The distance between Christianity and the 4 Gospels

[Morley]

The Moon and Sixpence was my first Maugham. But many Maughams did follow and never did they disappoint.

Winner for best comment in the category of avatar response.

[Morley]

Binary thinking.

There is a creator God, and that God looks more or less like what Mormonism claims. 1

Evidence to the contrary? This is a closed gate, sorry. 0

...and for best response to the most binary of all thinkers.

[Morley]

None of that has anything to do with your claim or my question.

No concern to me. I’m not here to do your bidding. I said what I wanted to say, and I’m sticking to it.

Truth is, it’s probably not what you wanted to hear. Whatever.

Are all of you critics arrogant and self conceited to the point that you believe you’re always the center of attention and focus? And that your demands are always to be acknowledged and that others…the sheep…acquiesce to your personal preferences?

Sheesh.

I’m not here to do your beckoning. I do my thing, you do yours.

Now and then we might come close to meeting in the middle somewhere.

Your arguments, and those of others, recently in this thread, more or less put you into a sticky wicket of sorts. Like I said, binary thinking. Little or no peripheral vision.

Oh, it's okay. I didn't expect an answer, MG. But I also didn't want you to think that anyone imagined you were actually engaging.

[sock puppet]

Too bad perfect God makes mostly imperfect children.

We manage to make choices on our own which result in a state of imperfection. Thank God for the principle of repentance and forgiveness. Not everyone chooses to fully repent and change, however. To some extent we are all broken and imperfect beings.

The CofJCofLDS is a church comprised of individuals who recognize this and their dependence on God for support and blessings.

That IS a select group. Not in an elitist way. In a humble, seeking God way. You may have misinterpreted what I was attempting to say.

Regards,
MG

It's quite a common refrain of yours when someone points out the logical implications of your statements to claim you've been misunderstood. Perhaps you could benefit from taking some remedial writing courses, or as I suspect you'll just simply continue singing: "I'm just a soul whose intentions are good. Oh Lord, please don't let me be misunderstood."

[malkie]

We manage to make choices on our own which result in a state of imperfection. Thank God for the principle of repentance and forgiveness. Not everyone chooses to fully repent and change, however. To some extent we are all broken and imperfect beings.

The CofJCofLDS is a church comprised of individuals who recognize this and their dependence on God for support and blessings.

That IS a select group. Not in an elitist way. In a humble, seeking God way. You may have misinterpreted what I was attempting to say.

Regards,
MG

It's quite a common refrain of yours when someone points out the logical implications of your statements to claim you've been misunderstood. Perhaps you could benefit from taking some remedial writing courses, or as I suspect you'll just simply continue singing: "I'm just a soul whose intentions are good. Oh Lord, please don't let me be misunderstood."

I had the pleasure of interviewing Eric Burdon in the 70s - The Animals played at my university for a Christmas dance.

I know - totally threadjacking, but I don't often have even the most flimsy excuse to mention it

[Doctor CamNC4Me]

The CofJCofLDS is a church comprised of individuals who recognize this and their dependence on God for support and blessings.

That IS a select group. Not in an elitist way.

Explain to me why a servant of the Lord had a net worth of $14,000,000 again? I’ll leave it to MG to figure out which one that was (and the fact that he’d be forced to dig around a little amongst all the multi-millionaires to nail down a figure is a problem in of itself). Juxtapose that against the many, many, many faithful saints that lived and died broke while filling the granaries of the pigs who run the farm.

- Doc

[MG 2.0]

I also didn't want you to think that anyone imagined you were actually engaging.

Go back to page 62 and before on this thread. I was fully engaged. And then we have folks taking the source I posted that demonstrated a point that I was making, to no avail, and making light of the fact that the information came from a person who left the church. As though THAT was what was the focal point should be. “Priceless!” was one comment. In other words, a deflection from information that might poke a hole in the critical argument that had been made for a number of pages before that. The actual meat of the argument I was making, with the help of a couple of links I posted, was totally ignored. No engagement to speak of, at all.

It is that kind of concentrated effort at deflection and coming back at the ‘apologist’ that is frustrating and yet rather transparent. Yet also expected. Rather than engage, it’s deflect and then deflect some more until the argument or point being made slowly goes away.

