Dubss wrote:
Wren wrote:
I have been thinking about Dubss' psychopathology. It must be fueled by anger. Adults can rise above it, but perpetual adolescents do not. We can discuss this if you want, folks. I would imagine the simplest thing to do is just to ignore his posts. When we respond to them, it validates his anger, his reason for existence here. Hence, we are ennabling his destructive behavior. Thoughts about this are welcome.

Ok professor of psychology.... DOh! Wait, your "supposedly" a proffesor of History right? Quit trying to act like you have any clue about psychology.

FYI...some pretty advanced courses in psychology are required in college, for degree courses, and even more if pursuing a teaching degree in ANY given field.

How much college did YOU have Kent?

Dumbya lives for the verbal spankings he gets on this forum from everyone.

Dubss wrote:
Jaye wrote:
Dubss wrote:
KitKat wrote:
Dubss wrote:
Jaye wrote:
Dubss wrote:
Jaye wrote:
Dubss wrote:
KitKat wrote:
Dubss wrote:
Jaye wrote:
Dubss wrote:
KitKat wrote:
Dubss wrote:
Just Reading wrote:
Dubss wrote:
Jaye wrote:
Dubss wrote:
Jaye wrote:
Dubss wrote:
Jaye wrote:
Just Reading wrote:
KitKat wrote:
Dubss wrote:
KitKat wrote:
Dubss wrote:
kristiclark wrote:
KitKat wrote:
Dubss wrote:
KitKat wrote:
Dubss wrote:
kristiclark wrote:
Dubss wrote:
Wren wrote:
Bearyb wrote, "My only point here is to simply say that we don't know the mind of the Lord, nor how He may choose to deal with whom He chooses to deal with. We will likely never know or fully understand what Joseph knew and understood, and we should probably not concentrate on the faults of others in any case."

This is great advice. I suggest that you will "likely never know or fully understand what Jaye" knows or understands. Leave it alone, please, Bearyb, and follow your own advice.Nor do you, or anybody fully understand Jaye, becuase much like you and many of your ilk, your ready and able to bash other's faith, but when it comes to discussing your own? Bunch of cowards.

Are you describing yourelf, Dubss? This is not about Jaye at all. It's about you and how you feel about yourself.

And how do I feel about myself oh wiseone? I have a great family, 3 kids, great wife, 15 years of marriage, great job, live in a great house, go on great vacations, have many good friends, feel great about myself, as we all do, I sometimes make mistakes, and need to repent, but overall, I feel great about myself. My life is great, but thanks for the concern.
LOL!

You little liar! No one believes you.

Don't forget, you also claimed to be some kind of karate champ with a 29-0 record. Bigdaddy proved that was a lie.

And as I've said many times, unlike you, I could care less what strangers on a blog believe or disbelieve about me. You will never meet me, never see me, never know the real me. Nor do you really know anyone here.


And how did Bigdummy prove anything I've said is a lie?
He called the UFC folks to check on a 29-0 record. He was told no one has it. Liar.

Unsubstantiated claims like this characterize borderline personalities.

How do you know it's unsubstantiated? Did you call? Or are you believing a guy who is a liar himself?

By the way, I'm not buying that your new here, your just a reincarnated nut job that probally got banned and is coming back around, probally a single cat lady that likes her cats more than reality. I see that alot.
You are so arrogant that it is sickening. And disgusting.

You made some comments in the past concerning hearing impairment. You didn't even realize that deaf people has language problems, yet you say your daughter is deaf. You lie!

Is it not possible that being new to the culture, I didn't know? I mean I have only been learning sign for about a year and a half, my daughter is four, and I have about the same level of sign as she does, my wife is taking sign classes to catch up to her, she now has a signing aide at her preschool, and is passing us up, so excuse me if I didn't know all the details of the deaf community.
This post just further convinced me I'm right. Besides, other things you have said in the past raised a flag with me.

I'm not even talking about sign language skills, dubya.

You are dense, as you yourself would say.

Well you sure can see his lack of empathy of deaf people.. and that's strange for someone who says that their little daughter is deaf....

Poor little mite...eh?

But you know what Kent says about it...he's not the same in real life as he is here.

