on whether or not it supports Mormonism. For instance, MG values honesty, marital fidelity, and loyalty--but only to the extent that they reinforce his support of Joseph and the Church. MG thinks that Joseph's polygamy was okay, not because he believes in any guiding principle that endorses it, but because Joseph said it was okay. He thinks that the LDS Church breaking laws so they can compile a hoard of dragon treasure in the base of Mount Timpanogos is okay, because the fifteen are the ones doing it--anyone else would be heartily condemned. He can brush off the religion's atrocious handling of pedophilia because, um, free agency or something. Any other organization that protected molesters at the cost of creating and ignoring childhood victims would be pilloried by him. His morality is entirely subsumed and dictated by whatever is endorsed by the baker's dozen plus two in SLC.

In this way, MG is like one of the MAGA crowd. There are no red lines that can't be crossed, no unbreakable truths or eternal principles that cannot be renegotiated. There is only the cult of personality--only in place of Trump, MG substitutes Joseph and the Brighamite branch of the LDS Church. What the leader says is what is always right. It may be beyond our understanding, but in the larger picture, it's always right, no matter what ethical principles are trampled. The Church's ways (what MG would refer to as God's ways), like Donald Trump's ways, are not our ways--but they are, overall, what is the best for mankind.

When it comes down to it, I see that MG is flummoxed and confused by this whole personal morality idea. This is because his own personal morality is wholly based, not on Christianity and Jesus, but on the how the Church's brethren and their PR department lawyers interpret Jesus. And that, as we know, is always a moving target. It's difficult to establish a defined personal morality when the rules are apt to change tomorrow--so you're reduced to just saying, "I believe whatever they believe."

I applaud your summation. I believe you nailed it.

[Res Ipsa]

It is gibberish, but embedded within is an admission from mentalgymnast that within his church he doesn't have his own personally developed moral compass--he just swallows whole everything his church feeds him. Why else would he state that leaving the LDS church meant a person needed to develop a moral compass for themselves? Midgley admitted this as well when he stated that he wouldn't know rape was wrong without his church telling him it was.
Now that people have explained more, mentalgymnast suddenly flipflops, saying he believes people develop their own moral compasses, albeit he still assumes (and tells us) the non-lds are bad at it. He apparently doesn't see the inconsistency in this new opinion.

Marcus, you've changed my mind about this. Because we have so many other cultural inputs, I would normally say that any specific religion plays a pretty small part in shaping our overall moral compasses. But in MG's case, I think both you and he are right. I may owe MG an apology, for I might be the one here who is mumbling gibberish.

I think it's true that MG would probably have to completely recalibrate without the Church. Truth, to MG, is fungible and open to reinterpretation, depending on whether or not it supports Mormonism. For instance, MG values honesty, marital fidelity, and loyalty--but only to the extent that they reinforce his support of Joseph and the Church. MG thinks that Joseph's polygamy was okay, not because he believes in any guiding principle that endorses it, but because Joseph said it was okay. He thinks that the LDS Church breaking laws so they can compile a hoard of dragon treasure in the base of Mount Timpanogos is okay, because the fifteen are the ones doing it--anyone else would be heartily condemned. He can brush off the religion's atrocious handling of pedophilia because, um, free agency or something. Any other organization that protected molesters at the cost of creating and ignoring childhood victims would be pilloried by him. His morality is entirely subsumed and dictated by whatever is endorsed by the baker's dozen plus two in SLC.

In this way, MG is like one of the MAGA crowd. There are no red lines that can't be crossed, no unbreakable truths or eternal principles that cannot be renegotiated. There is only the cult of personality--only in place of Trump, MG substitutes Joseph and the Brighamite branch of the LDS Church. What the leader says is what is always right. It may be beyond our understanding, but in the larger picture, it's always right, no matter what ethical principles are trampled. The Church's ways (what MG would refer to as God's ways), like Donald Trump's ways, are not our ways--but they are, overall, what is the best for mankind.

When it comes down to it, I see that MG is flummoxed and confused by this whole personal morality idea. This is because his own personal morality is wholly based, not on Christianity and Jesus, but on the how the Church's brethren and their PR department lawyers interpret Jesus. And that, as we know, is always a moving target. It's difficult to establish a defined personal morality when the rules are apt to change tomorrow--so you're reduced to just saying, "I believe whatever they believe."

