Three Questions (Split from, ‘Vogel Responds …’)

[malkie]

Hmm. No, that's not consistent with your previous comments.


You continue to obfuscate.

Contextually if you go back and read what I’ve said…again…you will see that there is no contradiction and/or obfuscation in what I’ve said. Marcus, you’re doing it again. Taking what someone has said and then cut and pasting what has been said out of context and creating meaning that wasn’t intended by the writer.

You’re doing what the Tanners used to do…quite well, mind you. Until they were called on it.

This is a common tactic used by those that would rather not engage with the actual substance of an argument or conversation and/or the totality of what is being presented/said.

Pease don’t this again. I’ve called you on it before. It just takes up bandwidth/space.

Thanks.

Regards,
MG

Hmmmm - I've noted several occasions when you have done this to my comments.

One, recently, you have (If I recall correctly) admitted to and pseudo-apologised.

Others, some time ago, you have ignored.

And, no, I'm not going to go through pages & pages of topics to find them, so I guess if you simply deny it I'll have to simply say OK. However, although I may not remember enough to find the previous occasions, I certainly remember the feeling it caused at the time.

ETA: In one case my entire comment was a few paras. You quoted it completely except for one or two sentences, thereby changing the meaning.

ETA2: I just reported myself to the mods, for going off topic. This comment and replies to it may be subject to splitting from the earlier split ...

[drumdude]

The problem is there’s a lot more than that list.

1) Believe Jews sailed to the Americas in 600BC
2) Pay tithing to the LDS corporation so it can be used to build shopping malls that sell alcohol
3) Don’t practice oral sex during the 70s when the church taught it was a sin
4) Miss out on temple blessings before 1978 if you are black
5) Don’t get baptized if you are the child of a gay parent between the years 2015 and 2018

On and on and on. If the church ever was restored, it is a j need of another restoration. In my opinion.

Another restoration would only result in the list of core beliefs that I listed. There wouldn’t be any difference.

So the question is whether or not a list such as yours should supersede and/or cancel out the core beliefs. The problem, as I see it, is that when individuals become consumed with those things that are peripheral to the core teachings and practices of the church they then walk out the door.

And that’s unfortunate, in my opinion.

Regards,
MG

That seems to be the main objection to the Catholic Church. They make the same claim that the “great apostasy” never happened.

[I Have Questions]

Contextually if you go back and read what I’ve said…again…you will see that there is no contradiction and/or obfuscation in what I’ve said. Marcus, you’re doing it again. Taking what someone has said and then cut and pasting what has been said out of context and creating meaning that wasn’t intended by the writer.

You’re doing what the Tanners used to do…quite well, mind you. Until they were called on it.

This is a common tactic used by those that would rather not engage with the actual substance of an argument or conversation and/or the totality of what is being presented/said.

Pease don’t this again. I’ve called you on it before. It just takes up bandwidth/space.

Thanks.

Regards,
MG

Hmmmm - I've noted several occasions when you have done this to my comments.

One, recently, you have (If I recall correctly) admitted to and pseudo-apologised.

Others, some time ago, you have ignored.

And, no, I'm not going to go through pages & pages of topics to find them, so I guess if you simply deny it I'll have to simply say OK. However, although I may not remember enough to find the previous occasions, I certainly remember the feeling it caused at the time.

ETA: In one case my entire comment was a few paras. You quoted it completely except for one or two sentences, thereby changing the meaning.

Yep. I’ve reported his sleight of hand in the past and instead of dealing with this specific problem being perpetrated by this particular poster, the moderator chastised me for reporting it. I took a break from the board on the back of that experience. I guess misrepresenting others when quoting them is acceptable now <shrug>

[I Have Questions]

Contextually if you go back and read what I’ve said…again…you will see that there is..contradiction and/or obfuscation in what I’ve said.

Agreed.

[Rivendale]

Hmmmm - I've noted several occasions when you have done this to my comments.

One, recently, you have (If I recall correctly) admitted to and pseudo-apologised.

Others, some time ago, you have ignored.

And, no, I'm not going to go through pages & pages of topics to find them, so I guess if you simply deny it I'll have to simply say OK. However, although I may not remember enough to find the previous occasions, I certainly remember the feeling it caused at the time.

ETA: In one case my entire comment was a few paras. You quoted it completely except for one or two sentences, thereby changing the meaning.