I wonder if he even gets off his butt to go tuck the little tyke into bed and give her hugs and kisses?

And with all the posts you have here, I wonder if your wife even knows who you are.

And bigdummy, I have never had lack of empathy to deaf people you POSWT, get your facts straight for once and stop lieing and making stuff up.

My wife knows who I am. She's had a little over 34 years to get to know me, and she knows me better than any other human being has ever known me.

I can say with utter confidence that she knows me better than ANYONE...period...save perhaps for myself...and the Lord.

But the fact remains...my wife is an adult, she is not hearing impaired, and she has her own business and activities to attend to.

I do feel sorry for your children Dubya...because you do spend an inordinate amount of time arguing on this forum, which might better be spent with them.

They tend to grow up pretty quickly, Dubya. And the time rapidly comes where youngsters who are neglected by their father seek their role-models and mentoring elsewhere.

Think about it. I'm truly not trying to be rude here. I'm genuinely concerned. Especially regarding a 4 year old girl who is hearing impaired, and for whom the world must be a truly perplexing and frustrating place.

And I feel sorry for your wife, with the amount of posts you have here and the amount of time, never seemingly ever being gone from this site for a few days even, you must never take vacations, never see her much, she must always just see the back of your head typing away maddenly on the computer.

Straighten out your own life Jaye, don't worry about me or my kids, and don't bring them up.

1. You brought up your kids in the first place Kent...not me.

2. My life's pretty straight.

3. My wife is a busy woman...like I said...she has her own business to attend to. She also has her friends, her women's circles and she has also been spending quite a bit of time giving comfort to a couple of friends who are terminally ill.

Consider my words regarding your daughter. I meant well.

Sounds like you both have your seperate worlds apart from each other. mmmmm

Quit trying to be the all wise clifford clavin, and worry about your own life/wife.

Man I can see Dubss now breaking the arm of a long haired hippy for talking too loud in a movie theater,
Only to find out later when he gets to heavens Gates that the long haired hippy was Jesus and he was trying to talk to others about God that day in the theater

Dubss you can't tell when others are trying to be nice or do good....


Your about as illogical as a brick wall.

I seriously doubt Christ would have walked into a crowded theator, interupted people who have paid money to watch a show, be as rude to interupt, and be so insensitive and rude. What a tard.
No, Christ wouldn't have. But then, would He have resorted to violence the way you did (or claim to, at least)?

Please don't use the word "tard". It really isn't very nice.

I believe Christ would have defended himself if someone put their hands on him, yes. With the exception of the martydom, which he undestood was to happen.

Christ taught to return good for evil, kindness for unkindness, and that if a man strikes you on the cheek...offer him the other cheek to strike as well.

According to the Bible, Jesus never lifted a finger to defend Himself.

But He did, on occasion, simply vanish amid the press of the crowd.

Wasn't it you who just said he protected what was his in the temple? Physically throwing people out? I don't look at him as someone who would allow a person to push him around.
So you think Christ would break someone's arm just for having a big mouth? As I said, you say anything to justify your own behavior.

I think if someone was pushing him and acting in a threatening manner, he would grab the arm and stop it, yes. As I said in the past, I don't know that I broke his arm, but I did hurt it, as I've also said, I was defending myself, so is it my fault if his arm was hurt? No, it's not.

1. Throughout the 4 gospels there is no mention of Jesus ever lifting a finger in His OWN defense.

And that includes when He was taken at the Garden of Gethsemane, when they grabbed Him so roughly, and spit upon Him, and struck his face... He never lifted a finger.

Peter on the other hand resorted to physical violence and smote the ear off the scribe with his sword.

But Jesus? No. He simply picked up the man's ear, and placed it back upon his head.

He never so much as uttered the slightest word of reproach as He was tried, and sentenced to the torture of scourging, and placed a crown of thorns upon His brow.

2. As far as who was at fault at the theater...you were at fault for injuring the man. You were the one who made the choice to approach the man, and to reproach him by telling him to shut up.

If you had not opened your big mouth...the man would not have gotten in your face...and you would not have been in the position to physically harm another person. And you wouldn't have placed your wife in harm's way either.

