God can write straight with crooked lines.

[Marcus]

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

Wow, that link is quite the reminder of how mentalgymnast flip flops around, saying anything to justify, as Morley said, what his leaders tell him to believe. . Was it in that discussion that he also suggested another justification for a Mormon bishop caught sexually abusing children? It was around that time. Mentalgymnast's thought was that his Mormon god might call a pedophile as a bishop so that he could have bishop's access to victims, get caught, and thereby start the repentance process. I'm not kidding. That's how he thinks god "writes straight with crooked lines."

[Doctor CamNC4Me]

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

viewtopic.php?p=2804029#p2804029

Wow, that link is quite the reminder of how mentalgymnast flip flops around, saying anything to justify, as Morley said, what his leaders tell him to believe. . Was it in that discussion that he also suggested another justification for a Mormon bishop caught sexually abusing children? It was around that time. Mentalgymnast's thought was that his Mormon god might call a pedophile as a bishop so that he could have bishop's access to victims, get caught, and thereby start the repentance process. I'm not kidding. That's how he thinks god "writes straight with crooked lines."

He did say that, and it was a real eye-opening moment for me just how deeply someone entrenches in their group identity rather than risk “recalibration.” While MG’s perfidy is well-known on this board, I’ve also learned over time that a cult member rarely thinks and acts outside the lines, crooked or otherwise.

- Doc

[MG 2.0]

Wow, that link is quite the reminder of how mentalgymnast flip flops around, saying anything to justify, as Morley said, what his leaders tell him to believe. . Was it in that discussion that he also suggested another justification for a Mormon bishop caught sexually abusing children? It was around that time. Mentalgymnast's thought was that his Mormon god might call a pedophile as a bishop so that he could have bishop's access to victims, get caught, and thereby start the repentance process. I'm not kidding. That's how he thinks god "writes straight with crooked lines."

He did say that, and it was a real eye-opening moment for me just how deeply someone entrenches in their group identity rather than risk “recalibration.” While MG’s perfidy is well-known on this board, I’ve also learned over time that a cult member rarely thinks and acts outside the lines, crooked or otherwise.

- Doc

I would recommend that people do go back and read the thread that has been linked to. There isn't anything that I read in the few pages I skimmed over that I wouldn't say again.

Perfidy. Cult member.

Buzz words. Meaningless.

"Recalibration". What does this even mean? And does it have more than one meaning? Who gets to define it?

Regards,
MG

[MG 2.0]

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?

When you step beyond the whole 'money and power' shtick you reach a dead end it appears.

Regards,
MG

[MG 2.0]

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.”

Yeah, I think your observations are wrong.

Regards,
MG

[MG 2.0]

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."

And you continue to mumble gibberish.

Regards,
MG

[Morley]

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."

And you continue to mumble gibberish.

Regards,
MG

Ha! You asked me to elaborate when I made the same accusation of you. And I did. I made a couple of posts doing so.

Now I’m asking the same of you, MG. Please take a little time and expend a little effort explaining which parts of this don’t make any sense to you. I’m looking forward to your thoughtful rebuttal.

[Limnor]

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.”

Yeah, I think your observations are wrong.

Regards,
MG

I see. So the heap is piled up enough to pass into “you’re wrong” territory.

[Morley]

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

But you take care, okay?

When you step beyond the whole 'money and power' shtick you reach a dead end it appears.

Regards,
MG

This isn’t my thread of discussion, but I’m curious. Why would Bill need to “step beyond the whole money and power” as motivation theory? Why isn’t that a relevant argument?

Asking for a friend.

[MG 2.0]

And you continue to mumble gibberish.

Regards,
MG

Ha! You asked me to elaborate when I made the same accusation of you. And I did. I made a couple of posts doing so.

Now I’m asking the same of you, MG. Please take a little time and expend a little effort explaining which parts of this don’t make any sense to you. I’m looking forward to your thoughtful rebuttal.

Placing all eggs in one basket called 'leader worship' or being a slave to an institution doesn't do justice to the path I've followed to get to where I am. The path has been wide ranging with input from many sources, including my own intuition, questioning, and experience.

Your synopsis and resulting conclusion is severely limited compared to actual reality.

But that's what you get when you're playing armchair analysis.

Regards,
MG