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

[drumdude]

MG,

If you were raised as a Scientologist, with all your family and friends as very devout practicing Scientologists, do you think you would be able to easily leave and never look back?

You have to empathize a little here with everyone’s circumstances. Try imagining that your whole life was spent in Scientology before you realized L Ron Hubbard was a fraud. You donated over $100,000 to Scientology that you can never get back. You spent 2 years in the Sea Org trying to convert others.

Coming to know the truth was a slow painful process. And no one in your family or friend circles believes you. In fact, they think your soul is at stake for rejecting Hubbard.

I think that might help you understand what it’s like.

[Marcus]

You are not even original in your mentalgymnastics.

Have you ever been in an online community where you trying to discuss information that you are deeply invested in and then someone, seemingly out of nowhere, begins to deliberately sow discord among the group? The intentional introduction of inflammatory, extraneous, or off-topic posts with the deliberate intent of disrupting regular on-topic group discussion –commonly known as Internet trolling – has become a favorite pastime of many Christians in the world today...

[For example, like our troll, there are some] who attach themselves to a given tribe of people with whom they don’t actually want to identify with but whom they do want the personal privilege of constantly critiquing with their posts...

But the commonality of these behaviors is that they share the initial guise of being representative of Christian conduct...

https://www.christopherbenek.com/2015/0 ... -trolling/

[MG 2.0]

...The intentional introduction of inflammatory, extraneous, or off-topic posts with the deliberate intent of disrupting regular on-topic group discussion...

The thing is, it's not that simple. My intent is not to inflame...but to question the status quo (criticism of the LDS Church) here ...even though the board is supposedly open to people of all levels of belief. I see that as being a different animal. You, of course, would/might see it differently.

Inflammatory? No. Rocking the boat of a status quo echo chamber? Yes.

Introduction of extraneous material? What in the heck to you even mean by that? Who gets to control what is talked about and discussed here? Surely not you...right?

Extraneous material or conversation? I don't think so. People here talk about all kinds of stuff and go off topic...especially on threads that become an MG bash.

Off-topic? Again, who determines that? You? Surely not. In a sense, you are the troll by following along as a board nanny thinking you are in control or are the one that determines what is proper or improper to discuss and talk about. Very rarely do you ever personally add anything to the discussion except to nitpick.

Notice, Marcus, how we are simply rehashing, upon rehashing, upon rehashing? If not...go back and look at your interventions ad nauseum. You waste everyone's time and blow-up discussions.

I would think that you would be able to see that and find something else to do. Like contribute positively to a discussion. I have absolutely no idea who you are or what makes you tick. All I know is you are an atheist when it comes to personal belief. But I have no idea how that works for you and why.

You seem to be a critic but not a builder.

I've said it before (here goes another rehash) but I'll say it again, if there is anyone here that is a troll in the sense of following someone around with the intent of blowing up discussions...

It's you.

Rehash. Rehash. Rehash.

Get a grip and stop it already.

You just can't let Mormonism go, can you?

Let believers be believers. You do you. We'll do us. For 'us' that means doing missionary work (even if it is pointed/focused at lurkers that are questioning/seeking). When you intentionally blow things up it is rather transparent as to what you...and some others...are doing.

Regards,
MG

[ceeboo]

Hey MG



To be fair, I don't know anything about Jonathan Rauch, and I only watched a few minutes of the hour plus video.

Having said that, the title of the video, "Can Mormonism Save American Democracy?" strikes me as very odd.

If you're willing (I assume you watched the full video and are familiar with Jonathan), what is he suggesting by the title?

Simply put. The church is solid enough in its position and potential influence for good that it can play an integral part as the nation slips towards moral decay, materialism, tribalism without compromise, lack of form footing with a higher purpose, etc., etc.

Thanks for answering.

In other words, a light on the hill. That was the gist I got out of it. But that's the opinion of a "troll".

Ha!

[Marcus]

...The intentional introduction of inflammatory, extraneous, or off-topic posts with the deliberate intent of disrupting regular on-topic group discussion...

The thing is, it's not that simple. My intent is not to inflame...but to question the status quo (criticism of the LDS Church) here ...even though the board is supposedly open to people of all levels of belief. I see that as being a different animal. You, of course, would/might see it differently.

Inflammatory? No. Rocking the boat of a status quo echo chamber? Yes.

Introduction of extraneous material? What in the heck to you even mean by that? Who gets to control what is talked about and discussed here? Surely not you...right?

Extraneous material or conversation? I don't think so. People here talk about all kinds of stuff and go off topic...especially on threads that become an MG bash.

Off-topic? Again, who determines that? You? Surely not. In a sense, you are the troll by following along as a board nanny thinking you are in control or are the one that determines what is proper or improper to discuss and talk about. Very rarely do you ever personally add anything to the discussion except to nitpick.

Notice, Marcus, how we are simply rehashing, upon rehashing, upon rehashing? If not...go back and look at your interventions ad nauseum. You waste everyone's time and blow-up discussions.

