God can write straight with crooked lines.

[Morley]

Thank you for the complete context. I bolded some more. This along with going back to some of my previous posts in this thread paints a picture in which I lay out the fact that in an online venue such as this one, especially with a majority being critics of the LDS church, there is going to be a natural tendency, I think, on the part of a believer hesitate in giving 100% benefit of a doubt to everyone on the board.

Some I would, through time and experience, trust to a larger extent to be straight shooters in showing themselves as dependably honest and trustworthy. My experience within the last few days, however, in being doxed causes me some concern as to whether or not I can trust anyone on the board 'all the way' without a degree of questioning their motives and thus their actions/behavior.

It is what it is in this respect. When we don't have face to face discussions we are left to the dynamics of herd mentality/group consensus which tends to go in one direction on this board.

Another poster, a non Mormon, recently brought this to light.

Anyway, I'm not going to take this line of questioning any farther. You can think what you will I guess.

I'm not in anyway trying to paint you as a bad person or sinner. Again, I don't know you. You may be a better person than me.

I'd actually like to meet you in real life and get to know and understand you.

Regards,
MG

MG, I'm going to ask that you read this, wait 24 hours, and then read it again before you react. Sometimes a second reading, a little later, allows ideas to percolate. Or failing that, you could just tear into me immediately.

You crying that people have lied to you so you can't trust anybody is what a child might might say. It's not the response of a reasonable adult.

I'm not concerned with whether or not you see me as stupid, a bad person, or a sinner. Wielding that cudgel doesn't work with most people. The only reason folks react negatively to those inferences is that they shut down any hope of dialogue. If, at the beginning of an interaction, you've already signaled that you think the person you're debating is not to be believed or has a skewed moral compass, the discussion is over. You can't expect the other person to expend time and effort, or even take you seriously.

You repeatedly ask other people for personal details, vulnerability, and transparency. When people provide it, you often either use it against them, or you suggest they could be lying. Neither of these are moves that build trust. Then again, dialogue may not be your goal. I recognize that the exchange of ideas is not what everyone here is after.

Presuming and extending a level of trust when you're talking to someone (whether online or in-person) is part and parcel of any human interaction. If someone tells me that they were born in California, went on a mission, and had a career as an elementary school teacher, I'm going to accept them at their word. Why wouldn't I? What's the downside? How can we have a conversation if I'm not willing to accept, at face value, either your expressed belief in Jesus, or your frank explanation of your journey either into, or out of, faith? I make an effort withhold doubt until there's evidence to contrary.

Malkie's concept of being willing to extend grace comes into play here. I notice that malkie will generally try to grant the most charitable reading to anything he reads. He checks back to see if what he understands is correct. He exhibits extraordinary patience. When that patience and care are either slapped down or shrugged off, the conversation necessarily grinds to a halt. Future conversations become not worth the considerable effort that's required to sustain them. It's a true loss.

Though you may not recognize it, many others here provide that same extension of grace. (Some others once used to so, but have now given up on the effort.) You'll notice these folks generously and repeatedly extend the benefit of the doubt. You interact here with these people, everyday. So do I. I'm not sure that either of us appreciates their gestures as much as we should. I do know, however, that I've benefited greatly from this. Almost everyone here has done this for me, countless times.

I've said before, and I'll repeat it now, that I think your presence here is to all of our benefits. I hope you'll stay. That said, there are some things that you could do that would make you a happier and more effective advocate for what you believe. Then again, maybe not, and you'll tell me--in your own inimitable way--to pound sand.

Anyway, as Bill says, you take care. Okay?

[malkie]

Thank you for the complete context. I bolded some more. This along with going back to some of my previous posts in this thread paints a picture in which I lay out the fact that in an online venue such as this one, especially with a majority being critics of the LDS church, there is going to be a natural tendency, I think, on the part of a believer hesitate in giving 100% benefit of a doubt to everyone on the board.

