Dubbs wrote:
Jaye wrote:
JLD wrote:
Jaye wrote:
Yes...it is possible that you could be wrong JLD. I don't remember ever promising not to take my shirt off while posing for a picture.

And I do, on occasion, take my shirt off if it gets hot enough on a parking lot we're paving or sealing.

That's why I don't wear the G's to work. And that's probably why LDS pro-athletes don't wear the G's to work.

Time and place for everything I suppose.

Which brings us to these young Mormon men who posed for the calender.

If they are still currently serving missions...so long as they don't go door to door preaching the gospel without a shirt...who really cares?

I suppose that there are those in the LDS faith who are letter of the law types who even wear their G's while they're having intercourse.

But I've never been a letter of the law kind of guy myself.

Have you?

Depends. If I make a covenant or a promise or a commitment I do my best to keep it. Again, I don't wear garments and haven't been through the temple. My parents have. They almost never remove the garments, it is their belief that they shouldn't be removed unless absolutely necessary. Obviously, there are times that can remove them...I don't think posing in those pictures is one of them. If I'm wrong then I'm wrong.

Do your parents swim or sunbathe?


Oh brother, you are so dense sometimes, you seriously don't understand that their are excpetions, and you think this calender falls in an exception? Wow, amazing.

I would say that if these young men were paid to model for the calender, it would fall under the EXCEPTIONS granted for certain careers.

Just as if an LDS woman was a professional model, and required to model underwear, lounge wear, or bikinis.

We've been over this a few times Kent. Just as you argued that Marie Osmond's choices of less than modest dresses for 'Dancing With the Stars' would fall under the demands of her career, or it was allowable for an LDS athlete to wear shorts and a tank top during participation in his sport.

And just as, at times when the heat turns up out on the parking lots, my crew and I sometime shed our shirts for comfort.

And before you leap to decry my sinful behavior in 'breaking my covenant to always wear my garments'...my Bishop and Stake President are well aware of this fact.

Dubbs wrote:
BBBB wrote:
Jaye wrote:
BBBB wrote:
Dubbs wrote:
BBBB wrote:
Dubbs wrote:
BBBB wrote:
Dubbs wrote:
BBBB wrote:
ThomasK wrote:
BBBB wrote:


The LDS Church did not call the RLDS the Mormon. Or the gospel of RLDS the Mormon Gospel. I am a Mormon. I believe in the Gospel. To be exactly, I believe in the Mormon Gospel (not other kinds of gospels). I see the Church is inconsistant to pursue members' welfares, and instead the Church puts its members' welfares on a priority below its organizational profits/benefits. This is the Church's culture. Learning from this culture, the church leaders ranging from General Authority, to Area Presidency, to Area Seventies, to Stake Presidents, down to Bishops put members' welfares under organizational profits. To secure one's own safety in such a culture, the Church Leaders put their own welfares on priority over organizational benefits. How? Many of them are paid staffs, or full-time church callings with stipends. (Like politicians needing the votes on a higher priority over the voters' welfares.)

So what you are saying is that everyone called to a position that takes them away from their livelihood and therefore gets a "stipend" automatically makes them greedy?

Just how do you propose they live? Only the wealthiest individuals deserve these callings! What do you have against poor people?

You have a good question re: how to be a successful politician, and how to run your enterprise successfully. You have a good question. My answer is the members' welfares on a priority either below or above organizational benefits. You have the liberty to choose your own decision, as said in the scriptures.


Funny, the church I belong to, the LDS faith, has welfare farms, canneries, and assistance that they give to the members and those in need. Last year I think they gave out over 30 million in aide world wide.

So how is it that we are putting members welfares above or below orgainizational?

Men do not only live on food, but also live on the Gospel. Church leaders needed to fulfill certain statistics, and some of the statistics are made of activity numbers, attendance numbers, etc. Church leaders would focus on the make-up of the numbers and statistics, and they do not have the energy to care about the church members' interests, time and energy capacity, etc. Church leaders would push up or make up the numbers, by different means (some of which means are hurting the church members.) If you want to be a church leader, you have to placate and satisfy the upper church leaders, no matter whether or not the common church members' welfares are served. You have better know how to be a good politician and how to run an enterprise to make profits and statistics and so on. You are free to choose living in this culture and leaving this culture. I will choose whatever I can to protect and preserve the welfares of my family, my friends and myself.

I've been a Bishop and have known many Bishops, I personally find your comments ridiculous. But even it true, who cares, the church does well with imperfect humans, stop focusing on the negatives of the church, start focusing on the good they do.

