How often "plates" are discussed here.

[malkie]

"Making stuff up". Sheesh.

"It is very difficult to carry on a conversation ..."

If Mg is referring to me (as it seems he is), he might like to note that I am not conduction a conversation (for some unknown reason, a certain Monty Python skit popped into my mind), nor do I intend to. I concluded a long time ago that attempting conversation with MG was not worthwhile.

From time to time I may comment on the "stuff" he writes.

[MG 2.0]

"Making stuff up". Sheesh.

"It is very difficult to carry on a conversation ..."

If Mg is referring to me (as it seems he is), he might like to note that I am not conduction a conversation (for some unknown reason, a certain Monty Python skit popped into my mind), nor do I intend to. I concluded a long time ago that attempting conversation with MG was not worthwhile.

From time to time I may comment on the "stuff" he writes.

I'm not trying to drag you into any conversation. But if you jump in to make ANY kind of comment I'm assuming you're interested in exchanging ideas. Clipping everything that I have said into a "stuff" capsule doesn't do justice to any kind of back and forth conversation.

If you're not really interested in exchanging ideas, you might simply refrain from responding my posts...at all...even minimally. But that's up to you I guess.

There are some folks here that I have obviously lost interest in responding to. So I don't. I works! For me anyway. I won't be offended if you simply ignore me. On the other hand, when you respond with some content rather than with "stuff" I find that more interesting.

Regards,
MG

[malkie]

"It is very difficult to carry on a conversation ..."

If Mg is referring to me (as it seems he is), he might like to note that I am not conduct[ing] a conversation (for some unknown reason, a certain Monty Python skit popped into my mind), nor do I intend to. I concluded a long time ago that attempting conversation with MG was not worthwhile.

From time to time I may comment on the "stuff" he writes.

More "stuff".

I don't understand what part of my comment seems to be so difficult for MG to understand, but I'm certainly glad that he's not trying to drag me into a conversation.

I may jump in to make ANY kind of comment without implying that I'm interested in exchanging ideas. Clipping everything that MG says into a "stuff" capsule might be expected to disabuse him of the notion that I'm interested in any kind of back and forth conversation. But it seems not. Strange!

Even though I'm not always interested in exchanging ideas with MG, why would I simply refrain from responding to his posts...at all...even minimally? Since that's up to me, I'll continue to do what seems reasonable to me - make comments when I feel like it. I may even reply directly, if that's how I feel at the time! If MG doesn't like it, he could simply refrain from responding to my comments...at all...even minimally. But that's up to him.

There are some folks here that MG has obviously lost interest in responding to. So he doesn't. He finds that it works for him anyway, and I fully support him in this practice, as I have similarly lost interest in responding to some. I'm certainly not going to waste my time in making some sort of wishy-washy comment that seems to imply that he should act differently.

I won't be offended if he simply ignores me. He's done it often enough in the past that I'm kinda used to it On the other hand, when he responds with actual serious answers to questions he's been asked, I find that more interesting and I believe that others might too!

[MG 2.0]

More "stuff".

I don't understand what part of my comment seems to be so difficult for MG to understand, but I'm certainly glad that he's not trying to drag me into a conversation.

I may jump in to make ANY kind of comment without implying that I'm interested in exchanging ideas. Clipping everything that MG says into a "stuff" capsule might be expected to disabuse him of the notion that I'm interested in any kind of back and forth conversation. But it seems not. Strange!

Even though I'm not always interested in exchanging ideas with MG, why would I simply refrain from responding to his posts...at all...even minimally? Since that's up to me, I'll continue to do what seems reasonable to me - make comments when I feel like it. I may even reply directly, if that's how I feel at the time! If MG doesn't like it, he could simply refrain from responding to my comments...at all...even minimally. But that's up to him.

There are some folks here that MG has obviously lost interest in responding to. So he doesn't. He finds that it works for him anyway, and I fully support him in this practice, as I have similarly lost interest in responding to some. I'm certainly not going to waste my time in making some sort of wishy-washy comment that seems to imply that he should act differently.

I won't be offended if he simply ignores me. He's done it often enough in the past that I'm kinda used to it On the other hand, when he responds with actual serious answers to questions he's been asked, I find that more interesting and I believe that others might too!

Regards,
MG

[I Have Questions]

"It is very difficult to carry on a conversation ..."

If Mg is referring to me (as it seems he is), he might like to note that I am not conduction a conversation (for some unknown reason, a certain Monty Python skit popped into my mind), nor do I intend to. I concluded a long time ago that attempting conversation with MG was not worthwhile.

From time to time I may comment on the "stuff" he writes.

I'm not trying to drag you into any conversation. But if you jump in to make ANY kind of comment I'm assuming you're interested in exchanging ideas. Clipping everything that I have said into a "stuff" capsule doesn't do justice to any kind of back and forth conversation.

If you're not really interested in exchanging ideas, you might simply refrain from responding my posts...at all...even minimally. But that's up to you I guess.

There are some folks here that I have obviously lost interest in responding to. So I don't. I works! For me anyway. I won't be offended if you simply ignore me. On the other hand, when you respond with some content rather than with "stuff" I find that more interesting.

Regards,
MG

That’s not true. You do respond to them. You don’t quote their post, but you do attempt a little snide remark or side swipe directly responding to their post. You don’t quote them, you don’t answer their reasonable questions holding you to account for your assertions. But I think that’s more that you don’t like being held accountable, you want to be able to spout any old baseless tripe that may contradict what you’d claimed five minutes earlier without anyone challenging you on it.