Some I would, through time and experience, trust to a larger extent to be straight shooters in showing themselves as dependably honest and trustworthy. My experience within the last few days, however, in being doxed causes me some concern as to whether or not I can trust anyone on the board 'all the way' without a degree of questioning their motives and thus their actions/behavior.

It is what it is in this respect. When we don't have face to face discussions we are left to the dynamics of herd mentality/group consensus which tends to go in one direction on this board.

Another poster, a non Mormon, recently brought this to light.

Anyway, I'm not going to take this line of questioning any farther. You can think what you will I guess.

I'm not in anyway trying to paint you as a bad person or sinner. Again, I don't know you. You may be a better person than me.

I'd actually like to meet you in real life and get to know and understand you.

Regards,
MG

MG, I'm going to ask that you read this, wait 24 hours, and then read it again before you react. Sometimes a second reading, a little later, allows ideas to percolate. Or failing that, you could just tear into me immediately.

You crying that people have lied to you so you can't trust anybody is what a child might might say. It's not the response of a reasonable adult.

I'm not concerned with whether or not you see me as stupid, a bad person, or a sinner. Wielding that cudgel doesn't work with most people. The only reason folks react negatively to those inferences is that they shut down any hope of dialogue. If, at the beginning of an interaction, you've already signaled that you think the person you're debating is not to be believed or has a skewed moral compass, the discussion is over. You can't expect the other person to expend time and effort, or even take you seriously.

You repeatedly ask other people for personal details, vulnerability, and transparency. When people provide it, you often either use it against them, or you suggest they could be lying. Neither of these are moves that build trust. Then again, dialogue may not be your goal. I recognize that the exchange of ideas is not what everyone here is after.

Presuming and extending a level of trust when you're talking to someone (whether online or in-person) is part and parcel of any human interaction. If someone tells me that they were born in California, went on a mission, and had a career as an elementary school teacher, I'm going to accept them at their word. Why wouldn't I? What's the downside? How can we have a conversation if I'm not willing to accept, at face value, either your expressed belief in Jesus, or your frank explanation of your journey either into, or out of, faith? I make an effort withhold doubt until there's evidence to contrary.

Malkie's concept of being willing to extend grace comes into play here. I notice that malkie will generally try to grant the most charitable reading to anything he reads. He checks back to see if what he understands is correct. He exhibits extraordinary patience. When that patience and care are either slapped down or shrugged off, the conversation necessarily grinds to a halt. Future conversations become not worth the considerable effort that's required to sustain them. It's a true loss.

Though you may not recognize it, many others here provide that same extension of grace. (Some others once used to so, but have now given up on the effort.) You'll notice these folks generously and repeatedly extend the benefit of the doubt. You interact here with these people, everyday. So do I. I'm not sure that either of us appreciates their gestures as much as we should. I do know, however, that I've benefited greatly from this. Almost everyone here has done this for me, countless times.

I've said before, and I'll repeat it now, that I think your presence here is to all of our benefits. I hope you'll stay. That said, there are some things that you could do that would make you a happier and more effective advocate for what you believe. Then again, maybe not, and you'll tell me--in your own inimitable way--to pound sand.

Anyway, as Bill says, you take care. Okay?

Very eloquently put, Morley. Thanks.

Once again, we appear to see in MG's comments a bias that he persists in denying: that he, as a believer, has a natural tendency to hesitate in giving 100% benefit of a doubt to everyone on the board, especially because a majority are critics of the LDS church because members ('good' implied) are inherently superior to non-members, and especially to critics. Perhaps this is not exactly what he means, but I read it as saying that MG believes that church members (presumably active, worthy ones like himself) are naturally more to be trusted than the rest of us. Sad!

OTOH, I'm still a member. I interact with my stake president usually at least twice a year, and have done for a long time. The last SP and I knew each other fairly well, because I was his Sunday School teacher and advisor when he was a Young Single Adult, and I was very involved in the YSA program. On the last occasion when I was being interviewed for "worthiness", I left the meeting with a signed and valid Temple Recommend. Since then, nobody has told me that my worthiness status has been revoked. That should make me "golden" in MG's eyes

[MG 2.0]

Thank you for the complete context. I bolded some more. This along with going back to some of my previous posts in this thread paints a picture in which I lay out the fact that in an online venue such as this one, especially with a majority being critics of the LDS church, there is going to be a natural tendency, I think, on the part of a believer hesitate in giving 100% benefit of a doubt to everyone on the board.