One more thing: "the good they do" might come from their own interests, instead of others' welfares/interests. E.g. As I have said, the LDS Charity's money is to make connections, and to open doors to preach the Gospel in future. I prefer opening doors by being a genuine person, instead of making connections in name of charity.


You are a very harsh judge of the Lords annointed, you see them as trying to get something back, I see them as good men trying to do their best with their callings.


You'd be wise to stop judging others so harshly, and let them do their calling without such harsh judgements on them.

They are called to feed the sheep, not to feed the farm. The farm is for the sheep, but not the sheep for the farm. Sabbath Day is for men, but not men for Sabbath Day. I choose to care the sheep. Which one do you choose to care: the farm or the sheep? Which one do the Church leaders to care? You might say you and they choose to care the sheep. Everyone is saying like this and I am not exceptional. However, I am responsible for having a clear mind. This is my choice, not my fear (you are imposing your meaning on me).

Without a farm...the sheep have no home. And without shepherds, the sheep have no guidance.

If you do not care for the farm...then there will be no wherewithal to care for the sheep.

Wouldn't you agree?

Yes and no.
Yes, we need a farm. For the sheep, we need the farm.
No, where there is a good group of sheep, there is a farm. Thus, feed the sheep, and the sheep will be good enough to form a farm. Mind the sheep more than mind the farm.
Third, never maintain the farm to help the 99 heads of sheep, on expense of one head of sheep. (To be exactly, never on expense of all sheep, to maintain the farm in order to help the sheep).

What I am saying are just theory and concepts. My practice is far more important. You can tell how a good sheep I am, when I live with other sheep and take care of each other.


Head spinning, English please. I don't speak jiberish.

Oh but you DO speak GIBBERISH...every single day!

Jaye wrote:
BBBB wrote:
Marginalize, do not involve you for anything. just ignore you. do not do anything for you. (Before this marginalization, they showed a differenct attitude/manner.) It is like playing politics.

Perhaps so...but the fact remains...whether in a business corporation, or a religious organization...those who constantly gripe and complain to 'management' about every last detail of the administration of the corporation or religious organization eventually either find themselves being ignored...or 'terminated'.

I am very interested in your response to this post by Jaye. Barring our leaders doing something illegal or heinous, we as members should try our utmost to be supportive. I asked you in another post how many letters of complaint you've filed. Is it possible that YOUR behaviors, coupled with at least several letters of complaint (I'm guessing at the number) have cause your marginalization? We will all be accountable for our actions. . .we can't always see the end-result of what we do when we're in the heat of the moment. You haven't given specifics of your complaints, which is your right, but it leaves us (at least me) with lots of questions and an uneasy feeling about you.

Dubbs wrote:
BBBB wrote:
Jaye wrote:
BBBB wrote:
Dubbs wrote:
BBBB wrote:
Dubbs wrote:
BBBB wrote:
ThomasK wrote:
BBBB wrote:

Next, Church leaders and common brothers with prono-related personal behaviours were allowed to keep their temple recommend and contaminate a temple. Brothers complaining Church's bad policy or brothers moving away from bad bishops were denied priesthoods or temple recommends respectively. The brothers with prono-related practice committed to a larger sin than the brothers writing complaint letters and moving away from bad bishops. Why were the former allowed to keep their temple recommend, while the latter were denied? Inconsistency is the Church's culture. The culture is a combination of religion and profit business.

Where do you come up with this? The only thing I've EVER heard from the Church about pornography is, STAY AWAY, IT'S A SIN, IT HARMS RELATIONSHIPS, IT BECOMES ADDICTING. How you know the private counsel of all bishops and state presidents is beyond me.

With that said. Do some Bishops and State Presidents ERROR? Of course they do. It's that human thing. But a "culture of deceit"? Really?

When you meet an episode, you bring it in front of a leader, and you will see the reactions of the leader to the episode. Then, you bring it in front of a leader one level up, and you will see the reactions of the one-level-up leader. Then, you bring it in front of a leader one more level up, and you will see the reactions of the one-more-level-up leader. Then, you bring it in front of the top-level leader, and you will see the reactions of the top-level leader. The episode is not as important as the reactions of the many leaders. Their reactions are the most important thing I use in order to protect my family and my friends and myself.

When you meet an episode? You mean when one sins, the sins are clear cut that lead to excommunication. If one has an "episode" of sin, they will go through the process.

Don't want an "episode" don't sin. Personally I have never had an "episode" in my life, because I live the gospel, and don't have to worry about it.