Better to leave the theater, and ask for a refund, or inform the manager that a patron is being noisy and ruining the picture for everyone else.

Most martial arts masters worth their salt would say...the best defense...is not being there.

3. The very fact that you took it upon yourself to confront the man and tell him off is a very good indication that you ARE exactly the same in 'real life' as you are here on the forum.

I guess that's the difference between you and me, I don't shirk and hide like a cowardly lion wussy.

The differences between thee and me are vast, indeed Kent...and much like the difference between the darkest, stormiest night...and the brightest, sunniest day.

You see...unlike you...I don't go around in life with a chip on my shoulder, just spoiling for a fight.

Unlike you...I don't seek out opportunities to hurt people.

And especially unlike you...I would never place my wife at risk of physical harm by taking it upon myself to be confrontational, and picking a fight for no good reason at all.

It is not cowardly to utilize common sense. There are certain times when a fight cannot be avoided. But there ARE times when a fight can be avoided simply by keeping your big mouth shut.

I get it, your a weak, coward. got it.
And you're a mindless bully with more brawn than brains. Got it.

I believe it takes more strength to walk away than to fight. So that says quite a bit about you, doesn't it? You're not a very peaceful person, are you?

So let me get this straight, you have never asked someone to please lower there voice or please not smoke or please stop interupting in your WHOLE life?

To me that's a gutless person.

Did you assume that I was claiming never to have asked someone to lower THEIR voice in a theater, or not to smoke in the presence of my wife or children (when they were little) or to please stop INTERRUPTING?

Far from it. The difference being that I ASKED very COURTEOUSLY...instead of approaching them with an attitude of hubris and DEMANDING that they cease and desist.

For the most part, the people I have asked in a courteous manner have been apologetic and complied with my courteous request.

But there were a few times when a few individuals became even more obnoxious.

In those cases, it was quickly apparent that the individual was not going to cease and desist. So I took my wife, and my children, and moved them away from the source of trouble.

That is common sense. That indicates normal concern for one's wife and children.

You also appear to lack the ability to discern exactly when a situation merits taking further action, and accelerating the situation to physical violence.

As I said...any martial arts expert or master worth his/her salt would agree with me...that it is better to walk away and avoid the violence.

And only IF the trouble-maker follows you, and attempts to attack you, do you strike back in self defense.

It is not gutless, cowardly, or weak to walk away from a fight. It is common sense to do so if one can...and THAT is the difference between a man who thinks with his brain...and a man who lets his temper do the thinking for him.

You assume this happens to me all the time, this is the first "street fight" outside the ring I've ever been in.

Feel lucky one of those times the guy didn't assault you, It sounds like even if he did you'd cower and run, as I said, that's the difference between you and me. Gutless wonder.

And you have also done quite a lot of assuming here Kent.

We work on the inner-city streets. We work on inner-city parking lots, and deserted warehouse complexes, and county roads, and private sub-divisions. We work in nice areas...but we also work in pretty nasty areas. We also work very early in the A.M.

Sometimes I am with my crew...and sometimes I'm on my lonesome.

I have been subjected to threats from gang-bangers. I have been rushed by knife wielding bums who weren't happy about me and my crew cleaning up their stash of bottles, cardboard boxes and assorted junk at the request of property managers.

And we have even been shot at a number of times late at night in drive-by shootings.

Do not make the mistake of assuming that I am a sniveling coward. You would be absolutely incorrect.

The most pointed difference between you and me is this...I possess the capability of ascertaining when a situation merits physical violence...and when they do not.

In a movie theater...it is not your job to confront another patron about rude and noisy behavior.

It is the duty of the theater manager. KitKat is absolutely right.

The man you provoked might just as easily have been carrying a concealed weapon and might have blown your brains out...and your wife's as well, just because she happened to be standing there.

bearyb wrote:
Jaye wrote:
bearyb wrote:
Jaye wrote:


It is not so much my claims that should be intriguing here...but Joseph's claims of what the Lord told him...the warnings of what would happen should he not repent of his disobedience...and should he continue to follow after the dictates of his own will and carnal desires.

