If plates then God

[Marcus]

Unless he completely fooled me at the time, the MG I met about 8 or 9 years ago was quite different from the 2.0 version.

A year or two back I pointed out to him that he seemed to be becoming like some of the people he criticised for their meanness. If I recall correctly, his reply was to the effect that "they deserve it". This, in part, is what makes me much less likely to want to respond to him.

Thanks for commenting on this, malkie. Though, unfortunately, I've never had the chance to meet MG, this assessment mirrors my experience with him on this board.

Seriously. His last 6 (SIX!!) in a row show the narcissism IHQ described exactly.

But, he says he's done, so we can get back to the topic. Although, he's said that at least twice before on this thread, so i'm only mildly hopeful.

In any case, i'll repost what i said about Kish's previous comments again about Smith's situation, his posts offer considerable insight into the discussion we were having, in my opinion:

I recall several discussions on our previous site about whether plates, real or fake, actually existed. I always found them fascinating, mostly because when I grew up, they absolutely integral to a Mormon youth's testimony of the 'truthfulness' of 'the Gospel,' but now, it turns out they weren't even used! What a bizarre flip!

Anyway, I always felt that grindael's various discussions on the subject lent the most credence to the idea that the 'item' always under cloth, and conveniently never quite there to see with actual eyes, was sand, or at best, a brick or an odd piece of house décor.

In looking for grindael's post about sand(!), I found this excellent discussion by Kishkumen of the place the story of the plates has in our history, which I hope he doesn't mind if I re-post. It's too good to lose to the vagaries of internet forum upkeep:

Mormonism is a very Western belief system. Indeed, every aspect of it you examine is easily interpreted as a manifestation of one or many currents of Western culture and history. It combines them in a unique way, but to say that Mormonism is simply phony is to ignore all of the ways it expresses those larger and older currents. Let's take, for example, the gold plates. Here is the single most obvious lie Joseph Smith ever told. It is also one of the most damning. Nothing about it is credible.

But the story of the discovery of the gold plates is rooted in narratives that go back to very ancient history indeed. This is what I was getting at in my last Sunstone talk that Taves neither liked nor, frankly, understood very well, as she pushed her own agenda about what "Religious Studies" is. Taves preferred to understand the gold plates through the lens of the Catholic doctrine of Transubstantiation, when Joseph would have been much more familiar with folk magic and Freemasonry than Catholicism. She might still land on Catholicism if she were to understand Freemasonry and magic better, but that is a topic for another day.

So, yes, the gold plates were made up. But they were tailor made for a culture of sacred and magical books that was not only informed by the Bible (and this is the dominant influence, to be sure), but also by the Sixth and Seventh Books of Moses, Letters from Heaven, the gold plate of Enoch, the Emerald Tablet of Hermes Trismegistus, and the Books of Numa. Folk and esoteric religion was already open to the kind of claim Joseph was making, even if it did not actually happen in the way he said it did. For centuries people have been writing sacred or magical texts, putting the name of a famous person on them, and sending them out into the world to become someone else's scripture.

Is the Book of Mormon to be specially rejected while the fabrications and the forgeries of the Bible, circulated under names such as Daniel and Paul, are fine? Are scriptures to be rejected as important expressions of our history and culture because they were written by unknown priests, forgers, and men such as Joseph Smith? Do beliefs become bereft of value when their origins are as dubiously accurate as their contents are unhistorical?

[posted 12/2018]
Inserted from <http://mormondiscussions.com/viewtopic. ... l&start=21>

and

...It seems to me that you are forgetting that he was an established trickster who was engaging in treasure-digging schemes. His skills and his subject matter come directly from that milieu. The Book of Mormon starts off as a treasure that he and other treasure seers were looking for. The translation springs out of that, and it cannot be divorced from it. He had first to convince others that he recovered the plates. Then he eventually commits to translating them himself. Knowing that this all originated in a ruse, we should instead think it would have been strange for him to do other than he did.

http://mormondiscussions.com/viewtopic. ... 7#p1223977

[huckelberry]

I do not think I can buy into psychological categorization of MG. He is very attached to his LDS beliefs and can be dogged in repeating the stuff. Like any long term LDS participant he is saturated with the phrases ,views, attitudes and stratagies for safety which have been pressed into his mind for years. He may attempt to resist some of the nastier aspects of that training but when pressed it comes out. You know failure to believe Joseph Smith is a moral failing which can be expressed multiple ways. All of us have some degree of injury from that training which we live with. But we do not like it being tossed about in these discussion.

On the one hand MG actions are his LDS training. He is not changing and there may be little point in expecting it. Well on the other hand we do not have to accept the insinuations of our moral failure.

