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.)

Life Rocks wrote:

What I'll do is make the entire country aware of this situation so that people considering the

And all you'll do is drive the wedge I'm sure is widening with your children. They will be proud.

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?

He actually said also from his experience speaking to people he knows in the faith. The problem with your little websites is they didn't mention the qualifictions to get into their temples, nor did it mention whether people of other faiths can enter their temples, so your little websites you keep quoting didn't even have the information your looking for.

Wren wrote:
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.

Don't listen to him itchy, He's just another bitter bob ex Mormon that spends his days here bashing the church. Trying to relieve the hurt that he has inside from leaving the church. Don't listen when he says he was never a member, it's clear he's obessessed with the LDS faith as all apostates are.

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.

Dubbs wrote:
Wren wrote:
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.

Don't listen to him itchy, He's just another bitter bob ex Mormon that spends his days here bashing the church. Trying to relieve the hurt that he has inside from leaving the church. Don't listen when he says he was never a member, it's clear he's obessessed with the LDS faith as all apostates are.