Dubbs wrote:
KitKat wrote:
Dubbs wrote:
KitKat wrote:
Dubbs wrote:
Girl Raised in the South wrote:
Jaye wrote:
"What the heck could an exchange of vows hurt?" ]

I am insinuating nothing G.R.I.T.S., and I see no mockery in allowing newlyweds to perform a small ring ceremony and exchange of vows for non-member parent's sake.


Elder Cree-L Kofford's words:

4. The Brethren counsel Church members not to perform a marriage ceremony following the temple sealing. Occasionally, you’ll find a young couple who will want to do a mock ceremony “so my mother won’t feel left out.� But that makes a mockery out of your temple sealing.


Thank you for posting that article from Brother Kofford, Jaye. I remember reading it in the Ensign. It was very enjoyable and informative. Brother Kofford said it is a mockery to exchange vows civilly after being sealed. An exchange of rings, with no vows spoken, seems to be OK.

And, come on, Jaye. . .I don't claim to know everything about the gospel. In your posts sometimes, you give the impression that you DO know all, and when questioned (by me of late), you raise your voice in your writings. This reminds me of my dad. . .When we disagreed with him and tried to convey our opinions and feelings, he would get angry, and his voice would get louder and louder, refuting us until he couldn't hear us talking anymore. Then, in essence, he would say "We're done here; I've spoken." An occasional challenge is good. We don't always like them, but they serve a purpose. If anything, Jaye, we will keep each other on our toes. I can tell you don't like to be "shut down" when you have an opinion on the forums. . .neither do I.


That's how I picture Jaye in real life. A tyrant with a pretty bad temper. .
If you only knew how I picture you!

Ask me if I care.

Ask me how accurate you are.
Back up a bit and ask Jaye if he cares what you think of him. I know he doesn't.

I think you're jealous of Jaye and the Wolf because you continually make digs at them. The Wolf has never, ever spoken to you, yet you continually bash her. Shame on you.

I simply don't believe that a man who truly honors his Priesthood would act as you do and say the things you say. You do show your true colors on this forum. We all know that, and so do you.


You don't even know them Kitkat, stop acting as if you do, it's comical to see you stick up for strangers you've never met, who could be completly full of BS. And think about my points I made, seem odd for a guy who says he has 4 kids and a wife? Does to me.

Your annoying sticking up for people you know nothing about is getting old. Stop the stupidity.

You don't even know them, Dubbs, stop acting as if you do, it's comical to see you belittle & bash strangers you've never met, who could be completly[sic] wonderful people. Seems odd that a guy who says he has kids and a wife spends so many hours a day making nasty comments to people he claims to hate so bad.

Your annoying condescension and bitterness toward people you know nothing about is getting old. Stop the stupidity.

ThomasK wrote:
So junior, anytime someone that leaves the Church after a quarter of a century and raises 8 chldren in that faith and any fault (in their opinion) they find the Church is suppose to change?ThomasK, I am flattered that you thought so highly of my post you quoted it in whole. Thank you.

Your question is difficult to understand, but I will make an honest effort to give an honest answer.

I don't think time has much to do with it - not "anytime, "and not "after a quarter of a century". Basing moral judgements and social rules on "time" is too likely to produce a relativistic morality and rules that change according to situation and person.

Nor is "8 children" a unique qualification for the purpose of this discussion, as compared with, say, "7 children" or "9 children". The number is irrelevant. A normal parent with ten children loves each of the ten children as much as a normal parent with one child loves that one child.

A better way to consider the need of change and where the change would best be applied is to look at the specific circumstances of an actual case. A general set of rules, with sufficient flexibility to accommodate exceptional cases would serve a broader number of people than a strictly defined set of rules with minimal or no flexibility.

I do not know what types of faults you are considering, that might require change. But a person is responsible for his own actions. So one understandably is probably on firmer and more honest ground to act in accordance with his own opinions, than to blindly follow the opinions of others with which he disagrees, don't you think?

So in that regard I would say, if a person finds sufficient fault in his institution (be it religion or be it politics), yes, by all means, change.

If, on the other hand, you were referring to the hypothetical church when you asked if there should be change, well, as I said in the original post that you quoted in its entirety (whether or not you read it in its entirety), "a religion can do whatever 'it' decides, meaning its leading cadre. I was not dictating a universal rule for all churches. I was more concerned for Life Rocks and others who have suffered similarly, than for the church leaders that were the cause of the suffering. I simply assured Life Rocks in the face of opposition that it was in fact okay to "vent", and that neither his feelings nor his perceptions were "deviant". If you believe LR is behaving in a deviant manner, perhaps you could provide successful counseling; otherwise, shh.