[Marcus]

I do not think I can buy into psychological categorization of MG. He is very attached to his LDS beliefs and can be dogged in repeating the stuff. Like any long term LDS participant he is saturated with the phrases ,views, attitudes and stratagies for safety which have been pressed into his mind for years. He may attempt to resist some of the nastier aspects of that training but when pressed it comes out. You know failure to believe Joseph Smith is a moral failing which can be expressed multiple ways. All of us have some degree of injury from that training which we live with. But we do not like it being tossed about in these discussion.

On the one hand MG actions are his LDS training. He is not changing and there may be little point in expecting it. Well on the other hand we do not have to accept the insinuations of our moral failure.

I don't know, huckelberry, i am loath to attribute his behavior solely to the LDS church. For years, he has come here and expressed a very specific intent to disparage and harass people that he considers "different" from himself. I also agree with IHQ that what he did to grindael, all on his own and unrelated to LDS beliefs, was inexcusable, execrable, and just plain evil.

in my opinion, the LDS church provides him with a setting that makes his narcissism very easy to exercise, but on the other hand the fact that he has to come here to find those he considers "inferior" tells me he isn't succeeding in the Mormon milieu either.

Bottom line, his narcissism seems driven by an intense feeling of inferiority, and so he comes here to argue with those his church leaders assure him ARE inferior, i.e nonbelievers. This year's october genl conf reinforced that very specifically.

[I Have Questions]

The challenge Morley is for people to realise that MG2.0 is not like most other people.

I think we all have certain things in common and other things that are unique to us.

It’s clear he’s got narcissistic personality disorder.

And here we go with the armchair psychoanalysis.

Most people would be bothered by your negatively changed perception of them…

They would? Morley is just some guy that pops in to say stuff now and then. I think most people would not be much concerned with what he has to say. It’s just a message board.

…but not a narcissist.

Apply that sticker. Press it hard.

A narcissist would blame you for it.

Blame him for what? What is “it”?

Which is exactly what happened.

What is it that happened again?

If you feel that there’s a chance that MG2.0 might be persuaded to something by someone on this board, forget it. That’s a waste of effort.

Well, I do have my own views, just like others. I’m open to adjustments in my thinking…just as I’m sure others here are.

Narcissists cannot change…

Rub it a bit harder. Make sure the label sticks.

…it’s a personality disorder.

Yes, narcissism in its extreme forms can lead to a personality disorder. Narcissistic behavior, on the other hand, is something that we all have have in common. Each one of us…well most of us…are continually trying to overcome selfishness and greed and other human frailties that keep us from looking and feeling for the ‘other’. I’m sure you are narcissistic at times.

They can pretend for a while if they feel it suits their purposes, but ultimately their mask will always slip.

The label is stuck on securely now.

MG2.0’s mask always slips.

Meaning what? I do ‘stand up’ and remain steadfast in response to a barrage that typically comes my way. I don’t see that as a fault. Steadfast in the fact that I am able to listen, assimilate what others are saying, and then make my own reasoned analysis without simply following the crowd of critics.

I ask him questions as I’m fascinated by how the narcissist works, and how they spiral when their self perceived superiority is challenged.

From this point on in responding to you I will ignore your false perceptions and labels and answer your questions absent the label/sticker you’re attempting to make stick.

MG2.0 isn’t here to discuss, to learn, to progress ideas etc.

BS

…he’s here to be superior.

In my mind I look at everyone as a child of God and worthy of some degree of respect and compassion. I try not in my real life and here to not look at myself as being better than anyone else. Do I get frustrated with what I perceive as being the shenanigans that I observe in a forum where the echo chamber effect runs in full force? Sure.

But it is what it is. I cannot change that.

He’s here to bolster his own self worth by trampling down people he views as inferior.

I don’t need to bolster my own self worth by participating here. My self worth comes from my interactions with those in my life. My family. My religious beliefs and community. My abilities to serve usefully in the world at large. Etc.

My self worth is in no way impacted by participating on this board.

What you see as “trampling down” is me standing up and expressing my own point of view and thinking in response to what I see as ideologies and ideas that I see as harmful in many respects. The side discussion we’ve been having on this board in regards to free agency would be a good example.

He thinks he’s playing to an audience who can see him intellectually slap us lot around. In his mind, he’s winning and he’s brilliant at it.

May I say at this juncture, again, that in a venue such as this it is so easy to play armchair psychoanalyst. This is the world we live in unfortunately. Separated by time and space with little or no consequence for what we say, we can judge and convict other people whose views we disagree with or are not able to successfully challenge. Look at the comment sections in newspapers and other online opinion venues.

