itchy peaches wrote:
You've offically moved on from your questioning the church on the temple thing to just plain bashing the church, time to move on dude, we see it over and over here from those who leave the church, they become bitter at the church they left. Bashing it, not realizing that your family is still a member of the church and loves the church, don't turn into the "bitter bob" syndrome as I've named it here bro, move on, respect your family and their decisions in life. Look at yours and ask yourself if it truly has made you a happier person. Outwardly it appears not to have, but made you an angry, sort of obnoxious personality that has to go around bashing others faith to see if that will help, it doesn't.

Hey, Bitter Bob, you appear frustrated, anxious, often obnoxious -- obviously the LDS church has made you a bitter man. Try something different.

I gotta agree with others on this one, dude. Your bitterness will likely end with consequences much worse that what you face now. If you think tearing down the church is worth pursuing....go for it. But you say you love your kids - or did, anyhow. How will your wife and children feel about you "chasing the rattlesnake" for this one? (If you dont' remember that story...maybe someone can explain it.) When you pick up one end of the stick, you pick up the other end. Can't choose consequences.

Pretty presumptuous to question whether he loves his children, isn't it? Are you taking lessons from Dubbs?

Dubbs wrote:
Betz wrote:
Dubbs wrote:
Jaye wrote:
Wren wrote:
Jaye wrote:
Once again...the irony is thick enough to cut with a knife.

BTW Kent...Wren coined the 'Bitter-Bob' bit. Not you.

Jaye, Bitter Bob did use it infrequently in the lower-case to apply to obnoxious, frustrated individuals with their religions, so I have appropriately coined him with it in the upper case.

I believe we should all use it as an approriate address to him.

Ahhh...he did? I stand corrected. Very honest of you Wren.

And I apologize to Kent for not remembering that he had coined the term.

And another example of Jaye making happy crappy up to make his posts better. Just as he claimed I had been banned from this site, JB's site, and many other things he's claimed that turned out to be not true. Jaye has been shown at the very least, a know it all, that really knows nothing, at the most, a liar. Classic.

Dubbs, at least he has the guts to admit when he's made a mistake. Unlike you who says lame-ass crap like:

Dubbs wrote:
As I said Betz, it's from people I've spoken with that are either in the faiths, or have taught those in those faiths.

instead of providing actual proof to back up your asinine claims.

Actually you didn't see Jaye confirmed one of my claims. DOH!! Didn't see that did ya Betz e boo?

Actually, Bitter Bob, according to the websites I linked to, Jaye was wrong too.

Now I'm curious . . . since you are continually putting down and questioning Jaye's posts, why is it so convenient to use him on this?

Betz wrote:
Pretty presumptuous to question whether he loves his children, isn't it? Are you taking lessons from Dubbs?

I assume you ask that based on when I said: But you say you love your kids - or did, anyhow.

I don't believe my comment is calling into question whether he loves his children - I see it as reminding him and others that he said he loves his kids. He claims to love them - yet now finds himself doing things that his family feels are....who knows? Though asked several times, LR hasn't yet really told us how they feel (and that would be subject to his interpretation anyhow, as they aren't here, speaking for themselves). I was suggesting that he take the love he has/had for his children into consideration as he plans his next move. Otherwise - it's all still about him and his hurt feelings.

As for whether I'm "taking lessons from Dubbs", don't pull me into that turf war - I'm not interested. My comments stand on their own. Dubbs has made many good comments on this issue, as have others of you. I see no need to turn this into a forum for personal attacks. My comments are based on LRs posts, and building on other comments posted here. Don't assume I'm on anyone's "side".

Life Rocks wrote:

Consequently, anyone who claims foul will have to go outside the Church to get help when up against the LDS Church.

What I'll do is make the entire country aware of this situation so that people considering the Church will know the "fine print" of what they're getting into.

LifeRocks, you are definitely anti-Mormon. Will you print up pamphlets that spew your venom? Your wife and children will be sooooo proud!