It sounds like you have had problems with this and worry about it quite a bit, which means you do things against Gods commandments, I find this comment telling of yours.


"Their reactions are the most important thing I use in order to protect my family and my friends and myself"


How do you use their reactions to protect your family? What does that even mean? English bro, English.


Again, I gotta know, what is a prono-activity?

Examples of such episodes are: what to decide to help a poor family, what to decide to help a family with psychological difficulties, what to decide to help a family which husband is trapped with pronography, what to decide to run a quorum activity or a welfare activity for the ward members, etc.

The leaders' decisions and their rationale to make their decisions often (but not always) hurt and scare me, my family, my friends and their family in the Wards or the Stakes. Pretty sad (as said in the D&C 121).

I am genuine and serious with my sayings. I just want to have some discussions which are useful to help the Church members (or the Church).


I'm not following, your saying "episodes" as if their sin that you come up against that cause meetings with the leaders of the church, but now your saying examples of "episodes" are decisions on how to budget church funds.

You are making little sense.


Give an example of how some decision with money and how to budget it for the "poor or needy" has affected you or scared you.


Oh, and it's Pornograpy, not pronography.

When I said "episodes", I did not mean what you guessed to be my meaning,

When I said "what to decide", I not only meant money/budgeting, but also meant strategies, planning, approaches/attitudes, goals/aims, etc. Did you really mean one single thing, re: money/bugeting?

You asked for an example of how some decision..., right? Have you thought to ask for an example of pattern of their decision-making (i.e. compare and contrast several decisions of same nature)? It would be helpful for you to conduct your research and draw your conclusion, even though you might have had your conclusion, and might not need any other conclusions.

Finally, re: Give an example of how some decision with money and how to budget it for the "poor or needy" has affected you or scared you. Please give me some more info/your goals/your intentions/your interests, so that I could say something that might be useful to you. Otherwise, I do not know what you want me to say, except you want me to say I am wrong. If it is really what you want, you have had it already, and you do not have to ask me for it.

I do not know whether or not I will "win" this Q&A between you and me, but I know when I "win" this Q&A, I lose you and your heart. For me, your heart is more valuable than my "winning". Thus, you know you have already had my message "I am wrong", if this is really what you want. OK?

You answered your own question.

"Otherwise, I do not know what you want me to say, except you want me to say I am wrong. If it is really what you want, you have had it already, and you do not have to ask me for it."

But BBBB...you are not going to win Dubss's heart.
And you are not going to convince him of anything he does not wish to be convinced of.

thanks.
I see this guy is not listening, but imposing. I will keep distance from such persons, but I have to respect them as human (including respect their feelings/hearts), though they see us as objects rather than human in their eyes.

Is Kent his real name? And you know him in person?


You really are not that bright dude. Wow.

On the contrary Kent...BBBB is EXCEPTIONALLY bright. It is not always easy by any means to communicate efficiently in a language which is not your primary language. But he manages to communicate remarkably clearly in a non-native language...much more clearly than YOU'VE ever managed to communicate.

Not to mention the fact that he is a newbie...and isn't aware of all the forum intrigues friendships, and adversarial relationships.

Dubss said...'Unclassy wenches fits them well, I agree. Can't imagine having any of them as a wife, doing what they do here, I'd be embarrassed.'

Interesting. That's pretty much the same sentiment that these ladies have about you. They couldn't imagine having a guy like YOU for a husband, doing what you do here.

The Wolf concurs with their sentiments.

Sir John the Apostate wrote:
Dubbs wrote:
Jaye wrote:
BBBB wrote:
Dubbs wrote:
BBBB wrote:
Dubbs wrote:
BBBB wrote:
Dubbs wrote:
BBBB wrote:
ThomasK wrote:
BBBB wrote:

Next, Church leaders and common brothers with prono-related personal behaviours were allowed to keep their temple recommend and contaminate a temple. Brothers complaining Church's bad policy or brothers moving away from bad bishops were denied priesthoods or temple recommends respectively. The brothers with prono-related practice committed to a larger sin than the brothers writing complaint letters and moving away from bad bishops. Why were the former allowed to keep their temple recommend, while the latter were denied? Inconsistency is the Church's culture. The culture is a combination of religion and profit business.

Where do you come up with this? The only thing I've EVER heard from the Church about pornography is, STAY AWAY, IT'S A SIN, IT HARMS RELATIONSHIPS, IT BECOMES ADDICTING. How you know the private counsel of all bishops and state presidents is beyond me.

With that said. Do some Bishops and State Presidents ERROR? Of course they do. It's that human thing. But a "culture of deceit"? Really?

