Betz wrote:
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.

How? Cuz I mentioned Jaye's disagreeing?

Just Reading wrote:
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!!!

Bid dummy's blowin a gasket folks, stand back.

Next think you know, he'll be threatening to torture women and children for a week AGAIN.

Dubbs wrote:
Just Reading wrote:
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!!!

Bid dummy's blowin a gasket folks, stand back.

Next think you know, he'll be threatening to torture women and children for a week AGAIN.

Dubbs that's your problem you said: "Next think" you never had a "first think" to begin with...

So now Dubbs slow down, set back and "think"...

I know, I know It's your first time, but you can do it Well maybe

go ahead big, show us your true character, threaten my wife and kids again.

Jaye said:

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.

I think they need to relax the restrictions as well and release some formal notes of what is and is not acceptable for civil ceremonies. I think it is pretty easy to come up with a list of things that could not be "vowed" in the civil ceremony because they were already covered in the temple ceremony, but obviously the rest should be up to the newlyweds and what they want in their ceremony. I don't like the religious ceremony having any bearing on the civil, except to say that some vows said in the religious should not be altered for the civil (such as altering "for all eternity" to "till death do us part". That should be easy enough.

Dubbs wrote:
go ahead big, show us your true character, threaten my wife and kids again.

What are you doing? You sound like a elementary student on the playground with his older brother backing him up while he faces down another child. I see nothing positive or constructive that could possibly come from a post like this.