Clarification so as to be clear.

[drumdude]

Lots of analogies. In the end Mormonism is a high demand religion that requires 10 percent of your income for a nebulous promise of entry into a kind of polygamous Super VIP Heaven. All revealed by a 19th century con man who created a book of fake Native American history by looking at a rock in a hat.

If someone believes that, I’ve got some ocean front property in Arizona they may be interested in.

[MG 2.0]

Lots of analogies. In the end Mormonism is a high demand religion that requires 10 percent of your income for a nebulous promise of entry into a kind of polygamous Super VIP Heaven. All revealed by a 19th century con man who created a book of fake Native American history by looking at a rock in a hat.

If someone believes that, I’ve got some ocean front property in Arizona they may be interested in.

drumdude, after my last few posts I'm a bit surprised that you're approaching what I've said essentially with 'one liners'. What I see you doing is substituting mockery for argument. Not only that but you seem to be flattening belief into gullibility. You're doing exactly what I've been talking about recently and simply accusing believers as being gullible. You misrepresent doctrine for rhetorical effect. You're ignoring the philosophical and spiritual dimensions.

Finally, your post foreclosed dialogue.

If you go back and look at my last few posts, you might see that there has been at least a degree of reflection and even existential wrestling going on. Reducing it to a joke misses the depth behind faith commitments that members of the church have. That's why we go to church almost every Sunday while you're doing pretty much what you want, I would expect.

Regards,
MG

[MG 2.0]

*delete

[I Have Questions]

*delete

[Marcus]

...If you go back and look at my last few posts, you might see that there has been at least a degree of reflection and even existential wrestling going on. Reducing it to a joke misses the depth behind faith commitments that members of the church have.

Literally his next sentence:

That's why we go to church almost every Sunday while you're doing pretty much what you want, I would expect...

That "degree of reflection" didn't last long, did it?

[malkie]

Lots of analogies. In the end Mormonism is a high demand religion that requires 10 percent of your income for a nebulous promise of entry into a kind of polygamous Super VIP Heaven. All revealed by a 19th century con man who created a book of fake Native American history by looking at a rock in a hat.

If someone believes that, I’ve got some ocean front property in Arizona they may be interested in.

drumdude, after my last few posts I'm a bit surprised that you're approaching what I've said essentially with 'one liners'. What I see you doing is substituting mockery for argument. Not only that but you seem to be flattening belief into gullibility. You're doing exactly what I've been talking about recently and simply accusing believers as being gullible. You misrepresent doctrine for rhetorical effect. You're ignoring the philosophical and spiritual dimensions.

Finally, your post foreclosed dialogue.

If you go back and look at my last few posts, you might see that there has been at least a degree of reflection and even existential wrestling going on. Reducing it to a joke misses the depth behind faith commitments that members of the church have. That's why we go to church almost every Sunday while you're doing pretty much what you want, I would expect.

Regards,
MG

"That's why we go to church almost every Sunday while you're doing pretty much what you want, I would expect. "

The form of this statement seems to be contrasting what "we" (members) do with what "you're doing" (non-members, or perhaps critics). It suggests that members are not "doing pretty much what [they] want". Is that what you mean to say?

[drumdude]

Lots of analogies. In the end Mormonism is a high demand religion that requires 10 percent of your income for a nebulous promise of entry into a kind of polygamous Super VIP Heaven. All revealed by a 19th century con man who created a book of fake Native American history by looking at a rock in a hat.

If someone believes that, I’ve got some ocean front property in Arizona they may be interested in.

drumdude, after my last few posts I'm a bit surprised that you're approaching what I've said essentially with 'one liners'. What I see you doing is substituting mockery for argument. Not only that but you seem to be flattening belief into gullibility. You're doing exactly what I've been talking about recently and simply accusing believers as being gullible. You misrepresent doctrine for rhetorical effect. You're ignoring the philosophical and spiritual dimensions.

Finally, your post foreclosed dialogue.

If you go back and look at my last few posts, you might see that there has been at least a degree of reflection and even existential wrestling going on. Reducing it to a joke misses the depth behind faith commitments that members of the church have. That's why we go to church almost every Sunday while you're doing pretty much what you want, I would expect.

Regards,
MG

From my perspective I’m just stating objective facts without all the faithful spin to make it look respectable.

It takes a lot of lipstick to make the pig look beautiful.

Russel Nelson is now (supposedly) a spiritual polygamist in an exclusive level of heaven. Joseph Smith was a convicted con artist. He used the rock in a hat rather than translate the plates. These are painful truths that have to be whitewashed by Mormons.

[MG 2.0]

drumdude, after my last few posts I'm a bit surprised that you're approaching what I've said essentially with 'one liners'. What I see you doing is substituting mockery for argument. Not only that but you seem to be flattening belief into gullibility. You're doing exactly what I've been talking about recently and simply accusing believers as being gullible. You misrepresent doctrine for rhetorical effect. You're ignoring the philosophical and spiritual dimensions.

