Life Rocks wrote:
Jaye wrote:
Jaye wrote:


Life Rocks...in my earlier post...I asked you these 2 questions.
1. What sort of redress are you seeking L.R.?

2. What do you expect the media and the government to do to assist you in your dilemma?

It's clear to me here that those in the Church aren't likely to do anything to accommodate anyone who finds anything at all wrong with how the Church operates. Those in the Church believe whole heartedly that the Church is perfect and that it's the members that need perfecting.

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. I remember vividly my second mission president came up with the "Baptize now" program which suggested we challenge our investigators on the first discussion before they knew anything about the Church citing the stupid milk before meat garbage.

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.

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. I'm sure most people (I wasn't) aware that the Church has different rules for different countries.

Here everyone is weaned on "the only place in God's eyes is to marry is in the Temple". No one likely has asked Cree-l what his position is on countries that don't allow that in which case he'll retreat to following the laws of the land and let God sort it out.

The Church is highly sensitive to it's image and to the law.

This is new ground for me.

When I started this I didn't know where it would lead.

The only reason they use David and Goliath as a story is because David won.

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.

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.

So...you are considering a possible lawsuit against the Church?

Who will that affect in the long run? Will it affect the Church in the manner you wish? Will it affect the members of that faith...including your wife and children, who are still members of the faith you intend to sue?

You appear to believe that everyone within the Church membership goes blithely along with everything the Church decides.

This is not entirely accurate. There are many among the membership who would even agree with you on this issue, regarding the harm being perpetrated upon non-member families who are not allowed to witness and participate in their LDS children's Temple weddings.

But you are just going to go right ahead and clump us all in with a percentage of TBM's who DO blithely agree with everything the Church teaches?

And you are going to try to change how weddings are done here in the U.S.

Are you really going to advocate government intervention into Church procedure? Dangerous stuff. You're talking about advocation of government control in every religious faith.

Our Founding Fathers would not agree with you on this matter. And neither do I.

I would agree only that I would like to see the LDS Church relax it's restrictions on allowing members with non-member relatives to hold a civil ceremony for the benefit of those relatives.

Because I don't see where this would be disrespectful of the Lord...unlike those who believe that it would.

As for the Church with it's vast real estate holdings and billions of dollars...how does this concern you?

There was a time when the Mormons only owned what they could carry on their backs, or in their wagons.

They arrived in Salt Lake with these scant belongings, and through the sweat of their brows, they built a pretty impressive future for their descendants.

All of the more influential among the organized religious sects have big money. After you attempt to milk the LDS Church out of their holdings...are you going to go after all the other rich holdings in other faiths as well?

And will gaining of their wealth make you feel any better?

Is vengeance sweet? Or does it usually end up leaving a bitter after taste?

If you still retain the slightest amount of Christian beliefs at all...what do you think the Savior would suggest?

He taught that if someone lifted a hand, and struck you across one cheek...to offer the other as well.

He taught that if someone sued you for your coat, to offer him your cloak as well.

He taught that if someone asked you to go a mile with them...to go two miles.

He taught that if someone asked to borrow of you, to give freely, asking and expecting no recompense for that which you had given.

The best way for a human being to implement change for the positive...is to concentrate on doing those things which the Savior has commanded.

To feed those which hunger, give drink to those that thirst, clothe the naked, shelter the homeless, comfort the sick and afflicted, and the motherless and the widows...and to visit those who are imprisoned to offer what comfort you can.

This is the way to truly implement positive change
in the world around you.

Not to dwell upon the injuries you perceive to have suffered at the hands of the LDS Church.

I would not deign, or presume to judge you...but as a brother I would only offer this advice.

itchy peaches wrote:
I guess if someone questioned my love for my children, I would take that a little personal, but that's just me. Anyway, I don't think there is any question that he loves his family.I have not questioned that. See my earlier post about this. I was only reminding him that he said he loves them (as a preface to suggesting he consider them before acting). This seems to be a bit hard for you to "get," as you've brought it up at least twice now. Sorry for the confusion you're having.

Would a religious disagreement change your feelings for your parents or your children?Maybe a better question- given the situation - is "If you love your children, would you do things to give them embarrassment or great sorrow?" OR, maybe in LR's mind, and given the pain he feels, "the ends justify the means". (And actually, if LR is as bitter as he sounds, perhaps the things he's gone through have changed how he feels about his kids who have "disappointed" him. Only he knows for sure, no need to fire back at me.)

I'm not being condescending towards you, I don't appreciate the condescension being shown towards me. I was simply questioning you on a statement and explaining how it could be misconstrued. Pardon me for having a different way of reading your post.

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?

What are we talking about here Betz? Where was I wrong?

Jaye 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.

Just in case you didn't notice...I just apologized to you for not remembering that you coined the term...just as I apologized for being misinformed by the general consensus on the D&W forum.

At any rate...even though you were not banned, as it turned out...it is still the opinion of most of the D's & W's that you SHOULD have been banned...or at the very least...never invited in the first place.

However...that was J.B.'s forum...and J.B's call.

As for you...when have you EVER apologized for mis-speaking, or admitted that you had been wrong?

couple times.

Jaye wrote:
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?

What are we talking about here Betz? Where was I wrong?

Something with the Jewish weddings . . . the website I linked to said that anyone was allowed to go to a Jewish temple for a wedding and something you had said disagreed with that . . . no worries, Dubbs is just trying to cause hate & discontent.

Dubbs wrote:
JLD wrote:
Wren wrote:
Itchy writes redundantly, " . . why don't you accommodate the Church by respecting its beliefs even if it bites?"

Your church then is not all that family oriented if it denies family members from weddings, is it?

The whole point of the temple ceremony is to seal a family for eternity...so I'd say it is very family oriented. So if the ceremony was altered so that anyone could attend and lost it's significance it could actually be less family-oriented than it is now by including the immediate family.

I think when looking at the LDS doctrines you have to keep in mind that they are eternal principles and not just earthly. Bear in mind that by LDS believe God is your father and your children are essentially on loan from Him; parents are given the power of stewardship but ultimately they will be held accountable to God for how they raised His children.

That is my understanding.

Wren knows the church is family oriented, he's just playing devils advocate, as he's been the devils helper for years here.

How in the hell would you know if Wren was the Devils helper,

everytime that you're down there with your butt buddy the Devil Dubbs,
you're on your knees sucking on his family jewels begging for more computer time!!!

SORRY FOLKS BUT SOMEONE HAD TOO SAY IT!!!