When you meet an episode, you bring it in front of a leader, and you will see the reactions of the leader to the episode. Then, you bring it in front of a leader one level up, and you will see the reactions of the one-level-up leader. Then, you bring it in front of a leader one more level up, and you will see the reactions of the one-more-level-up leader. Then, you bring it in front of the top-level leader, and you will see the reactions of the top-level leader. The episode is not as important as the reactions of the many leaders. Their reactions are the most important thing I use in order to protect my family and my friends and myself.

When you meet an episode? You mean when one sins, the sins are clear cut that lead to excommunication. If one has an "episode" of sin, they will go through the process.

Don't want an "episode" don't sin. Personally I have never had an "episode" in my life, because I live the gospel, and don't have to worry about it.

It sounds like you have had problems with this and worry about it quite a bit, which means you do things against Gods commandments, I find this comment telling of yours.


"Their reactions are the most important thing I use in order to protect my family and my friends and myself"


How do you use their reactions to protect your family? What does that even mean? English bro, English.


Again, I gotta know, what is a prono-activity?

Examples of such episodes are: what to decide to help a poor family, what to decide to help a family with psychological difficulties, what to decide to help a family which husband is trapped with pronography, what to decide to run a quorum activity or a welfare activity for the ward members, etc.

The leaders' decisions and their rationale to make their decisions often (but not always) hurt and scare me, my family, my friends and their family in the Wards or the Stakes. Pretty sad (as said in the D&C 121).

I am genuine and serious with my sayings. I just want to have some discussions which are useful to help the Church members (or the Church).


I'm not following, your saying "episodes" as if their sin that you come up against that cause meetings with the leaders of the church, but now your saying examples of "episodes" are decisions on how to budget church funds.

You are making little sense.


Give an example of how some decision with money and how to budget it for the "poor or needy" has affected you or scared you.


Oh, and it's Pornograpy, not pronography.

When I said "episodes", I did not mean what you guessed to be my meaning,

When I said "what to decide", I not only meant money/budgeting, but also meant strategies, planning, approaches/attitudes, goals/aims, etc. Did you really mean one single thing, re: money/bugeting?

You asked for an example of how some decision..., right? Have you thought to ask for an example of pattern of their decision-making (i.e. compare and contrast several decisions of same nature)? It would be helpful for you to conduct your research and draw your conclusion, even though you might have had your conclusion, and might not need any other conclusions.

Finally, re: Give an example of how some decision with money and how to budget it for the "poor or needy" has affected you or scared you. Please give me some more info/your goals/your intentions/your interests, so that I could say something that might be useful to you. Otherwise, I do not know what you want me to say, except you want me to say I am wrong. If it is really what you want, you have had it already, and you do not have to ask me for it.

I do not know whether or not I will "win" this Q&A between you and me, but I know when I "win" this Q&A, I lose you and your heart. For me, your heart is more valuable than my "winning". Thus, you know you have already had my message "I am wrong", if this is really what you want. OK?


Give an example of the leaders being Mal practice, as you say, and also how they are misusing funds.

I'd take any example of anything your talking about at this point to see if I could understand you at all.

I guess Jaye knows your real name as Kent. If it is true, you are a Mormon, right? If still yes, I definitely move out of your ward, when you are the bishop there. Move out of your stake, when you are the stake president there. Move out of your Area, when you are the Area President. Move out of the Church, when you are the First President. I am serious with this. Following you will definitely spoil my environment for my spiritual and psychological developments. I choose not to follow you. I believe you are called to be a bishop, and I honour and respect you are the anointed. Yet, I do not trust your personality. I do not trust you as a person trusting another person. You do not deserve my answering your questions. ok?

Just a clarification BBBB. I don't know Dubss's real name as being Kent. I don't know his identity and I'm not interested in knowing his identity.

Have you ever watched the old Val Kilmer movie, 'Real Genius'?

If not...watch it...and pay close attention to the behavior of one character...Kent by name.

The behavior of this character is strikingly similar to the behavior Dubss displays on this forum.

This is why a number of us have referred to Dubss as 'Kent'...although Percy Wetmore suits him just as well.


Then watch an older show called "Cheers" play close attention to a charatcer named "clifford clavin" And I think you'll think of Jaye as we all do.


Or think of an old guy that wants so bad to feel important that he goes on line to pointificate for hours long, long winded copy and pastes from websites to make himself seem like he knows what he's talking about, when in reality, he knows just enough to be dangerous.

I'm confused.

Aren't you talking about yourself?

Well the shoe certainly fits old Kent for sure.