This is exactly what I mean when I say that MG is a moral and ethical relativist. Like many apologists, he wields the tools of post-modern deconstruction without grasping the implication of those tools. Post modernism can only deconstruct — it cannot provide a basis for any kind of moral or ethical system. We can all see the morass of contradictory positions he takes in any kind of extended discussion. But he is drowning in post modernism and is blind to his inherent contradictions.

[bill4long]

It is gibberish, but embedded within is an admission from mentalgymnast that within his church he doesn't have his own personally developed moral compass--he just swallows whole everything his church feeds him. Why else would he state that leaving the LDS church meant a person needed to develop a moral compass for themselves? Midgley admitted this as well when he stated that he wouldn't know rape was wrong without his church telling him it was.
Now that people have explained more, mentalgymnast suddenly flipflops, saying he believes people develop their own moral compasses, albeit he still assumes (and tells us) the non-lds are bad at it. He apparently doesn't see the inconsistency in this new opinion.

Marcus, you've changed my mind about this. Because we have so many other cultural inputs, I would normally say that any specific religion plays a pretty small part in shaping our overall moral compasses. But in MG's case, I think both you and he are right. I may owe MG an apology, for I might be the one here who is mumbling gibberish.

I think it's true that MG would probably have to completely recalibrate without the Church. Truth, to MG, is fungible and open to reinterpretation, depending on whether or not it supports Mormonism. For instance, MG values honesty, marital fidelity, and loyalty--but only to the extent that they reinforce his support of Joseph and the Church. MG thinks that Joseph's polygamy was okay, not because he believes in any guiding principle that endorses it, but because Joseph said it was okay. He thinks that the LDS Church breaking laws so they can compile a hoard of dragon treasure in the base of Mount Timpanogos is okay, because the fifteen are the ones doing it--anyone else would be heartily condemned. He can brush off the religion's atrocious handling of pedophilia because, um, free agency or something. Any other organization that protected molesters at the cost of creating and ignoring childhood victims would be pilloried by him. His morality is entirely subsumed and dictated by whatever is endorsed by the baker's dozen plus two in SLC.

In this way, MG is like one of the MAGA crowd. There are no red lines that can't be crossed, no unbreakable truths or eternal principles that cannot be renegotiated. There is only the cult of personality--only in place of Trump, MG substitutes Joseph and the Brighamite branch of the LDS Church. What the leader says is what is always right. It may be beyond our understanding, but in the larger picture, it's always right, no matter what ethical principles are trampled. The Church's ways (what MG would refer to as God's ways), like Donald Trump's ways, are not our ways--but they are, overall, what is the best for mankind.

When it comes down to it, I see that MG is flummoxed and confused by this whole personal morality idea. This is because his own personal morality is wholly based, not on Christianity and Jesus, but on the how the Church's brethren and their PR department lawyers interpret Jesus. And that, as we know, is always a moving target. It's difficult to establish a defined personal morality when the rules are apt to change tomorrow--so you're reduced to just saying, "I believe whatever they believe."

Very good stuff here. It perfectly explains why a Brighamite such as MG can take the founding document of the Mormon movement, the Book of Mormon, read 3 Nephi 11:39,40 and ignore the obvious. From the lips of "Jesus", no less. Why? Because even the Book of Mormon and the Book of Mormon Jesus are subordinated under Joseph Smith and whatever he (and whom MG accepts as his current successor) tells him is true even if it violates the founding text of his religion. For all practical purposes, he worships The Brethren™ . This idea is hammered into the heads of the Faithful in the temple, where they essentially make themselves slaves to them. (Moderator: if that's too close to "no temple specifics", I'll edit it out.)

I wonder what MG's limits are, if he has any, if he really and truly takes that seriously. Would he murder for the prophet? And if he balked, on what basis would he balk, given they are the ultimate source of his morality? Such a scenario probably won't ever happen. But he's a-okay with The Brethren™ obfuscating things like the child abuse problem in the Church™ (Good PR Uber Alles!!), and hiding tons of assets using a multi-level shell corporate scheme.

[Rivendale]

It was an honest question.

I see you’ve succumbed to the mind virus.

I've asked you several honest questions that you won't answer.

But you take care, okay?

Apparently following Oak's example when he said they will avoid the questions they can't answer.