Some I would, through time and experience, trust to a larger extent to be straight shooters in showing themselves as dependably honest and trustworthy. My experience within the last few days, however, in being doxed causes me some concern as to whether or not I can trust anyone on the board 'all the way' without a degree of questioning their motives and thus their actions/behavior.

It is what it is in this respect. When we don't have face to face discussions we are left to the dynamics of herd mentality/group consensus which tends to go in one direction on this board.

Another poster, a non Mormon, recently brought this to light.

Anyway, I'm not going to take this line of questioning any farther. You can think what you will I guess.

I'm not in anyway trying to paint you as a bad person or sinner. Again, I don't know you. You may be a better person than me.

I'd actually like to meet you in real life and get to know and understand you.

Regards,
MG

MG, I'm going to ask that you read this, wait 24 hours, and then read it again before you react. Sometimes a second reading, a little later, allows ideas to percolate. Or failing that, you could just tear into me immediately.

You crying that people have lied to you so you can't trust anybody is what a child might might say. It's not the response of a reasonable adult.

I'm not concerned with whether or not you see me as stupid, a bad person, or a sinner. Wielding that cudgel doesn't work with most people. The only reason folks react negatively to those inferences is that they shut down any hope of dialogue. If, at the beginning of an interaction, you've already signaled that you think the person you're debating is not to be believed or has a skewed moral compass, the discussion is over. You can't expect the other person to expend time and effort, or even take you seriously.

You repeatedly ask other people for personal details, vulnerability, and transparency. When people provide it, you often either use it against them, or you suggest they could be lying. Neither of these are moves that build trust. Then again, dialogue may not be your goal. I recognize that the exchange of ideas is not what everyone here is after.

Presuming and extending a level of trust when you're talking to someone (whether online or in-person) is part and parcel of any human interaction. If someone tells me that they were born in California, went on a mission, and had a career as an elementary school teacher, I'm going to accept them at their word. Why wouldn't I? What's the downside? How can we have a conversation if I'm not willing to accept, at face value, either your expressed belief in Jesus, or your frank explanation of your journey either into, or out of, faith? I make an effort withhold doubt until there's evidence to contrary.

Malkie's concept of being willing to extend grace comes into play here. I notice that malkie will generally try to grant the most charitable reading to anything he reads. He checks back to see if what he understands is correct. He exhibits extraordinary patience. When that patience and care are either slapped down or shrugged off, the conversation necessarily grinds to a halt. Future conversations become not worth the considerable effort that's required to sustain them. It's a true loss.

Though you may not recognize it, many others here provide that same extension of grace. (Some others once used to so, but have now given up on the effort.) You'll notice these folks generously and repeatedly extend the benefit of the doubt. You interact here with these people, everyday. So do I. I'm not sure that either of us appreciates their gestures as much as we should. I do know, however, that I've benefited greatly from this. Almost everyone here has done this for me, countless times.

I've said before, and I'll repeat it now, that I think your presence here is to all of our benefits. I hope you'll stay. That said, there are some things that you could do that would make you a happier and more effective advocate for what you believe. Then again, maybe not, and you'll tell me--in your own inimitable way--to pound sand.

Anyway, as Bill says, you take care. Okay?

You have come to your defense quite well and explained why you personally should be trusted to be telling the truth. I can also see that you feel quite strongly about your own sense of moral correctness and believe that you have a moral center that lends itself to moving through life with integrity. And that you've had to work hard to get there.

Pointing out that we ought to 'give grace' to others is a valid point to be made.

I think we can all do better day by day in doing that. Myself included. It's easy to judge others as being of something 'less' than ourselves in regards to character, intelligence, righteousness, integrity, etc.

