You guys are still at it! (why am I not surprised?)

[MG 2.0]

Brrrr!!! It's cold in these parts!

I suppose that's why I didn't jump back in and say what you might have wanted me to say.

Regards,
MG

I am guessing that most LDS missionaries enter their assigned territory with a modicum of meekness and goodwill.

True. But there are often areas within that territory that are either off limits or at the very least dangerous to enter into.

Certain precautions and protections need to be practiced and/or put in place.

In a toxic environment such as this where unbelievers reign, one must determine what strategies to use in order to enter the area and then get safely home again. For many members a toxic area such as this would automatically be off limits. For others, such as myself, I take certain precautions and actions in order to not end up being mauled to death by predators.

Regards,
MG

[MG 2.0]

It's interesting that one person's so called 'troll' is another person's discussion companion. Difference? * * *

Regards,
MG

It's interesting that one person's figment of his imagination is another person's God. Difference?

I'm not absolutely sure where you're going with this.

Regards,
MG

[Moksha]

True. But there are often areas within that territory that are either off limits or at the very least dangerous to enter into.
Regards,
MG

Yes, those are places where the Missionary Training Center charges an Uzi to the home ward and teaches the missionary how to use it.

At the Interpreter Foundation Center, they also teach outreach candidates how to crawl through the mud and be proficient using a hatchet.

[I Have Questions]

Step outside and breathe. Hug a child. Serve a neighbor. Take a drive. Read a good book. Have a real life conversation. Get off the dang keyboard!

There are two questions that stem from MG's opening thread post that he still hasn't adequately answered.

The first one is for him to explain how he has concluded that he spends more time on the activities he lists than the rest of the board, given that he spends more time posting here than any other poster (Note: He's been posting on Mormon message boards for more than 20 years). So that's 1 unanswered question.

the second unanswered question is about his suggestion that people should go around hugging kids. He has mentioned that, as an adult male school teacher, he went around hugging the children. In schools that's a red flag as it is indicative of grooming behaviour. Even if MG wasn't intending on grooming the children for himself to abuse, he was desensitising the kids to the dangers posed by a nefarious unrelated adult male hugging a child. The same applies if he is going around on a Sunday hugging kids at church. It's dangerous behaviour one way or another.

So MG, please explain what kids, specifically, you were advocating board members go and hug?

Also explain how you've concluded here that board members spend more time making posts here than you do?

[I Have Questions]

I am guessing that most LDS missionaries enter their assigned territory with a modicum of meekness and goodwill.

True. But there are often areas within that territory that are either off limits or at the very least dangerous to enter into.

You're saying that your Church is knowingly putting missionaries into dangerous environments? And that when they do so missionaries should be rude and mean from the get go?

[Shulem]

It's interesting that one person's so called 'troll' is another person's discussion companion. Difference? * * *

Regards,
MG

It's interesting that one person's figment of his imagination is another person's God. Difference?

Joseph Smith took a heavenly personage who was worshipped as a god by an entire nation and with his own vain imagination corrupted that which was deemed sacred and turned it into a freakshow in order to satisfy his ambitions and thirst for power over others. What Joseph Smith did to Anubis is inexcusable and just plain wrong. There is no amount of apologetic reasoning or excuses that can justify this sinful action. And, I believe what Smith did in this regard is SINFUL.

How about you, MG? Do you you partake of those sins or have you denounced them? I really believe you are a coward. Prove otherwise and I'll apologize. Come into the box and talk with me. Tell me what you really think. Don't hold back.

[MG 2.0]

Step outside and breathe. Hug a child. Serve a neighbor. Take a drive. Read a good book. Have a real life conversation. Get off the dang keyboard!

There are two questions that stem from MG's opening thread post that he still hasn't adequately answered.

The first one is for him to explain how he has concluded that he spends more time on the activities he lists than the rest of the board, given that he spends more time posting here than any other poster (Note: He's been posting on Mormon message boards for more than 20 years). So that's 1 unanswered question.