But if you have now asked if a church should change, I answer, "Why not!" The Catholic church has made some dramatic changes in its explanation of doctrines and has made dramatic changes in its practices over the past two centuries. The Mormon church has made changes even more radical to its doctrines and practices over the past one century. It will change again, dramatically, for that is its nature, or the nature of the cadre that runs it.

And yes, of course, my entire post was my personal opinion. Sorry if that wasn't clear; apologies if you thought I was presenting federal regulations on churches, or canon law. I was only offering my personal opinion. If you look at my post very carefully, you will see it began with that very caveat.

If you find this topic interesting enough to look more deeply into it, I hope you will quick-message me personally, so we can exchange emails for more detailed discussion.

Girl Raised in the South wrote:
Jaye wrote:
"What the heck could an exchange of vows hurt?" ]

I am insinuating nothing G.R.I.T.S., and I see no mockery in allowing newlyweds to perform a small ring ceremony and exchange of vows for non-member parent's sake.


Elder Cree-L Kofford's words:

4. The Brethren counsel Church members not to perform a marriage ceremony following the temple sealing. Occasionally, you’ll find a young couple who will want to do a mock ceremony “so my mother won’t feel left out.� But that makes a mockery out of your temple sealing.


Thank you for posting that article from Brother Kofford, Jaye. I remember reading it in the Ensign. It was very enjoyable and informative. Brother Kofford said it is a mockery to exchange vows civilly after being sealed. An exchange of rings, with no vows spoken, seems to be OK.

And, come on, Jaye. . .I don't claim to know everything about the gospel. In your posts sometimes, you give the impression that you DO know all, and when questioned (by me of late), you raise your voice in your writings. This reminds me of my dad. . .When we disagreed with him and tried to convey our opinions and feelings, he would get angry, and his voice would get louder and louder, refuting us until he couldn't hear us talking anymore. Then, in essence, he would say "We're done here; I've spoken." An occasional challenge is good. We don't always like them, but they serve a purpose. If anything, Jaye, we will keep each other on our toes. I can tell you don't like to be "shut down" when you have an opinion on the forums. . .neither do I.

I...'raise my voice in my writings?' Interesting perception.

However...after reading what you've written about your father...I can understand your perceptions when it comes to discussions with 'old men'.

Very well...I readily agree that neither one of us like to be 'shut down' when we post an opinion.

But that's only human nature.

Dubbs wrote:
Girl Raised in the South wrote:
Jaye wrote:
"What the heck could an exchange of vows hurt?" ]

I am insinuating nothing G.R.I.T.S., and I see no mockery in allowing newlyweds to perform a small ring ceremony and exchange of vows for non-member parent's sake.


Elder Cree-L Kofford's words:

4. The Brethren counsel Church members not to perform a marriage ceremony following the temple sealing. Occasionally, you’ll find a young couple who will want to do a mock ceremony “so my mother won’t feel left out.� But that makes a mockery out of your temple sealing.


Thank you for posting that article from Brother Kofford, Jaye. I remember reading it in the Ensign. It was very enjoyable and informative. Brother Kofford said it is a mockery to exchange vows civilly after being sealed. An exchange of rings, with no vows spoken, seems to be OK.

And, come on, Jaye. . .I don't claim to know everything about the gospel. In your posts sometimes, you give the impression that you DO know all, and when questioned (by me of late), you raise your voice in your writings. This reminds me of my dad. . .When we disagreed with him and tried to convey our opinions and feelings, he would get angry, and his voice would get louder and louder, refuting us until he couldn't hear us talking anymore. Then, in essence, he would say "We're done here; I've spoken." An occasional challenge is good. We don't always like them, but they serve a purpose. If anything, Jaye, we will keep each other on our toes. I can tell you don't like to be "shut down" when you have an opinion on the forums. . .neither do I.


That's how I picture Jaye in real life. A tyrant with a pretty bad temper.

Notice he never speaks of grandkids or friends, even he and his wife seem to have seperate lives, Makes one wonder what he's really like in real life, doubt it's much like he presents here. .

Another gross misrepresentation of what I've posted or not posted about my family Kent.

I have, in the past, spoken much of my family. And as far as my wife and I having 'separate[sic]lives'...we do have our own careers, and our own personal friends, and our own interests...as well as mutual friends, interests...and yes...even careers.

The Wolf assists me in my business...and I have assisted her in her profession as a spiritual healer and care-giver.

I have discussed these facts and much more over the course of a couple of years I've participated on this forum.

Look who's talking about senility.

As for me, who I am and what I'm like...what you see is what you get.

Unlike yourself...who acts one way on this forum...yet professes to be 'different in real life'.

