With whom MG 2.0 will or won't interact.

[I Have Questions]

Nice. Can't say I disagree with anything he said.

Then why do you post under a pseudonym? If you agree with him that using a pseudonym on a message boards amounts to being an “anonymous coward” do you agree that you are an “anonymous coward”? Or do you wish to revise your claim (again, after noting that you don’t agree with his assertion that Midgely is deceased) that you cannot disagree with anything he said?

[Marcus]

...I watched all the sessions of Conference this last weekend with my wife. Same doctrinal positions and gospel teachings, on the whole, as I remember from years ago...

But earlier in the thread, mg posted this:

...When it comes to the 'nuts and bolts' of various doctrines and policies I think that, except in some areas, God has not placed an absolute moral imperative upon us to see things in a black and white view that might naturally vary from one time/place or another depending on cultural upbringings, natural inclinations among groups with various family structures, etc., etc...

Lol. That is exactly what the Mormon religion has always done, placing a 'moral imperative' on things Mormons do that are different from culture, family structures, upbringings, etc. That's why he sees no change in conference messaging.

I get the feeling the mentalgymnast strategy is to just disagree, because the two positions above are not in agreement no matter how 'grey' the interpretation.

This explanation, additionally, in no way is an accurate description of the position of the Mormon church:

...In modern society we have an inclination to not rock the boat beyond a certain point when it comes to our friends and neighbors and even fellow ward members. Unity matters more than doctrinal distinctiveness. You can see examples of that especially in the last twenty years or so. As a result of the learned...and now implicit... moral imperative to do this we, as a Mormon community, look for ways to smooth over differences, adopt ecumenical language, and treat some of our peculiar doctrines and past practices as optional or symbolic...but not necessary for association within the 'house of faith'. Evolution is an example. Belief in the Great Flood is another. The list goes on.

Fundamenalists...the non-Ostlerites...have a heck of a time with moving forward with the moral imperative to 'go along to get along'...

What??!!!! "Unity matters more than doctrinal distinctiveness"???? That is NOT a Mormon position.

The Mormon religion does NOT preach that their members have a "moral imperative to 'go along to get along'..." where on earth is mentalgymnast getting these absurd justifications? And why do none of his positions agree internally? Where is he getting these concepts?

[Marcus]

Apparently the streaker managed to find the one dress code violation the church hasn't written a handbook paragraph/section for and thought he could get away with it without consequences. The Correlation Department will need to draft a new subsection titled ‘Unexpected Situations We Really Wish We Didn’t Have to Address.’

Regards,
MG

Lol, suddenly mentalgymnast knows exactly what he does. And he still can't resist projecting his posting strategy onto a fellow ..um... streaker.

[MG 2.0]

She's back!!

I will not engage directly with either this poster or the one that hails from the UK (and a couple of others).

They can say/do whatever they want. I may look at it and frown/chuckle (at times), but I will not allow myself to get sucked in to their 'tricks of the trade'.

I will say what I have to say, respond to interesting posts/questions...and ignore the gamesmanship of those that simply have a vendetta of hate and malevolence in their black little hearts.

Regards,
MG

[MG 2.0]

A reminder. I will not engage with the two previous posters. Their track record will not allow me to spend time with them. There is nothing productive that comes of it.

They will do what they do.

I will continue to periodically enter into discussions as I did yesterday when I can see that there is something to add.

I will not spin around in circles playing games with those that simply have a vendetta to carry out based upon past grievances.

Regards,
MG

[Marcus]

A reminder. I will not engage with the two previous posters. Their track record will not allow me to spend time with them. There is nothing productive that comes of it.

They will do what they do.

I will continue to periodically enter into discussions as I did yesterday when I can see that there is something to add.

I will not spin around in circles playing games with those that simply have a vendetta to carry out based upon past grievances.

Regards,
MG

Vendetta? Mg must be referring to his 20 years long vendetta against this board, as evidenced by his history.

Anyway, the post in question was about mentalgymnast's current statements. It would be helpful to get an explanation of this:

This explanation, additionally, in no way is an accurate description of the position of the Mormon church:

...In modern society we have an inclination to not rock the boat beyond a certain point when it comes to our friends and neighbors and even fellow ward members. Unity matters more than doctrinal distinctiveness. You can see examples of that especially in the last twenty years or so. As a result of the learned...and now implicit... moral imperative to do this we, as a Mormon community, look for ways to smooth over differences, adopt ecumenical language, and treat some of our peculiar doctrines and past practices as optional or symbolic...but not necessary for association within the 'house of faith'. Evolution is an example. Belief in the Great Flood is another. The list goes on.