And the promise that the Lord gave him, of being protected by the Lord Himself, should he repent and remain obedient to the commandments and instructions of the Lord.

And it is very possible, that if Joseph's repentance HAD been sincere, AND continuous, he would not have done many of the things which ultimately led to several imprisonments, concluding with his final imprisonment and murder at the hands of the mob...and he would have probably lived a very long and fruitful life...and might have died of old age in his bed, surrounded by his children and grandchildren.

As far as Christ's 12 Apostles...it is true that 10 of them are said to have died martyrs deaths...either by Biblical account, or traditional BELIEFS.

But Judas committed suicide...and John the Beloved is thought to have died a natural death.

Why were these men murdered? The actions of men who teach revolutionary new ideas do seem to bring about certain consequences...don't you think?

Yes, they often do. So why does the way Joseph died have to have anything to do with any "sin" he may have committed?

While we're at it, what did Christ do to deserve being put on trial and condemned to crucifixion?

To put it simply...certain actions have consequences. Certain sins have just punishments.

And certain crimes carry the possible consequence of death. Did Joseph Smith DESERVE to die for his sins, and his crimes?

No.

So, was what happened to him justified, or not?

Mayhap it was...mayhap it wasn't. You'll have to decide for yourself what you want to believe about it.

But one thing is certain...apparently the men who killed him thought it was justifiable homicide.

I have been thinking about Dubss' psychopathology. It must be fueled by anger. Adults can rise above it, but perpetual adolescents do not. We can discuss this if you want, folks. I would imagine the simplest thing to do is just to ignore his posts. When we respond to them, it validates his anger, his reason for existence here. Hence, we are ennabling his destructive behavior.

Have any of his posts since I posted this revealed anything that does not match what I have written earlier? Thoughts about this are welcome.

Dubss wrote:
Just Reading wrote:
Dubss wrote:
Just Reading wrote:
Dubss wrote:
Just Reading wrote:
Dubss wrote:
Just Reading wrote:
Dubss wrote:
Just Reading wrote:
Jaye wrote:
Dubss wrote:
Just Reading wrote:
Dubss wrote:
Jaye wrote:
Do you suppose that all dissenters against the Mormon faith were Mormons?

By definition, a dissenter is someone who leaves the faith because of disbelief. so yes.

Dubss that's not true!!

dis-sent-er

One who dissents: political dissenters.
often Dissenter One who refuses to accept the doctrines or usages of an established or a national church.

The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition
Copyright © 2006 by Houghton Mifflin Company.

It's not necessarily a person who was a member of a church it could be just someone or anyone for that matter who just refuses to accept the doctrines of any church..

So now your saying the church went around killing NON mormons just because they wouldn't believe? If that were the case we'd have quite a story and journal and newspaper articles verify this to be the case.

Not necessarily true.

A prime example is what happened to the Expositor.
Printing presses can be easily destroyed, and the dissenters writing the dissenting articles can easily be cowed into silence, or into packing up and leaving, or else they simply disappear one dark night.

And those who decided to leave could easily be tracked down and murdered in their sleeping roll at their campsite.

The members who were not so zealous as to actually condone these actions were easily discouraged from talking about it. Fear of reprisal is a powerful motivation.

John D.Lee spoke of knowing of many a man who was 'used up' or 'put quietly out of the way'.

So did others involved with the Danites.

The wilderness was vast Dubya. Lots of places to hide bodies where they'd never be found. And the Danites were cunning in their service to the Church, and in carrying out their assigned assassinations.

As for relatives of men who mysteriously disappeared...they probably figured they had met up with Indians.

That was the common tale put out by Mormons after all...the Indians did it.

And the Mormons controlled everything in those communities. It's not like as if a dissenting member, or gentile was going to get damning evidence or tales through to their relatives via the postal service.

Yes this is true Dubss!!

Here is a example of the church telling the relatives to keep their mouth shut

Look at the murder of Rosmos Anderson (BTW Here's another Name I found for you Dubss) a Mormon Council voted that Anderson must die for violating his covenants.

His wife was ordered to prepare a suit of clean clothing, in which to have her husband buried, and was informed that he was to be killed for his sins, she being directed to tell those who should enquire after her husband that he had gone to California.