But you’re free to do all that. Just don’t break the rules

[I Have Questions]

The one person who has commented on "arm of the flesh" has not defined the phrase/term in the way that I meant it back a few pages ago. I might suggest going back and rereading what I originally said and the context in which I was saying it.

It's not that complicated even though some are making it out to be.

No takers so far, except for one. A point for trying.

Regards,
MG

MG, quick question. Are you trying to avoid directly responding to me? It’s a bit surprising, but I suppose I did authorize it lol

That said, I’d still be interested in how you’re defining “arm of the flesh” here.

So would I, which is why I asked MG to explain himself. He wants other people to provide options so that he can pick one that gets him off the hook he now knows he’s put himself on by using the term. The one thing he won’t do now is explain himself. He’s playing you at Hoppy Taw again.

For reference, your explanation is exactly how he meant the term, he just wants to avoid owning it. I predict he will never explain himself. Which is some great missionary work.

[Limnor]

MG, quick question. Are you trying to avoid directly responding to me? It’s a bit surprising, but I suppose I did authorize it lol

That said, I’d still be interested in how you’re defining “arm of the flesh” here.

So would I, which is why I asked MG to explain himself. He wants other people to provide options so that he can pick one that gets him off the hook he now knows he’s put himself on by using the term. The one thing he won’t do now is explain himself. He’s playing you at Hoppy Taw again.

For reference, your explanation is exactly how he meant the term, he just wants to avoid owning it. I predict he will never explain himself. Which is some great missionary work.

That’s how it reads to me too. If MG were being direct and plain in his meaning, he probably would have explained his use of the term by now, instead of skipping the hoppy taw away.

[MG 2.0]

Any of us can promise all kinds of benefits. It does not mean we can deliver.

That is true. Only God can. And not just ANY god...

That's where things get rather messy, right?

The Book of Mormon makes it rather clear that we should not trust in the "arm of the flesh".

Regards,
MG

At the end of the day we each need to determine who and what we trust to act as anchors/lights to our progression and eternal journey. That is, if we have a hope in purpose beyond death rather than annihilation or playing harps and standing around praising God for eternity.

Kishkumen said that there have been many "benefits" promised by many different people and/or belief systems over eons of time. That is true. The question is whether or not all of them can deliver. If systems of belief and knowledge are built upon man's reasoning and intellect alone I think that we are looking at a sandy foundation to build our lives upon.

The arm of flesh. Man's wisdom. Man's intellect as sole repository of that which brings eternal happiness and opportunities for progression. Transhumanists, if I'm not mistaken, would be a prime example of those that think they can bring themselves to a godlike/advanced state of being through their own works.

No Atonement made for sin. No grace offered in judgement by a perfect Being. No responsibility to others in the sense of bringing all mankind along a path of perfection provided by an all living God.

Choose your own adventure. Make of it what you will. Make yourself the center of progress and attention. Ayn Rand prioritized the progress of the individual above all else. Her philosophy, Objectivism, holds that the individual is the ultimate unit of value and that group interests should never supersede personal rights or rational self-interest.

The arm of the flesh. Personal glory to the possible detriment of others. This is not the Gospel of Jesus Christ as taught by the CofJCofLDS.

Regards,
MG

[I Have Questions]

That is true. Only God can. And not just ANY god...

That's where things get rather messy, right?

The Book of Mormon makes it rather clear that we should not trust in the "arm of the flesh".

Regards,
MG

At the end of the day we each need to determine who and what we trust to act as anchors/lights to our progression and eternal journey. That is, if we have a hope in purpose beyond death rather than annihilation or playing harps and standing around praising God for eternity.

Kishkumen said that there have been many "benefits" promised by many different people and/or belief systems over eons of time. That is true. The question is whether or not all of them can deliver. If systems of belief and knowledge are built upon man's reasoning and intellect alone I think that we are looking at a sandy foundation to build our lives upon.

The arm of flesh. Man's wisdom. Man's intellect as sole repository of that which brings eternal happiness and opportunities for progression. Transhumanists, if I'm not mistaken, would be a prime example of those that think they can bring themselves to a godlike/advanced state of being through their own works.

No Atonement made for sin. No grace offered in judgement by a perfect Being. No responsibility to others in the sense of bringing all mankind along a path of perfection provided by an all living God.

Choose your own adventure. Make of it what you will. Make yourself the center of progress and attention. Ayn Rand prioritized the progress of the individual above all else. Her philosophy, Objectivism, holds that the individual is the ultimate unit of value and that group interests should never supersede personal rights or rational self-interest.

The arm of the flesh. Personal glory to the possible detriment of others. This is not the Gospel of Jesus Christ as taught by the CofJCofLDS.

Regards,
MG

But MG, you rely on the “arm of the flesh”. Just like everyone else does. You cannot give me an example whereby you don’t rely on the “arm of the flesh” for your life’s choices or religious choices or even what you choose to believe. Try it, pick just one thing that you think is a good example of you NOT relying on your own wisdom or intellect.

[sock puppet]

Just a point of interest. If you type in "plates" to the search bar at the top of this page there are 585 pages of discussion history on this board on this topic.

I know that for some that's a big "so what" and "don't you have anything to add?"

Well, I did, along with others on those 585 pages. I think pious fraud may have come up a few times also. Isn't it interesting how the same sorts of things are recycled year after year...maybe with a touch of make up/shadow added on here and there.

Rehash after rehash...with respect to those that are in the business of doing so.

Regards,
MG

Isn't it interesting how the intellectual pablum that passes for "doctrine" in the LDS church gets recycled week after week...maybe with a touch of make up/shadow added on here or there.

Rehash after rehash...with respect to those that are in the business of doing so.