I would think that you would be able to see that and find something else to do. Like contribute positively to a discussion. I have absolutely no idea who you are or what makes you tick. All I know is you are an atheist when it comes to personal belief. But I have no idea how that works for you and why.

You seem to be a critic but not a builder.

I've said it before (here goes another rehash) but I'll say it again, if there is anyone here that is a troll in the sense of following someone around with the intent of blowing up discussions...

It's you.

Rehash. Rehash. Rehash.

Get a grip and stop it already.

You just can't let Mormonism go, can you?

Let believers be believers. You do you. We'll do us. For 'us' that means doing missionary work (even if it is pointed/focused at lurkers that are questioning/seeking). When you intentionally blow things up it is rather transparent as to what you...and some others...are doing.

Regards,
MG

But no response at all about what I highlighted as specifically reflecting your behavior:

For example, like our troll, there are some] who attach themselves to a given tribe of people with whom they don’t actually want to identify with but whom they do want the personal privilege of constantly critiquing with their posts...

You are completely obvious.

[Rivendale]

I think Dehlin has a point as to why Mormonism deserves criticism.

The church is immoral. “There is something fundamentally immoral to presenting a narrative that people build their entire lives upon. They decide what to do with their education, how much money to give, who to marry, when to marry, how many kids to have, what professions to pursue… There’s this massive amount of decisions that you make, you know in a finite life, and to base that life on a narrative, when not only the narrative isn’t what it claims to be, when leaders know the narrative isn’t what it claims to be, and intentionally - for as long as they could - withheld the information that would allow people to make an informed decision about how they spend their finite time and resources –that’s profoundly immoral.” John Dehlin.

[IWMP]

MG,

If you were raised as a Scientologist, with all your family and friends as very devout practicing Scientologists, do you think you would be able to easily leave and never look back?

You have to empathize a little here with everyone’s circumstances. Try imagining that your whole life was spent in Scientology before you realized L Ron Hubbard was a fraud. You donated over $100,000 to Scientology that you can never get back. You spent 2 years in the Sea Org trying to convert others.

Coming to know the truth was a slow painful process. And no one in your family or friend circles believes you. In fact, they think your soul is at stake for rejecting Hubbard.

I think that might help you understand what it’s like.

Is there no positive things about having been LDS? I think the network of people, the love I felt, the friends, the people who gave me a second family and had shown me what normal (more normal than mine) families look like. It's hard to make friends in the world but the way church members fellowship, makes having friends easier, yeah, they all disappeared when I got with a non member and it probably was all fake in the end up, it's still good memories for me. And linger longer was just awesome. For me EFY was borderline traumatising but it opened the doors to me realising I was different and seeking help.

[IWMP]

I think Dehlin has a point as to why Mormonism deserves criticism.

The church is immoral. “There is something fundamentally immoral to presenting a narrative that people build their entire lives upon. They decide what to do with their education, how much money to give, who to marry, when to marry, how many kids to have, what professions to pursue… There’s this massive amount of decisions that you make, you know in a finite life, and to base that life on a narrative, when not only the narrative isn’t what it claims to be, when leaders know the narrative isn’t what it claims to be, and intentionally - for as long as they could - withheld the information that would allow people to make an informed decision about how they spend their finite time and resources –that’s profoundly immoral.” John Dehlin.

But if you are informed, does that mean you are welcome to do with your life what you will, even if that means following a lifestyle that others don't understand? I'm pretty sure MG is well informed.

I do think it is immoral if the leaders of the church know without a doubt that they are lying. But they come up the church from being TBMs, so do they know they are lying?
The leaders could be uninformed, does that mean they are being immoral?

I personally don't care. I'm not active LDS and I don't believe in the LDS church teachings. But for the sake of discussion.

[IWMP]

It's an extremely common issue for virtually everyone online, and has nothing to do with intelligence or brightness. Read Poe's Law at rationalwiki, the history of the development of the term is quite interesting.

A couple of excerpts:

Poe's Law states:[1]

“”Without a clear indication of the author's intent, it is difficult or impossible to tell the difference between an expression of sincere extremism and a parody of extremism"

...However, the usage of the law has grown, and now the term "Poe" is applied to almost any parody on the internet. Essentially, Poe's Law has developed to include three similar but distinct concepts:

The original idea that at least one person will mistake parodic postings for sincere beliefs.
That nobody will be able to distinguish many instances of parodic posts from the real thing.
That anyone not already in the grip of fundamentalist ideas will (perhaps due to not being sufficiently insane for fundamentalist ideas to "make sense" to them) mistake sincere expressions of fundamentalism for parody.[note 2][note 3]...

What does this have to do with being obtuse?

[MG 2.0]

But no response at all about what I highlighted as specifically reflecting your behavior:

For example, like our troll, there are some] who attach themselves to a given tribe of people with whom they don’t actually want to identify with but whom they do want the personal privilege of constantly critiquing with their posts...

You are completely obvious.

My previous response stands as it is. I'm good with it. It apparently was written more for others than for you (what I figured). My experience is that you are rather obtuse.

I think I've wasted enough time this go around with you.

Regards,
MG