The Gospel Is Beautifully Simple

[Moksha]

By the way, read this person's personal history. She had some personal issues.

Regards,
MG

What does this Ad Hominem have to do with Wang Chung's flowchart?

[MG 2.0]

By the way, read this person's personal history. She had some personal issues.

Regards,
MG

What does this Ad Hominem have to do with Wang Chung's flowchart?

Ulterior motives can be 'a thing'. I'm simply saying this is a possibility. She may have had some 'stuff' going on which led her to put together this chart because she was angry. People sometimes do dumb things out of anger. She ought to have been more careful to make it past the second and third sentence without screwing up.

That WAS dumb.

I'm just wondering why she wasn't more careful. No one else here seemed to have even ONE problem with her chart. That's kind of weird.

Regards,
MG

[drumdude]

Is the flowchart not doctrinally accurate?

Other than the tone what is the issue?

[MG 2.0]

Is the flowchart not doctrinally accurate?

Other than the tone what is the issue?

From the get go.

Some things are pretty much on target, others aren't. I pointed out the first two problems in sentence two and sentence three at the beginning of her flowchart.

Read my posts on the page before this one.

Regards,
MG

[Dr. Shades]

By the way, read this person's personal history. She had some personal issues.

But were the person's personal issues personal? Did the person with whom she had the personal personal issues take it personally?

[drumdude]

Is the flowchart not doctrinally accurate?

Other than the tone what is the issue?

From the get go.

Some things are pretty much on target, others aren't. I pointed out the first two problems in sentence two and sentence three at the beginning of her flowchart.

Read my posts on the page before this one.

Regards,
MG

She seems to be repeating the ideas that we’ve all heard plenty of times from the older high priests in our ward. If it’s good enough for them…?

[MG 2.0]

By the way, read this person's personal history. She had some personal issues.

But were the person's personal issues personal? Did the person with whom she had the personal personal issues take it personally?

Are you meaning to say, "But were the person's private matters truly confidential? Did the other party take offense?"

I'm not sure this actually makes sense.

Be that as it may, I wasn't there, and neither was anyone else on this board as far as I know.

So we're left in a position of taking a random person's word as to the order/sequence of events and how they may or may not have had an impact on why she put the chart together in the first place.

And then to get stuff wrong...

Regards,
MG

[MG 2.0]

From the get go.

Some things are pretty much on target, others aren't. I pointed out the first two problems in sentence two and sentence three at the beginning of her flowchart.

Read my posts on the page before this one.

Regards,
MG

She seems to be repeating the ideas that we’ve all heard plenty of times from the older high priests in our ward. If it’s good enough for them…?

Ha!!

Regards,
MG

[Moksha]

Ad hominem seems to me to be part of the apologetic process and is not part of a true rebuttal if that is what you seek.

[MG 2.0]

Ad hominem seems to me to be part of the apologetic process and is not part of a true rebuttal if that is what you seek.

I think that it is important to look at all sides and question where information is coming from. A biased source or a neutral source? It makes a difference. If a spade needs to be called a spade...or at least present the possibility that everything may not be 'squeaky clean"...I see that as a net positive in moving in the direction of truth/transparency.

This person had some issues with here ecclesiastical leaders. Whether or not that played a part in any way with her apostasy, and her writing, needs to al least be out there in the open. That's a whole other topic/direction. The thing is, she got stuff wrong from the get go. What to do with that?

Apparently some folks here would just as well ignore/bypass it...and give her a 'pass'. After all, she's on the home team, right?

Regards,
MG