Girl Raised in the South wrote:
Jaye, you don't go to church to take the sacrament?

Kent has already presumed to inform you regarding this issue. I'll put it in a nutshell since I'm getting ready to go finish a striping job I got rained out of yesterday.

My wife suffers not only from severe asthma, but also from severe allergies to certain substances. Cleaning chemicals, certain carpetings, and the pads underneath, and first and foremost...personal fragrances.

If she sits through Sunday Meetings...she is sickened for days afterward...and sometimes requires hospitalization.

Dubs commented once that his wife said that SHE would wear a mask so she could go to Church rather than miss her meetings. Such a perfect match for an intolerant and judgmental husband...don't you think?

So we hold our worship at home. As I hold the priesthood, and our sons hold the priesthood, and the Bishop and our home teachers hold the priesthood...I have all the assistance I need to prepare, bless and administer the sacrament for my wife, and myself...and whoever has assisted me.

As Kent has already made a point of bringing up my use of homemade wine for sacramental purposes...I'll just say this.

This is in accordance and obedience to the scriptures contained in the Holy Bible, the Book of Mormon...AND the D&C...in which wine is the beverage which the Savior instructed to be used.

According to the D&C...this must be new wine, of the pressing of one's own grapes.

Now Kent thinks I drink it by the glassful...but we use the same little paper cup used at church.

And we only do this when our small vineyard of 3 grapevines manages to produce enough for between a half gallon, and a gallon.

When that is finished, we use organic grape juice.

I am a general contractor. I own an asphalt construction and maintenance business. When the weather is good...I work 7 days a week, anywhere from 12-14 hour days. Even Sundays.

On those Sundays I work...we hold our worship in the Evening. But worship...we certainly do. My wife serves in the capacity of Visiting Teacher...and the ladies she visits have cooperated in abstaining from perfumes, hair sprays and deodorants when she visits them.

They have also switched to friendlier and safer cleaning products...that's how much they love the Wolf. (My wife's nickname...as well as cultural and traditional name as a spiritualist and a healer.)

I serve as a Home Teacher. And I assist the Wolf whenever her ladies need something done around the house. Many are elderly, and widowed. Sometimes I work in tandem with their Home Teachers...and sometimes I perform services for them on my own.

At any rate...we live our lives, and serve God as we see right to do...and Dubss takes great issue with it.

Dubbs wrote:
I suspect GFTS is a good LDS person, she understands doctrine well, and I will guess she will find Jaye to be as odd as most do once they she get's to know him. Since your his twin brother I find it touching you are sticking up for him. Ahhhh, how sweet. LOL

I also consider GIRL RAISED IN THE SOUTH...or G.R.I.T.S. to be a good LDS person, who has her own understanding of the gospel doctrine.

Just as I do.

Anyway...she's EONS ahead of you Kent.

As far as Wren being my twin brother...surely you have forgotten that we are ALL brothers and sisters here Kent. Regardless of our religious beliefs and/or affiliations...we are siblings with the same Eternal Father.

Try to remember that...eh?

Dubbs wrote:
Grizz wrote:
THE
DOCTRINE AND COVENANTS
OF THE CHURCH OF JESUS CHRIST OF LATTER-DAY SAINTS
SECTION 132

Revelation given through Joseph Smith the Prophet, at Nauvoo, Illinois, recorded July 12, 1843, relating to the new and everlasting covenant, including the eternity of the marriage covenant, as also plurality of wives. HC 5: 501–507. Although the revelation was recorded in 1843, it is evident from the historical records that the doctrines and principles involved in this revelation had been known by the Prophet since 1831.
1–6, Exaltation is gained through the new and everlasting covenant; 7–14, The terms and conditions of that covenant are set forth; 15–20, Celestial marriage and a continuation of the family unit enable men to become gods; 21–25,


enough said!


.



Hey Grizzly bear, the bible thumping nut job is in the house!


Grizz, Wren's been telling everyone that the Bible has man made doctrine in it, that God didn't put in, and that the bible is not perfect and has many errors in it, do you agree with this?