It's often the path of least resistance. Thanks for you post and pushing back against my own tendency towards subjectivity and judgement. It's a temptation, especially when we don't know someone as a person in real life. Online relationships have some handicaps that are built into the medium of communication we use. Especially when religion and/or politics enter into the picture.

There ought to be periodic 'FaceTime Chats where we can see and get a 'feel' for the 'other'. We might treat each other a little differently.

For sure there would be less name calling.

Regards,
MG

[Marcus]

MG, I'm going to ask that you read this, wait 24 hours, and then read it again before you react. Sometimes a second reading, a little later, allows ideas to percolate. Or failing that, you could just tear into me immediately.

You crying that people have lied to you so you can't trust anybody is what a child might might say. It's not the response of a reasonable adult.

I'm not concerned with whether or not you see me as stupid, a bad person, or a sinner. Wielding that cudgel doesn't work with most people. The only reason folks react negatively to those inferences is that they shut down any hope of dialogue. If, at the beginning of an interaction, you've already signaled that you think the person you're debating is not to be believed or has a skewed moral compass, the discussion is over. You can't expect the other person to expend time and effort, or even take you seriously.

You repeatedly ask other people for personal details, vulnerability, and transparency. When people provide it, you often either use it against them, or you suggest they could be lying. Neither of these are moves that build trust. Then again, dialogue may not be your goal. I recognize that the exchange of ideas is not what everyone here is after.

Presuming and extending a level of trust when you're talking to someone (whether online or in-person) is part and parcel of any human interaction. If someone tells me that they were born in California, went on a mission, and had a career as an elementary school teacher, I'm going to accept them at their word. Why wouldn't I? What's the downside? How can we have a conversation if I'm not willing to accept, at face value, either your expressed belief in Jesus, or your frank explanation of your journey either into, or out of, faith? I make an effort withhold doubt until there's evidence to contrary.

Malkie's concept of being willing to extend grace comes into play here. I notice that malkie will generally try to grant the most charitable reading to anything he reads. He checks back to see if what he understands is correct. He exhibits extraordinary patience. When that patience and care are either slapped down or shrugged off, the conversation necessarily grinds to a halt. Future conversations become not worth the considerable effort that's required to sustain them. It's a true loss.

Though you may not recognize it, many others here provide that same extension of grace. (Some others once used to so, but have now given up on the effort.) You'll notice these folks generously and repeatedly extend the benefit of the doubt. You interact here with these people, everyday. So do I. I'm not sure that either of us appreciates their gestures as much as we should. I do know, however, that I've benefited greatly from this. Almost everyone here has done this for me, countless times.

I've said before, and I'll repeat it now, that I think your presence here is to all of our benefits. I hope you'll stay. That said, there are some things that you could do that would make you a happier and more effective advocate for what you believe. Then again, maybe not, and you'll tell me--in your own inimitable way--to pound sand.

Anyway, as Bill says, you take care. Okay?

You have come to your defense quite well and explained why you personally should be trusted to be telling the truth. I can also see that you feel quite strongly about your own sense of moral correctness and believe that you have a moral center that lends itself to moving through life with integrity. And that you've had to work hard to get there.

Pointing out that we ought to 'give grace' to others is a valid point to be made.

I think we can all do better day by day in doing that. Myself included. It's easy to judge others as being of something 'less' than ourselves in regards to character, intelligence, righteousness, integrity, etc.

It's often the path of least resistance. Thanks for you post and pushing back against my own tendency towards subjectivity and judgement. It's a temptation, especially when we don't know someone as a person in real life. Online relationships have some handicaps that are built into the medium of communication we use. Especially when religion and/or politics enter into the picture.

There ought to be periodic 'FaceTime Chats where we can see and get a 'feel' for the 'other'. We might treat each other a little differently.

For sure there would be less name calling.

Regards,
MG

A lovely post by Morley, followed by deja vu meaninglessness from the mentalgymnast. Take a look at mg saying 'WE can do better' almost two years ago, and how it went:

...

