Dan McClellan On The Joe Rogan Show

[Philo Sofee]

Also mg:

The irony. a.k.a., a troll who throws 'poisonous darts' then asks people to not respond to his 'poisonous darts.'

Same old same old. Moving on...

Marcus, this time around I'm not going to play your game. In the past I have got sucked in. My bad. You know I'm not a troll and I know I'm not a troll. I've called you a troll in the past. I will not do so anymore. It just feeds the flame.

Take care. Hope to hear from you in particular as I participate now and then...in such a way that we can build on what the other is saying even while disagreeing...we don't have to be disagreeable.

Regards,
MG

If you have to say I am not a troll... you are a troll......

[Philo Sofee]

MG noted:

McClellan's currently researched data points have taken him in the direction of a non historical Book of Mormon. That's fine. Last time I checked one's views on this topic are not contingent and/or based as to whether or not a member can hold a temple recommend.

So long as one does not teach the a-historical views in and or during church or give lessons on it. THAT can get you in serious hot water with the higher ups. One can believwe anything. One cannot teach everything one believes, that is a no no and gets tongues clucking, and recommends with held.

[Philo Sofee]

Seems odd that a person could hold a temple recommend if they don’t believe the foundation story of the Restoration.

Yes. I don’t know if Dan McClellan is a temple recommend holder or not. That’s not my business. However, I don’t know how a member could honestly answer that Yes, they do have a testimony of the Restoration, but also disbelieve that the Book of Mormon is an ancient record that was written on gold plates. The two positions seem to me to be mutually exclusive.

That's how the leaders want you to believe all right....

[MG 2.0]

Marcus, this time around I'm not going to play your game. In the past I have got sucked in. My bad. You know I'm not a troll and I know I'm not a troll. I've called you a troll in the past. I will not do so anymore. It just feeds the flame.

Take care. Hope to hear from you in particular as I participate now and then...in such a way that we can build on what the other is saying even while disagreeing...we don't have to be disagreeable.

Regards,
MG

If you have to say I am not a troll... you are a troll......

In this instance I would disagree Philo. It's gone on so long and I've played defense over and over again to no avail. I'm simply telling Marcus that I'm not going to play that game anymore.

Grey Rock Method is probably the way to go. In the past I let myself feed into it and it only fanned the flame...some might say fed the troll. I know, it doesn't accomplish anything other than stirring things up.

I've learned my lesson. Thanks for stepping in Philo.

Regards,
MG

[MG 2.0]

MG noted:

McClellan's currently researched data points have taken him in the direction of a non historical Book of Mormon. That's fine. Last time I checked one's views on this topic are not contingent and/or based as to whether or not a member can hold a temple recommend.

So long as one does not teach the a-historical views in and or during church or give lessons on it. THAT can get you in serious hot water with the higher ups. One can believwe anything. One cannot teach everything one believes, that is a no no and gets tongues clucking, and recommends with held.

That is probably true. But I would imagine that Dan McClellan and others who take the view of a non historical Book of Mormon are self disciplined enough not to raise their hand and say, "Yeah, but!"

Regards,
MG

[Marcus]

Also mg:

The irony. a.k.a., a troll who throws 'poisonous darts' then asks people to not respond to his 'poisonous darts.'

Same old same old. Moving on...

Marcus, this time around I'm not going to play your game. In the past I have got sucked in. My bad. You know I'm not a troll and I know I'm not a troll. I've called you a troll in the past. I will not do so anymore. It just feeds the flame.

Take care. Hope to hear from you in particular as I participate now and then...in such a way that we can build on what the other is saying even while disagreeing...we don't have to be disagreeable.

Regards,
MG

If you have to say I am not a troll... you are a troll......

Indeed.

[MG 2.0]

Philo, do you agree or disagree with my response to your first post a few posts back having to do with trolling? Please do the courtesy of explaining why.

Thanks,
MG

[Limnor]

If you have to say I am not a troll... you are a troll......

Indeed.

MG Thread Alert!

I had some extra time to think about the exchanges over the past couple of days, and while I haven’t had as much experience as some of you with MG, I thought I’d offer a little of what I’ve observed and learned.

…

I don’t know how I’d describe it as anything other than trolling, because there does seem to be a disconnect between MG’s stated desire to have constructive conversations and the way those conversations actually unfold.

I suppose it would be difficult to defend something that has so much evidence against it. It certainly doesn’t come across as persuasive.

The funniest moments to me are when he apparently thinks he’s maneuvered you into a corner. Out come the declarations: “You know this,” “You’re avoiding the question,” or “Come on, you’re being coy,” as though he’s exposed some devastating contradiction or extracted an unwilling concession.

Meanwhile, you’re just marveling at the gymnastics and trying to figure out how he got from the original question to wherever he has now landed. He seems to mistake incredulity for evasion, as though your disbelief that he’s making a serious argument is evidence that you can’t answer it.

Then he goes over the top portraying himself as sincere and interested in dialogue, but the exchanges generally end with him questioning the other person’s understanding, motives, or willingness to engage in good faith.

I think he may genuinely believe he’s defending his faith successfully, but his approach is so difficult to distinguish from trolling that it’s hard to tell. I’d be hard-pressed to believe anyone watching who doesn’t already accept Joseph Smith’s claims would find these exchanges persuasive.

Which makes me wonder whether his real audience is other believers, or maybe just himself. If the purpose is to demonstrate that a faithful Mormon can stand toe-to-toe with critics, then perhaps remaining in the argument is his theory of victory. I sometimes wonder whether other believers are embarrassed by these performances or whether they consider them heroic examples of defending the faith.

I honestly don’t know his motivations. He may genuinely believe he’s building bridges. But I think he ought to consider whether his approach is accomplishing anything near that. After all, if I repeatedly assured people that I was engaging in good faith, while my participation only further convinced that I wasn’t, I don't think I’d end up concluding the problem was entirely with my audience.

[MG 2.0]

Indeed.

MG Thread Alert!

I had some extra time to think about the exchanges over the past couple of days, and while I haven’t had as much experience as some of you with MG, I thought I’d offer a little of what I’ve observed and learned.

Nicely done. Very persuasive. I think you'll convince some folks that would be prepositioned to agree with you ideologically and also bring some that were sitting on the fence to your position.

I don't think very many of the regular contributors were/are sitting on the fence though. They were with you from the get go.

Honestly, I feel bad that we will not continue our conversations. Even the one or two that you found reason to leave hanging.

If you change your mind, let me know.

Regards,
MG