Those who believe in the Bible's inerrancy know that I do not share that belief as a traditional, liturgical Christian.

Dubbs, do you truly believe that your bishop, your stake president, and the regional authorities would approve of what you are doing here?

You are the perfect example of how one letter turns "reason" into "treason", and that is what you are committing against the LDS church with your antics. You lie, you cheat, you fabricate, you swear, you name call, and you say you are a good LDS person.

Dubbs wrote:
Betz wrote:
Dubbs wrote:
Betz wrote:
Dubbs wrote:

Show your proof.

Why? You won't when asked.

I do when I have it, how is one supposed to show proof of converstaions they have with people. (as I'm sure your talking about my talking of temple qaulifications for other faiths)

lol Exactly . . . Oh, and thanks for finally admitting you had no proof. Was it really that difficult?

Your delusional sometimes Betz, I, in no way said I have no proof, I said my proof is people I've spoken with IN REAL life, just as in a court of law, there is testimony of eye witness'.

No Dubbs you saying what they said to you is hearsay and hearsay is not allowed as evidence!!!

now if those people came on here and said it, that's evidence..!!

Dubbs wrote:
Just Reading wrote:
Dubbs wrote:
Jaye wrote:
Dubbs wrote:
WaynesWorld wrote:

But I remember when polygamy was a prerequisite for Celestial exaltation. That has now changed...the root of that doctrine continues to die out and wither. And I'm glad to see that happening.

You must be over 100 then if you remember things taught about Polygamy.

Fact is, that was never taught about Polygamy, that is was essential, maybe it was a test for those it was asked to practice it, which was a small percentage of the church, so how could most of the church not practice it if they believed it was a requirement for salvation? Everyone would have been doing right? Makes no sense, and proves you are wrong that it was taught as an essential thing.

Oh for the love of PETE, Kent. The Mormons never taught that polygamy was essential for salvation...they taught that it was requisite for EXALTATION.

Show your proof.

Section 132 of the LDS Doctrine & Covenants still states that Polygamy is the new and everlasting covenant of marriage and in order to get into the Celestial Kingdom, Mormons must have multiple wives.

Because Mormons still hold D&C Section 132 as cannon - Mormons still practice "spiritual" polygamy and teach that Polygamy is the only way a Mormon can become a God. Two current Mormon Apostles have more than 1 spiritual wife. Russell M. Nelson On April 6, 2006 married Wendy L. Watson in the temple for "time and all eternity", his second spiritual wife.


Why did I know you anti's would bring up 132 to misinterpret again. The new and everlasting covenant is the Marriage ordinance you idjit. Course how would you know this, you were LDS for only 14 years.

14 years where do you get your information from Dubbs??

I joined the Church in 2000 was active 2 years (I'm ashamed it took me that long to realize it was fake and full of lies).....

Dubbs wrote:
Betz wrote:
Dubbs wrote:
Betz wrote:
Dubbs wrote:
Betz wrote:
Dubbs wrote:

Show your proof.

Why? You won't when asked.

I do when I have it, how is one supposed to show proof of converstaions they have with people. (as I'm sure your talking about my talking of temple qaulifications for other faiths)

lol Exactly . . . Oh, and thanks for finally admitting you had no proof. Was it really that difficult?

Your delusional sometimes Betz, I, in no way said I have no proof, I said my proof is people I've spoken with IN REAL life, just as in a court of law, there is testimony of eye witness'.

Ahh, back to your ole "when I'm proven wrong, I must call someone a name or question their intelligence." Typical!

Since you brought up the legal process, I'm sure you know that in a court of law, using the testimony of what someone else said is called "hearsay" and is INADMISSIBLE.

Eyewitness testimony is used in a court of law on a daily basis. And is completly admissible, nice try Betz, but your wrong. I have eyewitness testimony I repeated here, it is testimony that is good.

"LOL" WRONG DUBBS.. !!! "LOL"