But, we can agree to disagree and do so without vitriol or slamming the ‘other’. I would need to be more aware of when I might be saying something that might be offensive to someone that has particular sensitivities.

OK, if you’re sincere about wanting to reduce the vitriol, this is the kind of bullcrap that you need to stop doing. What gets you sideways with people every single time is your passive aggressive process comments.

The problem is not that other people are “sensitive” and take “offense” easily. That’s simply the excuse that dicks use to justify dickish behavior. It’s an arrogant, rhetorical trick that allows you to simply dismiss someone’s words without addressing what they actually said.

...Address the words people say, not the people who say the words.

That one simple trick (no process comments) will reduce the rancor...

This thread and others has helped me to understand what some of those sensitivities might be. Just as people of faith may be hurt by comments made derogatory of their faith or person, it works the other way around.

If the lesson you’ve learned here is that other people are sensitive, you’ve learned exactly nothing. I’m dead serious. If you can’t grasp that, the tone of your conversations here will never ever ever ever change.

Even if those comments might be made, at least in some cases, somewhat inadvertently or innocently. We all say things that we later…after more introspection…realize would have been better left unsaid.

And there is such a thing as hypersensitivity.

I give up. You’re doomed. One last try.

STOP TALKING ABOUT OTHER PEOPLE’S BEHAVIOR. STOP MAKING EXCUSES FOR YOUR OWN BEHAVIOR. YOU CAN ONLY CHANGE YOUR OWN BEHAVIOR. ALL THOSE OTHER PEOPLE — THEY’RE OKAY.

I can do better. Others can do better.

Point is taken.

Nope. Point missed completely. If you can manage to say “I can do better. Full Stop.” You can say “Point taken.”

[Marcus]

...It's easy to judge others as being of something 'less' than ourselves in regards to character, intelligence, righteousness, integrity, etc...

Really. Projection of their personal character flaws is not a strategy that works well for mentalgymnasts.

[bill4long]

MG, I'm going to ask that you read this, wait 24 hours, and then read it again before you react. Sometimes a second reading, a little later, allows ideas to percolate. Or failing that, you could just tear into me immediately.

You crying that people have lied to you so you can't trust anybody is what a child might might say. It's not the response of a reasonable adult.

I'm not concerned with whether or not you see me as stupid, a bad person, or a sinner. Wielding that cudgel doesn't work with most people. The only reason folks react negatively to those inferences is that they shut down any hope of dialogue. If, at the beginning of an interaction, you've already signaled that you think the person you're debating is not to be believed or has a skewed moral compass, the discussion is over. You can't expect the other person to expend time and effort, or even take you seriously.

You repeatedly ask other people for personal details, vulnerability, and transparency. When people provide it, you often either use it against them, or you suggest they could be lying. Neither of these are moves that build trust. Then again, dialogue may not be your goal. I recognize that the exchange of ideas is not what everyone here is after.

Presuming and extending a level of trust when you're talking to someone (whether online or in-person) is part and parcel of any human interaction. If someone tells me that they were born in California, went on a mission, and had a career as an elementary school teacher, I'm going to accept them at their word. Why wouldn't I? What's the downside? How can we have a conversation if I'm not willing to accept, at face value, either your expressed belief in Jesus, or your frank explanation of your journey either into, or out of, faith? I make an effort withhold doubt until there's evidence to contrary.

Malkie's concept of being willing to extend grace comes into play here. I notice that malkie will generally try to grant the most charitable reading to anything he reads. He checks back to see if what he understands is correct. He exhibits extraordinary patience. When that patience and care are either slapped down or shrugged off, the conversation necessarily grinds to a halt. Future conversations become not worth the considerable effort that's required to sustain them. It's a true loss.

Though you may not recognize it, many others here provide that same extension of grace. (Some others once used to so, but have now given up on the effort.) You'll notice these folks generously and repeatedly extend the benefit of the doubt. You interact here with these people, everyday. So do I. I'm not sure that either of us appreciates their gestures as much as we should. I do know, however, that I've benefited greatly from this. Almost everyone here has done this for me, countless times.

