Making Covenants

[MG 2.0]

I really do not see this post in the same way you apparently do. I think you may be trying to somehow act as a foil for Morley in order to give him a valid reason to ignore my questions. In all sincerity I would love to see some vulnerability on his part. You too for that matter.

I’ve been rather transparent and as recently as today admitted to having a faulty memory now and then and even making a mistake or two periodically. I have seen VERY little of that sort of transparency and/or vulnerability from you or Morley and some of the other critics here that love to criticize others and yet seem to be very reticent about going into any detail on what makes them tick.

All for thee but not for me.

Stop your shenanigans and join in the conversation, will ya’?

You have constantly been derailing and throwing off the conversation on this thread. Would it do any good to tell you that this is my thread and you need to behave yourself or leave?

Please stop wasting our time. I don’t know that you’ve actually had ONE thing to add to the discussion besides belly aching.

It’s getting old, Lemmie/Marcus. Please stop.

Regards,
MG

MG, you may feel comfortable being "vulnerable" and "transparent" on a public forum. Good for you - really, good for you.

But when you say "All for thee but not for me." in this context it suggests that you feel somehow entitled to have posters offer details on what makes them tick.

Especially when you say "I have seen VERY little of that sort of transparency and/or vulnerability from you or Morley and some of the other critics here that love to criticize others and yet seem to be very reticent about going into any detail on what makes them tick." it leaves me with the impression that you would like that information for the purpose of giving you some sort of leverage. Perhaps that's not what you intend, but you should be aware that some people will think that of you when you ask them to make themselves vulnerable. Sorry to say, but it sounds a bit creepy to me.

For me, I don't much care if giving you more information about how I think would increase your esteem for me - I'm not here for your or anyone else's esteem.

People will reveal, usually unbidden, what they want to reveal, and will be reluctant to reveal more on demand, particularly when they think it may be used against them.

ETA: "... along with others that my not know you ..." - definitely count me as not one of the "others" interested in seeing posters interrogated like this.

That’s fine. I wouldn’t expect that anyone who doesn’t want to is going to share anything more than they want about what makes them tick and/ or their Mormon story.

And no, I’m not after anything “creepy”.

Sheesh. C’mon.

Regards,
MG

[MG 2.0]

Again: Hilarious.

Thanks for your response.

Regards,
MG

[MG 2.0]

Oh wow. What an utterly rude response. You really are a complete ass, mentalgymnast, a complete and total ass.

I really do not see this post in the same way you apparently do.

obviously.

I think you may be trying to somehow act as a foil for Morley in order to give him a valid reason to ignore my questions.

What a ridiculous statement. I've read Morley's comments and interacted with them on this board, the same as you, and clearly I have learned much about this person that you are now pretending you don't know.

in all sincerity I would love to see some vulnerability on his part. You too for that matter.

when people show vulnerability, you have invariably attempted to exploit the sitution to further your goal here to disparage anyone not LDS.

I’ve been rather transparent and as recently as today admitted to having a faulty memory now and then and even making a mistake or two periodically. I have seen VERY little of that sort of transparency and/or vulnerability from you or Morley and some of the other critics here that love to criticize others and yet seem to be very reticent about going into any detail on what makes them tick.

then you haven't been paying attention.

All for thee but not for me.

Stop your shenanigans and join in the conversation, will ya’?

You have constantly been derailing and throwing off the conversation on this thread. Would it do any good to tell you that this is my thread and you need to behave yourself or leave?

Please stop wasting our time. I don’t know that you’ve actually had ONE thing to add to the discussion besides belly aching.

It’s getting old, Lemmie/Marcus. Please stop.

lol. this is the mentalgymnast act, encapsulated.

Thank you for responding.

Regards,
MG

[MG 2.0]

I pretty much see you as a person that I can’t begin to put a face to. Only that you’re a mainstay critic.

Only of you, my friend. Sadly, I think you've done more to undermine The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints than any other poster presently on this board.

It appears as though we may be at a stalemate inasmuch as we are basically talking past each other and you have expressed your negative opinion of me and the persona that I seemingly manifest on the board.

Thanks for the conversation, such as it was.

It is difficult to carry on a conversation when perceptions are skewed.

Best wishes.

Regards,
MG

[MG 2.0]

Gotta love making covenants because legend has it that some imaginary people disobeyed the prior covenants they supposedly made with their imaginary god. And this is the basis for a certain poster to think he is somehow superior?