Another beef. And I might compare this to what some might call the Russia Collusion Hoax. Now and then on this board someone brings up or postulates the ‘next big thing’ that will ultimately be THE smoking gun to bring the church down or to its knees. It passes, it is no big thing, and then on we go, to the next big thing. The what WAS ‘big thing’ fades away and folks move onto something else. Similar to the Russia collusion hoax. Anyone in the way of these fabricated smoking guns is mown down and pushed out of the way. It doesn’t even matter that the fabrications are later shown to be fully or partially false.

Oh well.

But that’s what can happen in a majority/extreme minority echo chamber.

I’m not complaining as much as I’m simply stating the facts as I see them. You can create any ‘reality’ you want here when you have enough voices in support. Nice, right?

My guess is that those that come here merely to lurk and read can see the irony and duplicity of some of the critics here. Engagement? Yeah, right.

Much ado has been made on the Great Flood on this thread, along with Fine Tuning and Abiogenesis. These topics can be looked at from various angles to come to different conclusions. On the Great Flood, and other topics that come along, I always find it interesting how QUICKLY a particular bandwagon is jumped on…even when it can be shown that getting on that bandwagon may be premature or even mistaken.

Smoking guns, etc. Yeah. Sure.

Anyway, carry on.

Regards,
MG

[Doctor CamNC4Me]

1 - The Mormon church is true.

0 - The Mormon church is false.

MG - 1111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111

Also MG - i’M a NuAnCeD tHiNkEr!1!

- Doc

[Morley]

Go back to page 62 and before on this thread. I was fully engaged. And then we have folks taking the source I posted that demonstrated a point that I was making, to no avail, and making light of the fact that the information came from a person who left the church. As though THAT was what was the focal point should be. “Priceless!” was one comment. In other words, a deflection from information that might poke a hole in the critical argument that had been made for a number of pages before that. The actual meat of the argument I was making, with the help of a couple of links I posted, was totally ignored. No engagement to speak of, at all.

It is that kind of concentrated effort at deflection and coming back at the ‘apologist’ that is frustrating and yet rather transparent. Yet also expected. Rather than engage, it’s deflect and then deflect some more until the argument or point being made slowly goes away.

Another beef. And I might compare this to what some might call the Russia Collusion Hoax. Now and then on this board someone brings up or postulates the ‘next big thing’ that will ultimately be THE smoking gun to bring the church down or to its knees. It passes, it is no big thing, and then on we go, to the next big thing. The what WAS ‘big thing’ fades away and folks move onto something else. Similar to the Russia collusion hoax. Anyone in the way of these fabricated smoking guns is mown down and pushed out of the way. It doesn’t even matter that the fabrications are later shown to be fully or partially false.

Oh well.

But that’s what can happen in a majority/extreme minority echo chamber.

I’m not complaining as much as I’m simply stating the facts as I see them. You can create any ‘reality’ you want here when you have enough voices in support. Nice, right?

My guess is that those that come here merely to lurk and read can see the irony and duplicity of some of the critics here. Engagement? Yeah, right.

Much ado has been made on the Great Flood on this thread, along with Fine Tuning and Abiogenesis. These topics can be looked at from various angles to come to different conclusions. On the Great Flood, and other topics that come along, I always find it interesting how QUICKLY a particular bandwagon is jumped on…even when it can be shown that getting on that bandwagon may be premature or even mistaken.

Smoking guns, etc. Yeah. Sure.

Anyway, carry on.

Regards,
MG

Again, none of this engaged either my question or the assertion of yours that inspired it. Neither did anything on, before, or around page 62.

For what it's worth, I'm not asking about Russian collusion or why you whinge that this is an echo chamber.

My question is pretty simple.


Again, here's the exchange:

I think that it is evident that the church responds in one way or another to scientific exploration and trends.

What was their response to the science saying there was no global flood?

I’ve commented on this upthread.

You commented on what individuals who were (or are) in the Church had to say [in response to the to the science saying there was no global flood]. You didn't comment on what the Church had (or has) to say. As you've acknowledged, they're not the same.

[MG 2.0]

What was their [the church] response to the science saying there was no global flood?

The latest information. from the church that I’m aware of is Donald Parry’s article in the Ensign years ago. If that’s official. I’m not aware of anything since that time.

But you probably already knew that.

The church doesn’t have an official position on evolution even though individuals have expressed their own opinions…Joseph Fielding Smith, Bruce R. McConkie, and other modern prophets and apostles.

I can only guess that this also holds true, at this point in time, in regards to certain ideas/teachings in relation to the flood at the time of Noah.

Regards,
MG