Look at what is occurring as IHAQ sets up a response to my previous post based upon a mischaracterization of an individual that he doesn’t know at all except for his false portrayals.

What a world.

And “winning”? Maybe. At least from where I sit. I am often not impressed and/or convinced with the arguments put forward here. Although there are times when I pick up up on something useful. Kishkumen, physicsguy, and a few others have interesting things to say at times that broaden my perspective and understanding.

He will never change, he’s incapable of change.

Dude. I look for change and betterment EVERY day. Narcissism in the way you are describing?

Absolute BS.

Unfortunately you are not able to sit across the table from me. You are not able to interview my family and my associates. But you are free, in a forum such as this, to stir up a pot and make false accusations. And it literally is an echo chamber of sorts.

It is what it is.

What he did to grindael tells us that.

Not going there. I will let you have your opinion and final conclusions as to what that was all about.

When viewed as the narcissist that he is…

Sorry, I’m going to tear that label off. I know myself better than anyone. Am I selfish at times? Yes. Do I often think of my own needs and then have to reconsider those as I think of and act on the needs of others? Yes.

I’m as human as the rest. A regular guy. A narcissist in the sense you’re painting me to be?

No.

MG2.0 is much less disappointing. In fact he’s positively predictable when you see it.

I won’t argue that in many ways I am predictable. My wife and kids will testify to that.

IHAQ, apparently I touched a nerve with you. With some folks, because of contributing factors that remain unseen in a virtual community, that seems to be a very easy thing to do. You are responding in your own way based upon your own premises and life experience with others and the church.

And possibly God.

It is what it is.

Regards,
MG

I could not have made up a better response than this^ to support my analysis.

[huckelberry]

I do not think I can buy into psychological categorization of MG. He is very attached to his LDS beliefs and can be dogged in repeating the stuff. Like any long term LDS participant he is saturated with the phrases ,views, attitudes and stratagies for safety which have been pressed into his mind for years. He may attempt to resist some of the nastier aspects of that training but when pressed it comes out. You know failure to believe Joseph Smith is a moral failing which can be expressed multiple ways. All of us have some degree of injury from that training which we live with. But we do not like it being tossed about in these discussion.

On the one hand MG actions are his LDS training. He is not changing and there may be little point in expecting it. Well on the other hand we do not have to accept the insinuations of our moral failure.

I don't know, huckelberry, i am loath to attribute his behavior solely to the LDS church. For years, he has come here and expressed a very specific intent to disparage and harass people that he considers "different" from himself. I also agree with IHQ that what he did to grindael, all on his own and unrelated to LDS beliefs, was inexcusable, execrable, and just plain evil.

in my opinion, the LDS church provides him with a setting that makes his narcissism very easy to exercise, but on the other hand the fact that he has to come here to find those he considers "inferior" tells me he isn't succeeding in the Mormon milieu either.

Bottom line, his narcissism seems driven by an intense feeling of inferiority, and so he comes here to argue with those his church leaders assure him ARE inferior, i.e nonbelievers. This year's october genl conf reinforced that very specifically.

Marcus, I can certainly see your point that different individuals will take and employ the standard LDS polemic material in a fashion resulting from their own personality. Most people will sense that the polemics are aimed at keeping people inside belief and are poor approaches toward people not inside of the belief.

I do not claim to understand MG's motive or personality. It does result in a certain obsessive deployment of those Mormon tropes continuing on well after any new communication.

I should admit I did not follow his interaction with Grindael. I respect Grindael's efforts but they were more detailed than my interest in Mormon history.I did follow a few of his presentations and thought they were valuable. I remember thinking MG was pestering without substance so I quit following what he was doing entirely. Clearly that interaction left hard feelings here with quite a few people and I have no basis to say those hard feelings are not justified.

[Marcus]

Thank you for your comment, huckleberry, I appreciate your perspective.

...I remember thinking MG was pestering without substance...

Yes, although that's a very mild way of putting it. From September 2021:

An example of mentalgymnast's trolling of grindael:

When grindael excitedly announced that he had been chosen to present his research at the Whitmer conference and shared with us some of his work, this was one (just one of many!) of the trolling comments that mentalgymnast posted on his announcement thread that evening:

by the way, loser, we are already well aware that you don't believe in the Divine calling of Joseph Smith...so what's your point in preaching to the choir? You already know you're gonna just get high fives. So what's your point? Much ado about nothing, isn't it?

You're a loser, grindael. Ya, I know I just called you a loser. But the shoe fits.