I'm not saying that I haven't spent a significant amount of time here. I was suggesting that those that are unbelievers might find better things to do with their time.

the second unanswered question is about his suggestion that people should go around hugging kids. He has mentioned that, as an adult male school teacher, he went around hugging the children. In schools that's a red flag as it is indicative of grooming behaviour. Even if MG wasn't intending on grooming the children for himself to abuse, he was desensitising the kids to the dangers posed by a nefarious unrelated adult male hugging a child. The same applies if he is going around on a Sunday hugging kids at church. It's dangerous behaviour one way or another.

So MG, please explain what kids, specifically, you were advocating board members go and hug?

I'm leaving that up to you. I suppose I was making an assumption that board members would be able to tell the difference between appropriate contact with children and that which is inappropriate. Maybe I was mistaken in making that assumption.

The million dollar question is how do YOU, IHAQ, define a hug? I gave you mine earlier. How would you define it?

IHAQ, you live in the UK. I suppose this whole WOKE crap has gone to everyone's head. Grooming?

That's sick. Is that where your mind goes? As I said earlier, you live in a different 'mindspace' than I do.

By the way, back when I was teaching, hand on the shoulder or arm around the back with a pat of "good job kiddo!" were fairly infrequent (reason below). Even at that time there were more instances in our school district of inappropriate behaviors with children. We would talk about that during faculty meetings and lunch as to the fact that some 'bad apples' had ruined things for those that simply knew that children, at times, need someone to reach out and give them a pat on the shoulder or a quick 'side hug' if the child comes in after recess and wanted to give a 'full on' hug to the teacher.

Any physical contact of any sort was NEVER given when alone with a child. Obviously.

Granted, male teachers are the ones that have mainly been in the news and as a result the WOKE crowd looks at every instance of adults making any sort of physical contact and instance of grooming.

How insane. And you've played right into it.

Again, I thought it went without saying that you and others would be able to determine for yourselves what appropriate behavior would be in regards to giving a child a hug.

And here we are. Going in for a rehash now?

Regards,
MG

[MG 2.0]

How about you, MG? Do you you partake of those sins or have you denounced them? I really believe you are a coward. Prove otherwise and I'll apologize. Come into the box and talk with me. Tell me what you really think. Don't hold back.

OK. I believe in a Heavenly Father and that I am created in His image. That's the God I worship along with most all other LDS church members.

Simple really. If you make it too complex you lose touch and then lose belief.

And that takes you to a world of your own making.

Regards,
MG

[MG 2.0]

True. But there are often areas within that territory that are either off limits or at the very least dangerous to enter into.

You're saying that your Church is knowingly putting missionaries into dangerous environments? And that when they do so missionaries should be rude and mean from the get go?

I was in the Washington D.C. Mission. We were encouraged not to go into inner city D.C after a certain time of day. Potentially dangerous. I'm making a correlation between that and entering into a toxic environment for members/missionaries of the church in a place such as this.

I thought I was rather clear.

If seems like I have to spell things out with/for you.

Constantly.

Regards,
MG

[Shulem]

How about you, MG? Do you you partake of those sins or have you denounced them? I really believe you are a coward. Prove otherwise and I'll apologize. Come into the box and talk with me. Tell me what you really think. Don't hold back.

OK. I believe in a Heavenly Father and that I am created in His image. That's the God I worship along with most all other LDS church members.

Simple really. If you make it too complex you lose touch and then lose belief.

And that takes you to a world of your own making.

Regards,
MG

But you did not answer the question pertaining to the sins of Facsimile No. 3. Do you you partake of those sins or have you denounced them?

Joseph Smith took a heavenly personage who was worshipped as a god by an entire nation and with his own vain imagination corrupted that which was deemed sacred and turned it into a freakshow in order to satisfy his ambitions and thirst for power over others. What Joseph Smith did to Anubis is inexcusable and just plain wrong. There is no amount of apologetic reasoning or excuses that can justify this sinful action. And, I believe what Smith did in this regard is SINFUL.

I already know you believe in a Heavenly Father and how you are created in his image. And I know that you worship this imagined person even though you can't see him with your own physical eyes -- but you close your eyes (pray) and spiritually imagine him while thinking and feeling and getting that so-called Spirit®. I understand all that.

But, answer the question on the sins of Facsimile No. 3. Where do you stand? That's not overly complicated