Mak's failed attempt at new Mormonism.

[_maklelan]

Reading that response further increased my respect for you and my appreciation of the situation you are currently in. I wish you and your family well.

I appreciate the kind words, and while I know you weren't making a comparison, my situation is bright and sunny compared to those of a lot of members and non-members around the world right now. I hope that a lot of the energy being expended on this issue can be directed toward supporting those most at risk.

[_Ceeboo]

Hi Ceeboo

Hi Sanctorian! (?)

"We" is anyone that is willing to see past his b***s***.

Okay, then I am most definitely not among the "we"

Mak is a smart guy, probably a good father and certainly a nice enough human being. However, his b***s*** is knee deep. This is especially true when it comes to his motives behind the church. He has a known bias (his employment) and does to others the very thing he accuses "us" of doing. "We" call him out on it and he doesn't handle it to well. Just like you're calling me out on my b***s***. I'm just not going to rub his nut sack because he makes a statement on a board that has no bearing on real life. I guess I'll state it again, Mak is certainly doing things outside of this board that no one knows. It could be bad, it could be good. That's for Mak to decide. But to suggest his one statement on this thread shows his integrity and motive, I find that suspect.

Don't look now, grasshopper, but you just made another personal attack against Mak and Mak's character.

Peace,
Sanctorian

Peace,
Ceeboo

[_maklelan]

"We" is anyone that is willing to see past his BS.

My BS? You cannot point to a single statement I have ever made on this board that you can demonstrate to be BS. All you can do is assert something you've simply assumed about me, usually because of your projections of your own experiences on me.

Mak is a smart guy, probably a good father and certainly a nice enough human being. However, his BS is knee deep. This is especially true when it comes to his motives behind the church. He has a known bias (his employment)

Bias? You're insisting there's a problem because I have bias? And you have none? That employment also happens to provide me with much, much better access to insight than you or anyone else here has just in virtue of your own brand of bias. And as I've pointed out to you on multiple occasions, I'm critical of the Church far more than I am deferential to it. The fact that you're not exposed to that side of my public persona is a problem with your rhetoric, too, not mine.

and does to others the very thing he accuses "us" of doing. "We" call him out on it and he doesn't handle it to well.

I get frustrated with ignorant rhetoric and assumptions about me, yes. I don't go posting threads aimed directly at other people and accusing them of all kinds of stupid things just to get my emotional rocks off, though. That's you who does that. I would say that's a far more significant indictment, especially when it's aimed at an admittedly artificial construction of a persona based on a knowingly inadequate exposure to me and my life.

Just like you're calling me out on my BS. I'm just not going to rub his nut sack because he makes a statement on a board that has no bearing on real life.

Did anyone ask you to rub my nut sack? From what I see, they're just pointing out you don't have to be so vindictive and condemnatory all the time.

I guess I'll state it again, Mak is certainly doing things outside of this board that no one knows. It could be bad, it could be good. That's for Mak to decide. But to suggest his one statement on this thread shows his integrity and motive, I find that suspect.

But you're not expressing suspicion with the notion that one statement indicates an overabundance of integrity, you're asserting that I lack integrity, which is no more indicated by my "one statement" than is that overabundance. You're attributing base motivations to me without any evidence whatsoever. You're saying you "take issue" with me for supporting "a hateful, fraudulent, life destroying organization," but you don't have the first damn clue what the nature of my relationship with that organization is, or what the broad nature and function of that organization is outside of your own immediate perception, which has obviously been fundamentally colored by your hatred of it. You see me as some kind of agent of the Church on which you can take out your anger without even bothering to think twice because your perception of my support of it puts me on the wrong side of the imaginary line of responsibility you've drawn between you and it, and that's pretty sick.

[_Sanctorian]

"We" is anyone that is willing to see past his b***s***.

My b***s***? You cannot point to a single statement I have ever made on this board that you can demonstrate to be b***s***. All you can do is assert something you've simply assumed about me, usually because of your projections of your own experiences on me.

Mak is a smart guy, probably a good father and certainly a nice enough human being. However, his b***s*** is knee deep. This is especially true when it comes to his motives behind the church. He has a known bias (his employment)

Bias? You're insisting there's a problem because I have bias? And you have none? That employment also happens to provide me with much, much better access to insight than you or anyone else here has just in virtue of your own brand of bias. And as I've pointed out to you on multiple occasions, I'm critical of the Church far more than I am deferential to it. The fact that you're not exposed to that side of my public persona is a problem with your rhetoric, too, not mine.

and does to others the very thing he accuses "us" of doing. "We" call him out on it and he doesn't handle it to well.

I get frustrated with ignorant rhetoric and assumptions about me, yes. I don't go posting threads aimed directly at other people and accusing them of all kinds of stupid things just to get my emotional rocks off, though. That's you who does that. I would say that's a far more significant indictment, especially when it's aimed at an admittedly artificial construction of a persona based on a knowingly inadequate exposure to me and my life.

Just like you're calling me out on my b***s***. I'm just not going to rub his nut sack because he makes a statement on a board that has no bearing on real life.

Did anyone ask you to rub my nut sack? From what I see, they're just pointing out you don't have to be so vindictive and condemnatory all the time.

I guess I'll state it again, Mak is certainly doing things outside of this board that no one knows. It could be bad, it could be good. That's for Mak to decide. But to suggest his one statement on this thread shows his integrity and motive, I find that suspect.

