Clarification so as to be clear.

[Marcus]

"Clarification ... to be clear." Why should it be necessary to explain that "to be clear" is the reason a clarification is being offered?

Apparently, in spite of having been fairly clear about something in the recent past, one might state it again so as to be clear.

Doing so may also afford the opportunity to use the term "religious racism" as an accusation against other posters. This accusation can then be used as a jumping off point for other accusations - especially those of acting in bad faith, attempting to assert dominance, using rhetorical devices, cherry picking, bringing up past grievances, and diversion or disruption. No indication that the poster considers that any of this might apply to him.

At least, that's what I got from the thread so far.

Me too.

[sock puppet]

My calling and election has just been made sure

You would be amazed how clean my feet are this morning

[malkie]

You would be amazed how clean my feet are this morning

Did you mix your feet with water, just to see what could be seen? Or are you too young to have listened to The Incredible String Band?
No Sleep Blues

[malkie]

I'm not sure if I may be misunderstanding you, huckelberry.

MG started this thread, and has continued it, with accusations aimed at other posters. Is responding to him somehow inappropriate?

Malkie, thinking legally I can see it as appropriate. It just goes on and on and presents little that is very interesting. I am just hoping everybody including MG can limit it.

I agree - you are wise.

I'll try to do my part here. I'll attempt to TTOC

[MG 2.0]

Malkie, thinking legally I can see it as appropriate. It just goes on and on and presents little that is very interesting. I am just hoping everybody including MG can limit it.

I agree - you are wise.

I'll try to do my part here.

For my part, I've said what I believe needed to be said. I am the only believing Latter-day Saint posting on this board. There are certain things that I have learned along the way that I believe have helped me determine the way I need/want to participate on this board. I think I have given valid and necessary reasons for limiting my interaction with certain individuals to, well, no interaction. Some will accuse me of this or that (chicken sh** etc.) ...I will have to live with that.

I've had enough experience to know that this is the best course for me to take.

I would simply recommend to those that come into this forum to keep your eyes wide open and listen/learn/observe what is being said. Then make your own determinations/decisions. It is a fact that critics have a certain and different worldview using different criteria than a believer does. You need to decide which/what criteria you are going to accept and use as you travel the road of faith vs. doubt. My one recommendation is to not leave God and/or Jesus Christ out of the picture.

Regards,
MG

[Limnor]

It is a fact that critics have a certain and different worldview using different criteria than a believer does.

I’d add that nonbelievers/Gentiles and “investigators” have a certain worldview as well.

I think you’d agree that some terms in the Mormon world mean different things to those inside of it than they do to those outside of it.

[malkie]

I agree - you are wise.

I'll try to do my part here.

For my part, I've said what I believe needed to be said. I am the only believing Latter-day Saint posting on this board. There are certain things that I have learned along the way that I believe have helped me determine the way I need/want to participate on this board. I think I have given valid and necessary reasons for limiting my interaction with certain individuals to, well, no interaction. Some will accuse me of this or that (chicken sh** etc.) ...I will have to live with that.

I've had enough experience to know that this is the best course for me to take.

I would simply recommend to those that come into this forum to keep your eyes wide open and listen/learn/observe what is being said. Then make your own determinations/decisions. It is a fact that critics have a certain and different worldview using different criteria than a believer does. You need to decide which/what criteria you are going to accept and use as you travel the road of faith vs. doubt. My one recommendation is to not leave God and/or Jesus Christ out of the picture.

Regards,
MG

And my suggestion is that people should "leave God and/or Jesus Christ out of the picture" when they can get along perfectly well without them. You could too!

[MG 2.0]

It is a fact that critics have a certain and different worldview using different criteria than a believer does.

I’d add that nonbelievers/Gentiles and “investigators” have a certain worldview as well.

I think you’d agree that some terms in the Mormon world mean different things to those inside of it than they do to those outside of it.

Yes, I know we are looking at things through a different interpretive lens using different criteria in some respects. Essentially we are navigating overlapping but distinct symbolic worlds. That's when it is important/incumbent to try and bridge those gaps where it is possible while at the same time knowing that there are some gaps that may be insurmountable.

Origins of the Book of Mormon, for example.

Regards,
MG

[MG 2.0]

For my part, I've said what I believe needed to be said. I am the only believing Latter-day Saint posting on this board. There are certain things that I have learned along the way that I believe have helped me determine the way I need/want to participate on this board. I think I have given valid and necessary reasons for limiting my interaction with certain individuals to, well, no interaction. Some will accuse me of this or that (chicken sh** etc.) ...I will have to live with that.

I've had enough experience to know that this is the best course for me to take.

I would simply recommend to those that come into this forum to keep your eyes wide open and listen/learn/observe what is being said. Then make your own determinations/decisions. It is a fact that critics have a certain and different worldview using different criteria than a believer does. You need to decide which/what criteria you are going to accept and use as you travel the road of faith vs. doubt. My one recommendation is to not leave God and/or Jesus Christ out of the picture.

Regards,
MG

And my suggestion is that people should "leave God and/or Jesus Christ out of the picture" when they can get along perfectly well without them. You could too!

Keeping them in the picture isn’t about dependency, it’s about orientation and direction. They’re not crutches, as you imply, they’re compass points. I’ve found that when I center my life around 'seeking after the divine', I am able to navigate complexity with more clarity. This gives me a sense of peace in an otherwise chaotic and in many respects nonsensical world.

I am not in any way trying to say that you should not continue to view the world through a secular humanistic lens. If that is what brings you joy and peace, that is good. I'm encouraging others to find their own path with my encouragement to seek God and try to determine what purposes He might have for them. I'm sure that you would agree that if this is what brings someone joy/peace/purpose that is good.

Regards,
MG

[Limnor]

Bridging the gap can be tricky when we use the same words but mean different things.

For example, the terms “origin” and “translation” are framed differently.

On another thread, you said it wasn’t important to you to prove the Jaredites were ancient - from that viewpoint, do you see much difference in the terms “origin” as I view it vs how you see it?

My claim is the book is true, as is yours - but we differ on what “true” means, particularly when framed as “origin.”

In the end, if the result for you is that your life is lived according to your values as defined by your beliefs, does it matter if the “origin” is ancient?