This is just one example of his truly execrable behavior, although this one really blew up, because he relentlessly harassed grindael in about 6 or 7 threads that evening. And here is mentalgymnast's non-apology, posted just after the above.

Yeah, I said that. We were in an admittedly heated discussion/back and forth. I had probably had it up to my ears with him and his foul mouthed ways. And yes, I did see him as an enemy of Joseph Smith.

Yep.

Regards,
MG

Wrong. They were NOT in a "heated discussion/back and forth." I know about this, because grindael messaged me that night, pleading for help against the troll. (grindael already stated he pm'd me that night, so I am not breaking any rules by sharing this.) Mentalgymnast was stalking grindael, thread after thread after thread. All grindael wanted to do was share his terrific news, he ignored and moved on from mentalgymnast's pestering harassment, time after time after time, but mentalgymnast was relentless. Mentalgymnast did everything he could to destroy grindael's happiness. It was sickening.

The moderation is clearer now than then, as one current mod pointed out, after mentalgymnast's contributions above were quoted. From that same thread:

...a moderator at the time said this, when a question was asked about your post above:

Yeah, report stuff like that. That's clearly a rule violation that I would've moved. It would've added, in my mind anyway, to a body of evidence that he was a repeat offender not following warnings. If it happens again, he's on the queue. It's only going to take one legitimate report. I favored queuing him now, but Shades' take is just a hair away from that.

"Repeat offender" defines mentalgymnast's style perfectly.

One of my favorite works, posted by Jersey Girl:

"The Road Ahead" ~ Johnny Stephenson

[Rivendale]

Thank you for your comment, huckleberry, I appreciate your perspective.

...I remember thinking MG was pestering without substance...

Yes, although that's a very mild way of putting it. From September 2021:

An example of mentalgymnast's trolling of grindael:

When grindael excitedly announced that he had been chosen to present his research at the Whitmer conference and shared with us some of his work, this was one (just one of many!) of the trolling comments that mentalgymnast posted on his announcement thread that evening:

This is just one example of his truly execrable behavior, although this one really blew up, because he relentlessly harassed grindael in about 6 or 7 threads that evening. And here is mentalgymnast's non-apology, posted just after the above.

Yeah, I said that. We were in an admittedly heated discussion/back and forth. I had probably had it up to my ears with him and his foul mouthed ways. And yes, I did see him as an enemy of Joseph Smith.

Yep.

Regards,
MG

Wrong. They were NOT in a "heated discussion/back and forth." I know about this, because grindael messaged me that night, pleading for help against the troll. (grindael already stated he pm'd me that night, so I am not breaking any rules by sharing this.) Mentalgymnast was stalking grindael, thread after thread after thread. All grindael wanted to do was share his terrific news, he ignored and moved on from mentalgymnast's pestering harassment, time after time after time, but mentalgymnast was relentless. Mentalgymnast did everything he could to destroy grindael's happiness. It was sickening.

The moderation is clearer now than then, as one current mod pointed out, after mentalgymnast's contributions above were quoted. From that same thread:

...a moderator at the time said this, when a question was asked about your post above:

"Repeat offender" defines mentalgymnast's style perfectly.

One of my favorite works, posted by Jersey Girl:

"The Road Ahead" ~ Johnny Stephenson

This is really disturbing . I followed Grindael for years on other platforms and this really bothers me. I didn't find this sight early enough to see this back and forth. One of Grindael's last posts was "still here". Yes he is.

[huckelberry]

Marcus, thankyou. That certainly clarifies why people have the feelings that have been expressed about MG. It also explains why Grindael was upset.

[MG 2.0]

I could not have made up a better response than this^ to support my analysis.

Good and quick ‘shelve it’ and/or shove it response. No surprise from the person that has questions but few answers.

Personally, I think my rather long and detailed response to you was in good taste and exposed the fallacious accusations and innuendo you made up on the fly in order to try and take me down. My arguments in this thread still stand.

And they’re pretty good.

But then again I have a pretty high opinion of myself rising to the level of narcissism, right?

So I suppose my opinion doesn’t count for much at the end of the day…

Regards,
MG

[MG 2.0]

Marcus, thankyou. That certainly clarifies why people have the feelings that have been expressed about MG. It also explains why Grindael was upset.

It takes two to tangle. My recollections are that Grindael dished out his fair share of ‘crap’. There were times when I had had enough and let him know what I thought.

I could have done better at reigning in some of my responses. Some of the things he said and sources he referred to were slanted/biased in one direction and my responses were at times harsh and lacked tolerance.

I could have been less harsh/abrasive than I was.

Regards,
MG