I realize that among many the Abrahamic Covenant, Moses, and other figures from ancient times are shrouded in mythos. If it wasn’t for the restoration and the purported manifestation of these individuals and reestablishing of keys and authority I would be more than likely to ‘sign on’ and join the bandwagon of those that see the mythos as exactly that.

As it is, I have a certain degree of confidence that there is an over arching ‘truth’ inside the mythos in which a monotheistic God (the one true God) manifest Himself in the ancient world and reintroduced Himself in the meridian of time. That same God then appeared to Joseph Smith and restored lost knowledge and keys that had in one form or another come and gone over the ages of Judaeo Christian history.

It’s not a popular position to take, I know. And covenants made with God are mixed in with all of it.

On the other hand, secularism and mythos mix together very well.

And there are educated/academic folks that do have a confidence in the historical prophets and their mission and purpose in the ancient world. I side with them as a result of also seeing these same prophets from the past revealing themselves during the restoration process.

Again, I know that among secularists and those that profess agnosticism/atheism that’s a non starter.

But I appreciate your position.

Superiority has nothing to do with it. That is your own perception/conclusion.

Regards,
MG

[MG 2.0]

Just a reminder that mAkInG cOvEnAnTs doesn’t include not torturing homosexuals and then lying about it:

https://web.archive.org/web/20211117154 ... ays-shock/

Dishonesty is baked into Mormonism.

- Doc

Mormonism is an ideology rather than pragmatic, and thus the ends easily justify the means (and collateral damage) for the adherents.

Pragmatism plays an integral part in Mormonism. No argument with that.

Regards,
MG

[MG 2.0]

...Especially when you say "I have seen VERY little of that sort of transparency and/or vulnerability from you or Morley and some of the other critics here that love to criticize others and yet seem to be very reticent about going into any detail on what makes them tick." it leaves me with the impression that you would like that information for the purpose of giving you some sort of leverage. Perhaps that's not what you intend, but you should be aware that some people will think that of you when you ask them to make themselves vulnerable. Sorry to say, but it sounds a bit creepy to me...

This is a good call on your part. Over the years I have observed mentalgymnast take bits of things revealed here and then repeatedly try to use them against people, in very disturbing and aggressively inappropriate ways. His behavior was extremely creepy and very intrusive. It's unfortunate that he misuses this space to engage in such ugly intrusions.

That is untrue.

Again, The Borg is very adept at building a caricature.

The Borg is powerful. No doubt. It is very difficult to fight/win against.

Getting pummeled back and forth in an echo chamber filled with malcontents that are connected with a common thread is an interesting experience. But expected.

Even, may I say, a bit creepy.

Regards,
MG

[honorentheos]

I realize that among many the Abrahamic Covenant, Moses, and other figures from ancient times are shrouded in mythos. If it wasn’t for the restoration and the purported manifestation of these individuals and reestablishing of keys and authority I would be more than likely to ‘sign on’ and join the bandwagon of those that see the mythos as exactly that.

In other words, if you decide Mormonism is true and the Mormon god exists as described within Mormonism, your job isn't to understand what the evidence tells you. It's to tell the evidence how it can best conform to your prior beliefs.

[honorentheos]

Mormonism is an ideology rather than pragmatic, and thus the ends easily justify the means (and collateral damage) for the adherents.

Pragmatism plays an integral part in Mormonism. No argument with that.

Regards,
MG

Umm.

[Doctor CamNC4Me]

This is a good call on your part. Over the years I have observed mentalgymnast take bits of things revealed here and then repeatedly try to use them against people, in very disturbing and aggressively inappropriate ways. His behavior was extremely creepy and very intrusive. It's unfortunate that he misuses this space to engage in such ugly intrusions.

That is untrue.

Again, The Borg is very adept at building a caricature.

The Borg is powerful. No doubt. It is very difficult to fight/win against.

Getting pummeled back and forth in an echo chamber filled with malcontents that are connected with a common thread is an interesting experience. But expected.

Even, may I say, a bit creepy.

Regards,
MG

Ugh. Yes. You’re the victim. Your church hooked up electrodes to men’s nuts or dicks or whatever, and then measured their stimulation when viewing pornography, and then shocked them when they hit ‘arousal levels’. And then lied about it.

Ugh. We’re viewing it through *checks MG’s bingo card* “a limited lens”.

What part of the cOvEnAnT pAtH included getting electroshock therapy again?

- Doc