I don't know if I have grounds for a lawsuit here, but I'll check. This emotional distress is just as real as any problem anyone has in any other area of life.

What will be your complaint? Will you want monetary redress?

I'll see if I can't change how weddings are done here in the US so that it's done as it is in Europe and Mexico where weddings are done civily first.

How could you possibly do this? Will you overthrow the government?

You go to downtown Salt Lake and are so impressed with the Church's holdings. I see it as a theocracy and a huge, cold business. I don't see it as a source of spirituality. I don't understand why a Church needs to be worth billions and billions and feels the need to control everything.

Wow!! As I hinted above, will you seek monetary redress in your lawsuit from the "huge, cold business"?

What I would prefer to have happen is for the church to recognize that it's created something that hurts others and to do something to accommodate the parents and families of those who get married in their Temples rather than have the "screw you" attitude which it has.

Always trying to be respectful of those who have taken their time to reply inspite of our differing opinions. Good luck and best wishes to all.

I'm pretty sure the Church is very aware that not having carte blanche entrance into the temple causes hurt feelings. The "screw you" mentality from the Church exists only in the minds of the active members, inactives, excommunicated or self-excommunicated who couldn't go in the temple for family events. Instead of the Church accommodating you, LifeRocks, and others in your situation, why don't you accommodate the Church by respecting its beliefs even if it bites?

Betz wrote:
Dubbs wrote:
Betz wrote:
Dubbs wrote:
Jaye wrote:
Wren wrote:
Jaye wrote:
Once again...the irony is thick enough to cut with a knife.

BTW Kent...Wren coined the 'Bitter-Bob' bit. Not you.

Jaye, Bitter Bob did use it infrequently in the lower-case to apply to obnoxious, frustrated individuals with their religions, so I have appropriately coined him with it in the upper case.

I believe we should all use it as an approriate address to him.

Ahhh...he did? I stand corrected. Very honest of you Wren.

And I apologize to Kent for not remembering that he had coined the term.

And another example of Jaye making happy crappy up to make his posts better. Just as he claimed I had been banned from this site, JB's site, and many other things he's claimed that turned out to be not true. Jaye has been shown at the very least, a know it all, that really knows nothing, at the most, a liar. Classic.

Dubbs, at least he has the guts to admit when he's made a mistake. Unlike you who says lame-ass crap like:

Dubbs wrote:
As I said Betz, it's from people I've spoken with that are either in the faiths, or have taught those in those faiths.

instead of providing actual proof to back up your asinine claims.

Actually you didn't see Jaye confirmed one of my claims. DOH!! Didn't see that did ya Betz e boo?

Actually, Bitter Bob, according to the websites I linked to, Jaye was wrong too.

Now I'm curious . . . since you are continually putting down and questioning Jaye's posts, why is it so convenient to use him on this?

Because Bitter Bob Dubbs has no integrity.

itchy peaches wrote:
Betz wrote:
Pretty presumptuous to question whether he loves his children, isn't it? Are you taking lessons from Dubbs?

I assume you ask that based on when I said: But you say you love your kids - or did, anyhow.

I don't believe my comment is calling into question whether he loves his children - I see it as reminding him and others that he said he loves his kids. He claims to love them - yet now finds himself doing things that his family feels are....who knows? Though asked several times, LR hasn't yet really told us how they feel (and that would be subject to his interpretation anyhow, as they aren't here, speaking for themselves). I was suggesting that he take the love he has/had for his children into consideration as he plans his next move. Otherwise - it's all still about him and his hurt feelings.

As for whether I'm "taking lessons from Dubbs", don't pull me into that turf war - I'm not interested. My comments stand on their own. Dubbs has made many good comments on this issue, as have others of you. I see no need to turn this into a forum for personal attacks. My comments are based on LRs posts, and building on other comments posted here. Don't assume I'm on anyone's "side".

Itchy, you are walking the Dubbs road, and that is stupid. The person has the right to make the right decisions, and his love for his children should not interfere with that.

The love of the children for the father should inform their own decisions.