Yep. I’ve reported his sleight of hand in the past and instead of dealing with this specific problem being perpetrated by this particular poster, the moderator chastised me for reporting it. I took a break from the board on the back of that experience. I guess misrepresenting others when quoting them is acceptable now <shrug>

This poster is not interested in having a conversation. He is interested in promoting a nefarious organization at all costs. Sunk cost has taken a toll.

[malkie]

Hmmmm - I've noted several occasions when you have done this to my comments.

One, recently, you have (If I recall correctly) admitted to and pseudo-apologised.

Others, some time ago, you have ignored.

And, no, I'm not going to go through pages & pages of topics to find them, so I guess if you simply deny it I'll have to simply say OK. However, although I may not remember enough to find the previous occasions, I certainly remember the feeling it caused at the time.

ETA: In one case my entire comment was a few paras. You quoted it completely except for one or two sentences, thereby changing the meaning.

Yep. I’ve reported his sleight of hand in the past and instead of dealing with this specific problem being perpetrated by this particular poster, the moderator chastised me for reporting it. I took a break from the board on the back of that experience. I guess misrepresenting others when quoting them is acceptable now <shrug>

I didn't report these occasions, although perhaps I should have. But I did indicate to MG that I was reluctant to engage further with him after a couple of incidents. Against my better judgement I started to respond to him again, but have found that the same thing still happens.

I should just stop completely.

As do many other posters, I do sometimes incompletely quote someone, but I try to be careful to show the omission using ellipses.

[Marcus]

...As do many other posters, I do sometimes incompletely quote someone, but I try to be careful to show the omission using ellipses.

That is exactly the correct way to do it. It is completely transparent, and almost all do it that way here. Almost all. Mentalgymnast does not follow that commonsense rule, unfortunately.

[MG 2.0]

Another restoration would only result in the list of core beliefs that I listed. There wouldn’t be any difference.

So the question is whether or not a list such as yours should supersede and/or cancel out the core beliefs. The problem, as I see it, is that when individuals become consumed with those things that are peripheral to the core teachings and practices of the church they then walk out the door.

And that’s unfortunate, in my opinion.

Regards,
MG

That seems to be the main objection to the Catholic Church. They make the same claim that the “great apostasy” never happened.

Thank you for your response. So, are you saying that even if the CofJCofLDS (yeah, I know, a few name changes along the way…) was restored. Then, being that lost truths and authority were brought back to the earth after having been corrupt/lost (fuller knowledge of God and His plan being number one), an apostasy occurred within a very short amount of time and we’re back to square one?

That’s almost like saying that it never happened in the first place…which may be what you’re actually saying.

For God to wait for the proper time to restore the ‘church’ and then have it fall apart in a few years doesn’t sound very adept or professional . I would have to give God more credit than that. Catholic Church becoming corrupted. That’s a lot easier path to follow over a period of time and within an ancient world in which one might surmise things weren’t going to get off the ground in anywhere near a pristine fashion. Almost bound to fail.

Even though, all being said, the Catholic Church has essentially prepared many souls for eventual salvation/exaltation. So kudos to the Catholic Church and all the good they’ve done. We’ll ignore the atrocities, corrupt popes, etc. for the sake of this conversation.

Anyway, back to my list. Things haven’t changed with the core doctrines and practices of the LDS Church since its restoration. Not enough to make any real difference. That’s why I see your list and others like it as sort of peripheral to the core mission of the church. It’s more or less a side show.

Regards,
MG

[MG 2.0]

Contextually if you go back and read what I’ve said…again…you will see that there is..contradiction and/or obfuscation in what I’ve said.

Agreed.

What I actually said:

Contextually if you go back and read what I’ve said…again…you will see that there is no contradiction and/or obfuscation in what I’ve said.

IHAQ, I request that you…or other posters…back off also unless you have something substantive to add to the conversation.

Thanks. By the way, welcome back!

drumdude and I have been having a more or less civil conversation. Please don’t don’t either troll or derail. If you don’t have anything worthwhile to add please find something else to do with your time.

As it is, I’m totally open to the kind of conversation that drumdude and I have been having. We disagree, but that’s OK. I think he is honest and upright and I hope he feels the same way about me.

I actually think we are understanding each other a bit.

The same can’t be said in regards to posters that jump in and throw stuff around trying to break things.

Regards,
MG

[MG 2.0]

This poster is not interested in having a conversation. He is interested in promoting a nefarious organization at all costs. Sunk cost has taken a toll.

This isn’t productive to any sort of civil conversation. Please add something to the conversation…or back off.

Thanks in advance.

Regards,
MG