Klingensmith, James Haslem, Daniel McFarland and John M. Higbee dug a grave in the field near Cedar City, Anderson knelt upon the side of the grave and prayed.

Klingensmith and his company then cut Anderson's throat from ear to ear and held him so that his blood ran into the grave.

As soon as he was dead they dressed him in his clean clothes, threw him into the grave and buried him.

They then carried his bloody clothing back to his family, and gave them to his wife to wash, when she was again instructed to say that her husband was in California .... The killing of Anderson was then considered a religious duty and a just act.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blood_Atonement

See Dubss!!

So now blood atonement (a person killing themselves for their sins) is an example of Mormons killing dissenters?

Your getting weaker by the minute.

Dubss do you really have this bad of Comprehension skills, I know your stupid and immature but you are way off,

I wrote:

Here is a example of the church telling the relatives to keep their mouth shut

Now were do you get that I said this is an example of Mormons killing dissenters?

"LOL" you're so PATHETIC "LOL"

Your original claim dar dar was that the church killed dissenters, when I have asked for names or proof you start going into

Mountain meadows
Missouri war
Hahns Mill
Blood atonement

Which are not examples of people being killed for not believing or leaving the church.

LOL you are so pathetic LOL

Dubss either you missed or just avoided this post

but back on page 291 post # 349700 I gave you a name of a person who was a dissenter and tryed to leave the Church and he was Killed for it..

Heres that post:

POST # 349700
Dubss wrote:
One name for now is all I'm asking for bigdummy, and how, why, what were the curcumstances of this persons death, and proof that it is related to the LDS policy of killing desenters, one name bigdummy, prove it or shut your yapper.

Dubss I have to admit this was very, very hard to find,
most everything I could find on the internet that talked about the killing of dissenters/apostates had no names of who was killed even the diaries I could find on-line have ("today [-blank-] was killed for...."

but I did find one Dissenter/apostate name who was killed and the last names of two out of six non-Mormons who were killed in 1857...

Killed/Murdered Dissenter/apostate William P. Parish of Springville, Utah, early in 1857 because he was leaving the church and moving to California and at about the same time a party of six, including two brothers named Aikin, travelling from San Francisco were arrested as spies, were acquitted, and then were attacked in their camp and murdered, one at least by an assassin who claimed that Young had given him the order;

http://www.1911encyclopedia.org/Mormons

So You Got Your One Name!! Who's the Dummy

See Dubss it is you who is PATHETIC!!!

I like how they offered no reference, in other words, it flew out of their ass from some anti site. Keep trying bigdummy.

What the Hell you talking about Dubss it is from The 1911 Edition of the Encyclopaedia Britannica. NOT some anti site. "LOL" Look it up!!

That's my point, you'd think a respected enclyopedia would have references to their information now wouldn't you bigdummy?

Sloppy and poorly written, tinges of personal opinion thrown in the link, I would guess it was a sloppily done post by someone who doesn't have a clue what Mormons are or believe.

"LOL" you're just saying that because you're in denial and such an Idiot Dubss "LOL"

Huh Dubss what is the Encyclopaedia Britannica??

IT'S A REFERENCE BOOK!!!
"LOL" It's where you look to find facts "LOL"

The Encyclopaedia Britannica Eleventh Edition ( 1910-1911 ) is perhaps the most famous edition of the Encyclopaedia Britannica . Some of its articles were written by the best-known scholars of the day. The articles are still of value and interest to modern scholars as cultural artifacts of the 19th and early 20th centuries.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Encyclop%C3%A6dia_Britannica_Eleventh_Edition

Listen you idjit, even Encyclopedias get their information from somewhere, they don't just pull things out of their butt like you and the anti's do, that this article has NO references is telling, and the anti slant in the article is another.

Let me get this stright Dubss you want a Reference to a Reference from a Reference Book????

you got to be kidding me

and what do you mean by ( and the anti slant )
Dubss do you know what "ANTI" means??

It just means "AGAINST" it does not mean that it's a lie or untrue or even bias...
So why do you use the word "Anti" like it's a bad word or something...

"LOL" You're so immature "LOL"