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

[Morley]

Morley giveth , and Morley taketh away

blessed be the name of the Morley.

[malkie]

Morley giveth , and Morley taketh away

blessed be the name of the Morley.

Blessed be the Name - Morley Salvation Army Worship Band

[MG 2.0]

Well, I checked Mormon Doctrine and BYU Studies and looked at references on the church website. The established doctrine is that at some point those that are Sons of Perdition will be resurrected. So even with some of the controversies that have existed in earlier times among some brethren, the doctrine is established.

Core doctrine of the church is that all will be resurrected at some point.

Thanks for pushing me to look into this further.

Remnants of Seminary memories or from somewhere back there in time.

Regards,
MaG

MaG,

Most folks take the opportunity to “look into this further” when they’re first challenged on something factual—an item or idea that a simple web search would either verify or not. Part of people’s frustration with you is that it often takes pages of prodding to get you to own anything, as you throw up a wall of defensive, self-righteous argumentation and lay out a minefield of references to second rate weblogs. It’s frustrating as hell, MG. Smart folks like malkie have learned to cut their losses and walk away; even smarter folks here rarely even engage you, or dart in and out of the debate. But then, of course, there are idiots like me, who stick it out to the end, vainly hoping that our efforts and optimism will somehow be redeemed. It almost never is, and I, for example, just come away feeling dirty. I do this all to myself. I am my own self-destroyer.

You will reply to this with invective, victimhood, and the suggestion that I should just ignore you. At least on the last bit, you will be oh so very correct.

You’re right, I could have jumped on the Sons of Perdition ‘doctrine’ sooner without letting some time pass. I should have checked the LDS Church source first without looking at some of the less well known writings by some church authorities from back in the day when there will still discussions going on about some of these things. Jehovah, Adam-God, etc.

I would guess that at one point in time this particular doctrine (?) was esoteric. It was probably a smaller group of people that were discussing it. John Widstoe and Brigham Young. SWK seemingly flirted with his own ideas in respect to the resurrection of SofP.

But today it is settled Doctrine. As I said, there were remnants in my memory…SWK (?)…of teachings that were obviously not found on any readily available website. These memories are from what was accessible only through books and periodicals. As I’ve mentioned before I was a reader of Dialogue and Sunstone back when these periodicals were first coming on the scene. I could have had the memory placed in my head way back then from extracurricular reading.

But the fact is, yes, I could have looked at the official source rather than putting it off 2-3 days. I will plead guilt on that count.

Sorry to disappoint but I’m not going to respond with “invective, victimhood, and the suggestion that I should just ignore you.”

Although that might suit your purposes for making this ‘apologist’ look bad. Thing is, I’m perfectly comfortable in my own skin. I don’t feel victimized. Criticized unfairly and with with ulterior motives at play? Very possibly.

But that’s what I expect. Nothing really surprises me. I’m tough.

I’ve had a question or two remain unanswered/circumnavigated on this thread, but that’s fine. I’ve been known to do the same.

Thanks for the conversation and again, I’m happy to let my words stand on their own in context throughout the thread. I’m not bothered at the use of the strategy “and it all comes down to this” to cancel out all the good and productive conversation.

I see it for what it is, and I think others can too.

It’s become a noticeable pattern. It will most likely continue.

I do enjoy, overall, the back and forth. It’s educational and enlightening. I walk away having a better understanding of ‘the critics’ each time I jump into these pristine, clear, and unadulterated waters.

Regards,
MG

[drumdude]

I’ve had a question or two remain unanswered/circumnavigated on this thread, but that’s fine. I’ve been known to do the same.

Which ones?

[I Have Questions]

Most folks take the opportunity to “look into this further” when they’re first challenged on something factual—an item or idea that a simple web search would either verify or not. Part of people’s frustration with you is that it often takes pages of prodding to get you to own anything, as you throw up a wall of defensive, self-righteous argumentation and lay out a minefield of references to second rate weblogs. It’s frustrating as hell,

That is certainly one of the frustrations with interacting with MG2.0. In this instance, MG’s first response is intransigence - “I’m right”. It then takes a while and a lot of effort from others before he bothers to double check what he’s saying. And then what? MG hasn’t taken the initiative to go back and check/correct his other errors. Nope. You have to do all the legwork in any interaction with him. You have to do all the research for what you’re saying AND all the research for what he’s saying. I think he’s lazy and superficial. Time will tell. He knows enough now to check himself BEFORE posting misleading and incorrect claims. Let’s see if he now puts that effort in…

[Morley]

blessed be the name of the Morley.

Blessed be the Name - Morley Salvation Army Worship Band

Ha! Beautiful.

I'm actually relieved. Knowing you're from that country that's to the north of England, I expected a retort that was a little more cutting.

Malkie

[MG 2.0]

I’ve had a question or two remain unanswered/circumnavigated on this thread, but that’s fine. I’ve been known to do the same.

Which ones?

Maybe you made a comment on this and I’m not remembering it.

I listed some core doctrines off the top of my head and then we got sidetracked when some posters wanted to go full bore on what is core doctrine or not. What got lost in the middle of all that was a question in regards to peripheral questions/issues held up along side core doctrines. Which holds greater weight. My argument is that core doctrines are primary and everything else is secondary.

Your responses seemed to indicate that you thought it to be the other way around. I also was curious as to what others thought in that regard. But then things went off the rails which is not uncommon, and some folks decided to go with mild ad hominem and try and tie things off.

It may happen again.

I haven’t been around today to do any follow up.

So yeah, I’d be interested in your thoughts. In my mind this is kind of a critical issue. There seem to be more folks leaving the church because of peripheral issues even after they supposedly had a testimony and/or spiritual witness of the core doctrines.

In my opinion that is unfortunate and sad.

Regards,
MG

[Doctor CamNC4Me]

damned classic MG.

[MG 2.0]

damned classic MG.

It happened.

Regards,
MG

[drumdude]

Which ones?

Maybe you made a comment on this and I’m not remembering it.

I listed some core doctrines off the top of my head and then we got sidetracked when some posters wanted to go full bore on what is core doctrine or not. What got lost in the middle of all that was a question in regards to peripheral questions/issues held up along side core doctrines. Which holds greater weight. My argument is that core doctrines are primary and everything else is secondary.

Your responses seemed to indicate that you thought it to be the other way around. I also was curious as to what others thought in that regard. But then things went off the rails which is not uncommon, and some folks decided to go with mild ad hominem and try and tie things off.

It may happen again.

I haven’t been around today to do any follow up.

So yeah, I’d be interested in your thoughts. In my mind this is kind of a critical issue. There seem to be more folks leaving the church because of peripheral issues even after they supposedly had a testimony and/or spiritual witness of the core doctrines.

In my opinion that is unfortunate and sad.

Regards,
MG

The first thing the missionaries tell you to do is read the Book of Mormon. The Book of Mormon is not historical. That is not a peripheral issue.

The second thing the missionaries do is tell you to take the discussions. These discussions focus on priesthood and authority. Examples of the brethren being dishonest and immoral undermine that authority. It is not a peripheral issue.

If the core of Mormonism is Christ, then why do missionaries teach the Book of Mormon and priesthood and authority?

It’s because those are the core of the church, and those are the problematic parts.