Temples dotting/covering the earth.

[Everybody Wang Chung]

I have nothing to say, and I'm saying it! Anyone who disagrees with me will likely disagree. Look how clever I am to notice!

I don't make any claim to being any more clever than you, malkie.

I'm just stating the fact.

That’s some great missionary work, Fibber.

[MG 2.0]

I have nothing to say, and I'm saying it! Anyone who disagrees with me will likely disagree. Look how clever I am to notice!

Lol. I'm thinking his need to have the last word is what leads to his last word being meaningless.

You can have the last word. I have no need to do so. The fact is, I have already said what I wanted to share on the first page of the OP.

I haven't read anything during the thread that has any real merit as far as I'm concerned. That's why I just let it go. There wasn't any need on my part to defend anything.

Take it away...floor is yours.

Regards,
MG

[I Have Questions]

These guys are also very proud of the number of buildings they own:

https://www.scientology.org/churches/ideal-orgs/

"To meet increasing worldwide demand for Scientology services and community initiatives, the Church of Scientology launched a program to transform all Scientology Churches into what Founder L. Ron Hubbard termed “Ideal Organizations.” An Ideal Org is configured to provide the full services of the Scientology religion to its parishioners, while also serving the community with social betterment and outreach programs.

To date, dozens of Ideal Orgs have opened their doors in major cities across four continents, and new ones are dedicated each month."

So, MG2.0 is essentially just telling us that he thinks the LDS church has a lot in common with the Scientologists.

Finally, something we can all agree on!

One assumes that because MG thinks even non Mormons or ex Mormons will find the Church’s temple building activity “amazing”, he would be intellectually consistent and likewise find the Scientology, and the Muslim, and the Catholic building programmes equally “amazing”. Right?

[Marcus]

Well, let’s have a look at it. What are the key objectives of building temples?

The Mormons build their temples in order to expand their movement, maintain order, and blackmail the members of the church into paying 1/10 of their income or they won't live with Heavenly Father in the hereafter. I think that's the gist of it.

That's a solid assessment. Recently, a leader said the goal was to have a temple within two hours of every member. Of course, he must mean every tithe-paying member family, because non-tithepayers are denied this entrance into temples to participate in what Mormons define as the ordinances NECESSARY for salvation.

[Limnor]

Lol. I'm thinking his need to have the last word is what leads to his last word being meaningless.

You can have the last word. I have no need to do so. The fact is, I have already said what I wanted to share on the first page of the OP.

I haven't read anything during the thread that has any real merit as far as I'm concerned. That's why I just let it go. There wasn't any need on my part to defend anything.

Take it away...floor is yours.

Regards,
MG

I thought you said you were ignoring Marcus. Ignoring someone usually involves fewer words than that.

[Limnor]

The Mormons build their temples in order to expand their movement, maintain order, and blackmail the members of the church into paying 1/10 of their income or they won't live with Heavenly Father in the hereafter. I think that's the gist of it.

That's a solid assessment. Recently, a leader said the goal was to have a temple within two hours of every member. Of course, he must mean every tithe-paying member family, because non-tithepayers are denied this entrance into temples to participate in what Mormons define as the ordinances NECESSARY for salvation.

I think someone’s said this before, but it always surprises me how little the 99 and one sheep parable seems to matter to Mormon Jesus. Protecting the 99 and managing what they are exposed to, and bring to the table, seems more important.

[malkie]

You can have the last word. I have no need to do so. The fact is, I have already said what I wanted to share on the first page of the OP.

I haven't read anything during the thread that has any real merit as far as I'm concerned. That's why I just let it go. There wasn't any need on my part to defend anything.

Take it away...floor is yours.

Regards,
MG

I thought you said you were ignoring Marcus. Ignoring someone usually involves fewer words than that.

Having already said what one wanted to share on the first page of the OP, and then just letting it go with no need to defend anything, wouldn't be expected to result in several comments spread across several other pages, defending already-stated points of view. But here we are!

[MG 2.0]

I thought you said you were ignoring Marcus. Ignoring someone usually involves fewer words than that.

Actually I was referring to malkie.

It is true. I said everything that I thought useful/relevant near the beginning of the thread. It kind of went sideways from there which didn't surprise me.

Temples are VERY important to the Latter-Day Saints. To make it sound like it's all about money, wealth, and keeping the masses in line conforms with what I said at the beginning.

Critics will view the massive undertaking of the building of temples throughout the earth through 'different eyes'. That has been rather obvious, yes?

It is a fact, I said that at the beginning.

OK? Carry on. If you want to make more hay out of it, go ahead.

Regards,
MG

[malkie]

You may have been referring to me, but you were quoting Marcus, and your comment seems to address exactly what you quoted.

Lol. I'm thinking his need to have the last word is what leads to his last word being meaningless.

You can have the last word. I have no need to do so. The fact is, I have already said what I wanted to share on the first page of the OP.

..

...
I thought you said you were ignoring Marcus. Ignoring someone usually involves fewer words than that.

It also usually involves not quoting the person you're supposedly ignoring, right?

I thought, actually, that that was the essence of ignoring someone: you don't see their comments (except as quoted by someone else), and therefore don't start your comment with a quote from the poster on ignore. However, as far as I remember I've never had anyone on ignore, so I can't be sure how the feature works.

[Limnor]

You may have been referring to me, but you were quoting Marcus, and your comment seems to address exactly what you quoted.

You can have the last word. I have no need to do so. The fact is, I have already said what I wanted to share on the first page of the OP.

..

...
I thought you said you were ignoring Marcus. Ignoring someone usually involves fewer words than that.

It also usually involves not quoting the person you're supposedly ignoring, right?

I thought, actually, that that was the essence of ignoring someone: you don't see their comments (except as quoted by someone else), and therefore don't start your comment with a quote from the poster on ignore. However, as far as I remember I've never had anyone on ignore, so I can't be sure how the feature works.

I did it just to see how it works. The ignored poster’s post is simply condensed and hidden but you can click a link to see it. So it involves self-discipline to truly ignore someone.

But yeah, MG responded to Marcus’ post which means he opened it to do so.