Re:Underage FLDS member in custody gives birth (1 viewing) (1) Guests
Favoured: 0
|
|
|
TOPIC: Re:Underage FLDS member in custody gives birth
|
|
|
|
Re:Underage FLDS member in custody gives birth 2 Months ago
|
Karma: -301
|
|
Jaye wrote:
[As far as Wren being my twin brother...surely you have forgotten that we are ALL brothers and sisters here Kent.
Yes but no one here have quite the same almost exact beliefs as you two do. Makes one wonder if he is your alter ego.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The administrator has disabled public write access. |
Wren (User)
Platinum Boarder
Posts: 10384
|
|
Re:Underage FLDS member in custody gives birth 2 Months ago
|
Karma: 8
|
|
Dubbs wrote:
Jaye wrote:
[As far as Wren being my twin brother...surely you have forgotten that we are ALL brothers and sisters here Kent.
Yes but no one here have quite the same almost exact beliefs as you two do. Makes one wonder if he is your alter ego.
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.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The administrator has disabled public write access. |
Betzz (User)
Platinum Boarder
Posts: 5014
|
|
Re:Underage FLDS member in custody gives birth 2 Months ago
|
Karma: 10
|
Dubbs wrote:Jaye wrote:
[As far as Wren being my twin brother...surely you have forgotten that we are ALL brothers and sisters here Kent.
Yes but no one here have quite the same almost exact beliefs as you two do. Makes one wonder if he is your alter ego.No one here has the same almost exact beliefs that you do. Thank heaven! 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Proud to be a wicked witch and Dubbs' personal nag. Deal with it.
|
|
|
The administrator has disabled public write access. |
|
|
|
Re:Underage FLDS member in custody gives birth 2 Months ago
|
Karma: 11
|
Dubbs wrote:Jaye wrote:
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. 
BZZZT!!! WRONG AGAIN KENT.
He was absolutely correct...and the fact of the matter is...even I knew this by the time I was 14 years of age.
Your religious education is severely lacking.
Then why are we not practicing Polygamy still Dar dar? If new and everlasting covenant means Polygamy and not temple marriage, why are we practicing one and not the other? You are an idiot that really has a deranged few of the faith you don't follow anymore.
Here's what my church says about it, not sure where your getting what your saying from, but not my church..
"The covenant of eternal marriage is necessary for exaltation. The Lord revealed through Joseph Smith: "In the celestial glory there are three heavens or degrees; and in order to obtain the highest, a man must enter into this order of the priesthood [meaning the new and everlasting covenant of marriage]; and if he does not, he cannot obtain it. He may enter into the other, but that is the end of his kingdom; he cannot have an increase" (D&C 131:1–4" LDS.ORG beliefs
Game, set and MATCH No Dubbs you just proved us right!! because the everlasting covenant of marriage includes the plurality of wives....
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The administrator has disabled public write access. |
|
|
|
Re:Underage FLDS member in custody gives birth 2 Months ago
|
Karma: 11
|
Dubbs wrote:Betz wrote:
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.
Prove it.
Here ya go lawyer betz
"People sometimes say that a case is "only circumstantial" to mean that the evidence is weak. A strong case, according to this view, includes the testimony of an eyewitness."
I'm getting tired check mating you and Jaye today. Whew. 
http://writ.news.findlaw.com/dorf/20010516.html"LOL" but you are not the eyewitness Dubbs, So you saying it then becomes hearsay, Now if those people who witnessed it tells us then it is eyewitness testimony, but you saying to us what they said to you is hearsay - Man you are so stupid Dubbs... "LOL" You would not make a good Lawyer Dubbs "LOL"
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The administrator has disabled public write access. |
|
|
|
Re:Underage FLDS member in custody gives birth 2 Months ago
|
Karma: 11
|
Dubbs wrote:Betz wrote:
Dubbs wrote:
Betz wrote:
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.
Prove it.
Here ya go lawyer betz
"People sometimes say that a case is "only circumstantial" to mean that the evidence is weak. A strong case, according to this view, includes the testimony of an eyewitness."
I'm getting tired check mating you and Jaye today. Whew.
http://writ.news.findlaw.com/dorf/20010516.html
Here, you missed my edit. You were not an eyewitness. They told you something that you repeated here.
hear·say [heer-sey]
–noun 1. unverified, unofficial information gained or acquired from another and not part of one's direct knowledge: I pay no attention to hearsay.
2. an item of idle or unverified information or gossip; rumor: a malicious hearsay.
–adjective 3. of, pertaining to, or characterized by hearsay: hearsay knowledge; a hearsay report.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[Origin: 1525–35; orig. in phrase by hear say, trans. of MF par ouïr dire]
—Synonyms 1. talk, scuttlebutt, babble, tittle-tattle.
Information given to me about one's personal religious beliefs is me being an eyewitness to what there telling me, it is up to you to prove it wrong. You can't. And it's pissing you off. "LOL" you are so wrong Dubss and it's so funny "LOL" hearsay is information gained or acquired from another and not part of one's direct knowledge Dubbs, "LOL" so do you get it now, Now Dubbs, you can be an eyewitness that they talked to you, but you can't use information gained from them because that would be hearsay "LOL" "Dubbs you lose"
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Last Edit: 2008/05/04 17:23 By Dubbs hates LDS people.
|
|
|
The administrator has disabled public write access. |
|
|
|
|
Orem Office Lrg 1bd, part. Apartments
|
|
|
Saratoga Springs 3bd, 2 ba House Rentals
|
|
|
Orem, Newer int, Nice area Apartments
|
|
|
Orem, Village Apts. 3 Bed Apartments
|
|
|
Orem, Lg 2bd,1.5 ba, Cvrd Apartments
|
|
|
OREM, 2 bed All utilities Apartments
|
|
|
SF New Twinhome, finished bsmt Duplexes/Twin/Town
|
|
See all Top Rentals
|
|
Generated in 0.48101 Seconds |