Finally, your post foreclosed dialogue.

If you go back and look at my last few posts, you might see that there has been at least a degree of reflection and even existential wrestling going on. Reducing it to a joke misses the depth behind faith commitments that members of the church have. That's why we go to church almost every Sunday while you're doing pretty much what you want, I would expect.

Regards,
MG

"That's why we go to church almost every Sunday while you're doing pretty much what you want, I would expect. "

The form of this statement seems to be contrasting what "we" (members) do with what "you're doing" (non-members, or perhaps critics). It suggests that members are not "doing pretty much what [they] want". Is that what you mean to say?

My point is that when someone is actively involved in the church it takes discipline, devotion, and a willingness to participate regularly in spiritual life practices which require a bit of sacrifice. It’s more or less an act of commitment and communal participation. Week after week and year after year. If a person doesn't have this commitment, they are able to "do pretty much what you want". That's not to say that if a person is not regularly committed to religious activity that requires time and sacrifice that there aren't other ways to be disciplined and also give something of oneself frequently and regularly.

I could have been a bit clearer on that count. I'm offering a reflection on how different frameworks, religious vs. secular, can lead to different kinds of obligations and freedoms.

Is that not true?

Those not practicing religious commitment that requires regular time and effort may redirct those efforts in training for a marathon, raising kids, reading, serving at the soup kitchen, or building a business...none of which are exactly “do whatever you want” territory.

Sorry if I rubbed you the wrong way. Honestly, the other things I said in my post I think had greater value and were of more importance. Be that as it may...

Regards,
MG

[MG 2.0]

drumdude, after my last few posts I'm a bit surprised that you're approaching what I've said essentially with 'one liners'. What I see you doing is substituting mockery for argument. Not only that but you seem to be flattening belief into gullibility. You're doing exactly what I've been talking about recently and simply accusing believers as being gullible. You misrepresent doctrine for rhetorical effect. You're ignoring the philosophical and spiritual dimensions.

Finally, your post foreclosed dialogue.

If you go back and look at my last few posts, you might see that there has been at least a degree of reflection and even existential wrestling going on. Reducing it to a joke misses the depth behind faith commitments that members of the church have. That's why we go to church almost every Sunday while you're doing pretty much what you want, I would expect.

Regards,
MG

From my perspective I’m just stating objective facts without all the faithful spin to make it look respectable.

It takes a lot of lipstick to make the pig look beautiful.

Russel Nelson is now (supposedly) a spiritual polygamist in an exclusive level of heaven. Joseph Smith was a convicted con artist. He used the rock in a hat rather than translate the plates. These are painful truths that have to be whitewashed by Mormons.

I get that you're coming from a place of deep skepticism, drumdude, and I respect your right to call things as you see them. I think I'll stick to what I said though. Mocking another person's belief in short little soundbites doesn't contribute to good conversation.

Regards,
MG

[malkie]

"That's why we go to church almost every Sunday while you're doing pretty much what you want, I would expect. "

The form of this statement seems to be contrasting what "we" (members) do with what "you're doing" (non-members, or perhaps critics). It suggests that members are not "doing pretty much what [they] want". Is that what you mean to say?

My point is that when someone is actively involved in the church it takes discipline, devotion, and a willingness to participate regularly in spiritual life practices which require a bit of sacrifice. It’s more or less an act of commitment and communal participation. Week after week and year after year. If a person doesn't have this commitment, they are able to "do pretty much what you want". That's not to say that if a person is not regularly committed to religious activity that requires time and sacrifice that there aren't other ways to be disciplined and also give something of oneself frequently and regularly.

I could have been a bit clearer on that count. I'm offering a reflection on how different frameworks, religious vs. secular, can lead to different kinds of obligations and freedoms.

Is that not true?

Those not practicing religious commitment that requires regular time and effort may redirct those efforts in training for a marathon, raising kids, reading, serving at the soup kitchen, or building a business...none of which are exactly “do whatever you want” territory.

Sorry if I rubbed you the wrong way. Honestly, the other things I said in my post I think had greater value and were of more importance. Be that as it may...

Regards,
MG

I wasn't rubbed the wrong way - I'm simply pointing out what appears to be virtue signaling.

I don't know how you can determine that, for people you don't know, and who have not disclosed their innermost thoughts and feelings to you, their efforts to do something - for example, the "redirected" activities you list - somehow are not in ' exactly “do whatever you want” territory '. I regard that as highly presumptive.

In any case, if "practicing religious commitment that requires regular time and effort" is not pretty much what you want to do, ... well, it's your life and your choices.

It's not that I don't understand what you're saying - as a former Branch President and Counselor in a District Presidency I think I have a fair idea about religious commitment, time and effort. I'm objecting to your apparent judgementalism towards what other people choose to do with their time as being somehow inferior to your personal choices.

ETA: other posters here have had similar church callings to mine - some requiring more commitment, time and effort than I ever had to put in. I think that you are trivializing the experiences and commitment of other people.