But you're not expressing suspicion with the notion that one statement indicates an overabundance of integrity, you're asserting that I lack integrity, which is no more indicated by my "one statement" than is that overabundance. You're attributing base motivations to me without any evidence whatsoever. You're saying you "take issue" with me for supporting "a hateful, fraudulent, life destroying organization," but you don't have the first damn clue what the nature of my relationship with that organization is, or what the broad nature and function of that organization is outside of your own immediate perception, which has obviously been fundamentally colored by your hatred of it. You see me as some kind of agent of the Church on which you can take out your anger without even bothering to think twice because your perception of my support of it puts me on the wrong side of the imaginary line of responsibility you've drawn between you and it, and that's pretty sick.

Hey pot. Meet kettle.

[_grindael]

You have the minutes from the meeting or the text of the revelation in which it was directed, or you have texts from well after where Brigham Young suggested it was divinely inspired? There's an enormous difference there that I hope you're not just naïvely glossing over.

What would you consider "well after" where Brigham Young declared it was divinely inspired?

[_Sanctorian]

For all those that haven't figured it out, "Mak" is a representation of a lot that is problematic with the church. I know we all know Mak in real life, but we don't really "know" Mak in real life. Certainly not in the biblical sense. For all we know, he's a secret millionaire jet setting in the Bahamas with a young mistress of the night. "Mak" comes on this board and accuses some of us of "misrepresenting" him. He takes it personal when some of us pile on him. My point being, "Mak" is a character. He lives in anonymity even though "we" think we know him. We know some things about him for sure. He works for the church, has three some odd degrees, etc., but he is still an anonymous fictional character just like anyone else on this board. The only difference, we know his name and his employer.

When we start assuming Mak the real person is something beyond the few details that we know, the line gets a little blurry. We don't know anything about Mak the real person. However, Mak the fictional character is easy to discern.

I'll state it again so its clear to those that wonder why I'm attacking "Mak". I'm not attacking Mak the real person. That Mak is impossible to know. He deliberately and rightfully keeps that part of his life separate from this board. He's really no different than anyone else on this board. So, in essence, the Mak we know is not the real Mak. We don't have a clear picture on Mak's beliefs regarding the truth claims of the church because Mak won't state his testimony. No problem. That's for real life Mak to keep to himself.

Where it gets tricky is Mak the fictional character wants to assert what he states here as truth without shedding light into the life of Mak the real person. That's where "we" have to fill in the blanks and Mak the real person cries foul.

So Mak comes on today and makes a statement regarding his position on the new policy. It's a fine statement, but not really a shocking statement considering it is also the popular statement even amongst active members of the church. Some of us applaud Mak and pat his back. But what has Mak really done? Nothing. Other people are resigning, taking a stand, protesting and helping usher in real change.

Mak the fictional character is doing none of those things. A discussion on MDB is not action. It doesn't deserve applaud. Mak the fictional character will try and take credit when this policy is changed. But as far as I can tell, the Mak we see on this board is nothing more than a few text strings with no action. That's why I don't buy the argument that he's risking his employment or helping usher in change by making such a statement on a random message board and neither should you.

[_Lemmie]

Well, it is paying the bills.

- Doc

I don't have a problem with that. In fact, that seems like a good way to recoup tithing. But don't pretend that's not your motivation and if it is, keep your mouth shut and stop advocating the church. Just do your job, collect your paycheck, go home, kiss your wife and kids and thank Jebus for surviving another day.

I read this as Sanctorian expressing a dislike of a generic type, no reason for anyone to take it personally, or feel they need to make a personal attack back.

Given the heart-wrenching experience Sanctorian and his family had with his cousin I think we can cut him a little slack today for being angry if he feels posters appear to be complacent and/or condescending.

I am not pointing any fingers here because everyone has foot in mouth disease at one point or another (although some posters clearly have a little more finesse and sensitivity in their posting style--Runtu comes to mind!).

[_RockSlider]

I am not pointing any fingers here because everyone has foot in mouth disease at one point or another (although some posters clearly have a little more finesse and sensitivity in their posting style--Runtu comes to mind!).

Yea that Runtu is such a sissy .... ummmm I mean good point Lemmie.


what a good man that runtu

[_maklelan]

For all those that haven't figured it out, "Mak" is a representation of a lot that is problematic with the church. I know we all know Mak in real life, but we don't really "know" Mak in real life.

Since you're admitting to just railing against me as a symbol of a generalized persona, I'd appreciate it if you'd just leave me and my personal out of the process.

I'll state it again so its clear to those that wonder why I'm attacking "Mak". I'm not attacking Mak the real person.

Then stop using my name, responding to my posts, and making accusations about my personal character.

[_Sanctorian]

For all those that haven't figured it out, "Mak" is a representation of a lot that is problematic with the church. I know we all know Mak in real life, but we don't really "know" Mak in real life.

Since you're admitting to just railing against me as a symbol of a generalized persona, I'd appreciate it if you'd just leave me and my personal out of the process.

I'll state it again so its clear to those that wonder why I'm attacking "Mak". I'm not attacking Mak the real person.

Then stop using my name, responding to my posts, and making accusations about my personal character.

Thanks for asking, but I'll pass. You represent everything I hate about Mormonism.