Dubbs wrote:
KitKat wrote:
Dubbs wrote:
KitKat wrote:
Dubbs wrote:
Girl Raised in the South wrote:
Jaye wrote:
"What the heck could an exchange of vows hurt?" ]

I am insinuating nothing G.R.I.T.S., and I see no mockery in allowing newlyweds to perform a small ring ceremony and exchange of vows for non-member parent's sake.


Elder Cree-L Kofford's words:

4. The Brethren counsel Church members not to perform a marriage ceremony following the temple sealing. Occasionally, you’ll find a young couple who will want to do a mock ceremony “so my mother won’t feel left out.� But that makes a mockery out of your temple sealing.


Thank you for posting that article from Brother Kofford, Jaye. I remember reading it in the Ensign. It was very enjoyable and informative. Brother Kofford said it is a mockery to exchange vows civilly after being sealed. An exchange of rings, with no vows spoken, seems to be OK.

And, come on, Jaye. . .I don't claim to know everything about the gospel. In your posts sometimes, you give the impression that you DO know all, and when questioned (by me of late), you raise your voice in your writings. This reminds me of my dad. . .When we disagreed with him and tried to convey our opinions and feelings, he would get angry, and his voice would get louder and louder, refuting us until he couldn't hear us talking anymore. Then, in essence, he would say "We're done here; I've spoken." An occasional challenge is good. We don't always like them, but they serve a purpose. If anything, Jaye, we will keep each other on our toes. I can tell you don't like to be "shut down" when you have an opinion on the forums. . .neither do I.


That's how I picture Jaye in real life. A tyrant with a pretty bad temper. .
If you only knew how I picture you!

Ask me if I care.

Ask me how accurate you are.
Back up a bit and ask Jaye if he cares what you think of him. I know he doesn't.

I think you're jealous of Jaye and the Wolf because you continually make digs at them. The Wolf has never, ever spoken to you, yet you continually bash her. Shame on you.

I simply don't believe that a man who truly honors his Priesthood would act as you do and say the things you say. You do show your true colors on this forum. We all know that, and so do you.


You don't even know them Kitkat, stop acting as if you do, it's comical to see you stick up for strangers you've never met, who could be completly full of BS. And think about my points I made, seem odd for a guy who says he has 4 kids and a wife? Does to me.

Your annoying sticking up for people you know nothing about is getting old. Stop the stupidity.

The irony is thick.

Dubbs wrote:
Jaye wrote:
Dubbs wrote:
Just Reading wrote:
Dubbs wrote:
Just Reading wrote:
Girl Raised in the South wrote:
Life Rocks wrote:
I wasn't planning to post any more on this subject here, but something came up.

For those who may be wondering, I checked with a woman in a comparative world religion class who is Muslim and asked her, "If you were getting married as a Muslim to another Muslim and wanted to invite a non-Muslim, could they attend your wedding."

To which she replied, "Why yes, of course."

So I've talked to a Jew, a Hindu, a Buddhist and Muslim and all say non-members are permitted to attend their weddings...except for the Mormon Temple wedding.

Hmmmmmm.

Welcome back, LifeRocks. Of course they would invite non-members to their weddings because it is permitted in their religions. Every religion has their own unique qualifications. We're not like everyone else.

Isn't that the truth!!!

as soon as you learn about the Mormons special underwear you know they are different "LOL"



Let alone the cloths they wear in the temmple

Unbelievable, you have no respect for me I know big dummmy, but at least have some respect for Jaye and Kitkat's beliefs, Your a peice of scumb white trash dude.

first off, kiss my ass Dubbs

second dumb ass you should take the picture of the temple garments out of your post, talk about a dummy...!!!


You don't even have respect for people you call your friends bigdummy. YOu must be such a loser in real life.

Jaye and Kitkat, and whoever else who's LDS who saw these and said nothing are a bunch of cowards, I reported it and hopefully you are banned for it.


Ever going to answer when you got a bachelors? In between your eight zillion jobs and claims of no school in the past, now you claim you went to USC law school, but are not a lawyer? But a paralegal? So you went to law school to become a paralegal?

FYI Kent...although it really isn't any of your business...I did discuss this with John via P.M. this morning.

And he has apologized. He is going to remove the picture, but until everyone who quoted that comment also removes the picture...it will remain.

I suggest that you edit your response and remove the picture yourself.

Since you are in such a hurry to get John banned, or anyone else for that matter...perhaps you have conveniently forgotten some of the cruder language you have been posting.

You would do well to go back and remove your remark about a certain individual being your...and I quote..."bitch"...along with every post which contains your suggestion that someone kiss your posterior.

Kiss my posterior.

And with this classic example of your behavior and mentality...I rest my case.