Fundamenalists...the non-Ostlerites...have a heck of a time with moving forward with the moral imperative to 'go along to get along'...

What??!!!! "Unity matters more than doctrinal distinctiveness"???? That is NOT a Mormon position.

The Mormon religion does NOT preach that their members have a "moral imperative to 'go along to get along'..."

The statements that "...Unity matters more than doctrinal distinctiveness..." and that Mormons are given a "moral imperative to 'go along to get along' " need some explanation.

[Marcus]

She's back!!

I will not engage directly with either this poster or the one that hails from the UK (and a couple of others).

They can say/do whatever they want. I may look at it and frown/chuckle (at times), but I will not allow myself to get sucked in to their 'tricks of the trade'.

I will say what I have to say, respond to interesting posts/questions...and ignore the gamesmanship of those that simply have a vendetta of hate and malevolence in their black little hearts.

Regards,
MG

Lol. The troll won't 'engage.' Well, except for saying posters have "...hate and malevolence in their black little hearts..."

Speaking of gamesmanship:

Apparently the streaker managed to find the one dress code violation the church hasn't written a handbook paragraph/section for and thought he could get away with it without consequences. The Correlation Department will need to draft a new subsection titled ‘Unexpected Situations We Really Wish We Didn’t Have to Address.’

Regards,
MG

Exactly stating one's trolling techniques in a passive aggressive post? Yes, that's a troll who is engaging in gamesmanship. But, he's our adorable little naked troll, so, we can just have a good laugh and move on.

[malkie]

A reminder. I will not engage with the two previous posters. Their track record will not allow me to spend time with them. There is nothing productive that comes of it.

They will do what they do.

I will continue to periodically enter into discussions as I did yesterday when I can see that there is something to add.

I will not spin around in circles playing games with those that simply have a vendetta to carry out based upon past grievances.

Regards,
MG

Vendetta? Mg must be referring to his 20 years long vendetta against this board, as evidenced by his history.

Anyway, the post in question was about mentalgymnast's current statements. It would be helpful to get an explanation of this:

This explanation, additionally, in no way is an accurate description of the position of the Mormon church:

What??!!!! "Unity matters more than doctrinal distinctiveness"???? That is NOT a Mormon position.

The Mormon religion does NOT preach that their members have a "moral imperative to 'go along to get along'..."

The statements that "...Unity matters more than doctrinal distinctiveness..." and that Mormons are given a "moral imperative to 'go along to get along' " need some explanation.

As an alternative, MG can retire from the field, as he has done in the past, and leave the inconsistencies unexplained. Lurkers will draw their own conclusions.

[malkie]

A reminder. I will not engage with the two previous posters. Their track record will not allow me to spend time with them. There is nothing productive that comes of it.

They will do what they do.

I will continue to periodically enter into discussions as I did yesterday when I can see that there is something to add.

I will not spin around in circles playing games with those that simply have a vendetta to carry out based upon past grievances.

Regards,
MG

As if we needed a reminder -

[I Have Questions]

A reminder. I will not engage with the two previous posters. Their track record will not allow me to spend time with them. There is nothing productive that comes of it.

They will do what they do.

I will continue to periodically enter into discussions as I did yesterday when I can see that there is something to add.

I will not spin around in circles playing games with those that simply have a vendetta to carry out based upon past grievances.

Regards,
MG

Vendetta? Mg must be referring to his 20 years long vendetta against this board, as evidenced by his history.

Anyway, the post in question was about mentalgymnast's current statements. It would be helpful to get an explanation of this:

This explanation, additionally, in no way is an accurate description of the position of the Mormon church:

What??!!!! "Unity matters more than doctrinal distinctiveness"???? That is NOT a Mormon position.

The Mormon religion does NOT preach that their members have a "moral imperative to 'go along to get along'..."

The statements that "...Unity matters more than doctrinal distinctiveness..." and that Mormons are given a "moral imperative to 'go along to get along' " need some explanation.

MG is gaslighting. He listened to Oaks at General Conference exhort members to be kind to people who disagree or think differently to them. Now he wants to pretend that that's his own position as a member of the Church. He has already shown that he is incapable of holding such a position by what he has said since returning from his ban for poor behaviour. He is completely delusional about himself, and worse, he thinks he can con others to believe the self delusion he holds. It's a bizarre thing to watch.