I've said before, and I'll repeat it now, that I think your presence here is to all of our benefits. I hope you'll stay. That said, there are some things that you could do that would make you a happier and more effective advocate for what you believe. Then again, maybe not, and you'll tell me--in your own inimitable way--to pound sand.

Anyway, as Bill says, you take care. Okay?

You have come to your defense quite well and explained why you personally should be trusted to be telling the truth. I can also see that you feel quite strongly about your own sense of moral correctness and believe that you have a moral center that lends itself to moving through life with integrity. And that you've had to work hard to get there.

Pointing out that we ought to 'give grace' to others is a valid point to be made.

I think we can all do better day by day in doing that. Myself included. It's easy to judge others as being of something 'less' than ourselves in regards to character, intelligence, righteousness, integrity, etc.

It's often the path of least resistance. Thanks for you post and pushing back against my own tendency towards subjectivity and judgement. It's a temptation, especially when we don't know someone as a person in real life. Online relationships have some handicaps that are built into the medium of communication we use. Especially when religion and/or politics enter into the picture.

There ought to be periodic 'FaceTime Chats where we can see and get a 'feel' for the 'other'. We might treat each other a little differently.

For sure there would be less name calling.

Regards,
MG

Are you doing okay?

[bill4long]

...It's easy to judge others as being of something 'less' than ourselves in regards to character, intelligence, righteousness, integrity, etc...

Really. Projection of their personal character flaws is not a strategy that works well for mentalgymnasts.

Don't beat up on him too harshly. He's either a troll or mentally ill. I strongly suspect (don't you?) it's the latter. (With a touch of the former.)

[MG 2.0]

Really. Projection of their personal character flaws is not a strategy that works well for mentalgymnasts.

Don't beat up on him too harshly. He's either a troll or mentally ill. I strongly suspect (don't you?) it's the latter. (With a touch of the former.)

Calling me a troll or mentally ill isn’t something I’m willing to accept or engage with. It doesn’t move the conversation forward and it dehumanizes someone you disagree with.

That is why I no longer converse with some people on this board.

You included from here on out. The nice thing, for you, is you can continue to trash talk, along with a few others, and have no worries about me spending any time with you at all rebutting your lies and inaccuracies. Win win, right?

Best wishes to you in whatever life holds for you.

Au revoir,
MG

[bill4long]

Calling me a troll or mentally ill isn’t something I’m willing to accept or engage with. It doesn’t move the conversation forward and it dehumanizes someone you disagree with.

Your record speaks clearly.

That is why I no longer converse with some people on this board.
You included from here on out.

Your choice.

The nice thing, for you, is you can continue to trash talk, along with a few others, and have no worries about me spending any time with you at all rebutting your lies and inaccuracies. Win win, right?

Lies? Inaccuracies? Heh.

Best wishes to you in whatever life holds for you.

Thanks! Take care of yourself, okaaaaaaaayy?

[I Have Questions]

I think we can all do better day by day in doing that. Myself included. It's easy to judge others as being of something 'less' than ourselves in regards to character, intelligence, righteousness, integrity, etc.

The only poster that does that is you. You do it all the time. To everyone. I note your admission that you find it easy.

You use the “we can do better” line to excuse yourself from accountability, because you know you have no intention of changing. You are not a good faith actor, and haven’t been for many many many years. If indeed you ever were.

There ought to be periodic 'FaceTime Chats where we can see and get a 'feel' for the 'other'. We might treat each other a little differently.

Has meeting malkie in person led to you treating him a little differently on here? Or do you still speak down to him like he’s a piece of crap on your shoe?

Blame shifting is a sign that the person is probably; emotionally immature, fearful of consequences, was never taught, or never learned to take responsibility during their upbringing, control issues, deliberately manipulative, has a serious personality disorder (in cases where blame shifting is a pathological ingrained pattern of behaviour). It is interesting to watch you repeat a pattern of behaviour that hasn’t changed year after year after year(as Res Ipsa has shown), and to which having personal knowledge of who someone is, makes no discernible difference.