Girl Raised in the South wrote:
BBBB wrote:
"Hi, guys and wrenches
I am thinking: someday I might have a chance to meet many of you on here, in person, in order to show you all my complaints letters to the Church leaders, to discuss my doings, and to digest my own experience, to re-structure my own psychology."



How many complaint letters have you sent to Church leaders, local and/or Church headquarters?


Seriously, this guy seems like he complains about everything.

I've known people like him, it's just what they do, go around finding fault in people so they can complain, the Bishop get's tired of it and asks them to stop, (which his Bishop had to do) and so they start emailing and writing letters to Salt Lake, this BBBB even sounds like he traved to SL to complain in person.


And if his communication skills are the same as they are here, I think I see where the confusion is coming from.

Jaye wrote:
[
1. The condo is given to them for as long as they live.

2. I wouldn't consider a condo worth $1.2 MILLION dollars in SLC to be a modest little cottage either..


The condo is "Given to them" or is it used as an office for their work and home?


You understand the difference right?


You don't seem to understand that it's not "given" to them as an asset they can sell, pass along to relatives right?

It's used by them while they are in service to the chuch, not "given' to them as something they own.


As I said you love to twist things to make the brethen look bad, just another example.

BLogan wrote:
Blog801 wrote:
Tch tch tch. Will you just look at those posts?! Some people are definitely struggling with deep-rooted religious hate issues, aren't they? [Laughing]

I'm sure most of us are smart enough not to bite the baloney Keeper and utocoman are selling, but just in case...

Please note that "The Brethren at Temple Square" do in fact accept tithing earned by people in honest occupations, even if they live in Las Vegas. The church does not, however, accept tithing from excommunicated members of the church. Nor does the LDS Church accept tithing on proceeds from gambling, including lottery winnings.

Apparently, that makes the Church a Mammon-grubbing cult in some people's eyes.

I don't know. I'd stick around to ponder that, but I'm off to my returned-missionary photo shoot.

And if you could please excuse utocoman and Keeper, they are late for a cross burning.

I thought Provo city changed their minds and decided not to require everyone but non-Mormons to submit to background checks.

"God's word" the holy Bible speaks of the mark of beast being 666 but apparently in Provo city a Mormon temple recommend or membership is currentlyin place.


Huh?

Jaye wrote:
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.


The fact that you can't see the difference between going swimming and these young men in photos, is telling.


The fact that you argued that Marie is wrong to do what she did with her garments, but now we find out that you don't even wear garments all day long while working, is also just another example of the hypocrite that you are.


By the way, couldn't you wear your garments, then take off your shirt while working, then replace the shirt and garment when able? I've worked in the sun and had jobs outside, and have done this many times, but to just not wear them all day long to me is not following the Bishops handbook, but that is for you to decide, but just shows your level of commitment to me.

Well.........If it isn't Mr. Smug this fine Sabbath day spewing his hatred/opinions of Jaye.

I hear the angels calling from on high to get you off the computer and this forum on this SABBATH DAY.

******Bells ringing******

Don't you hear them dubbs?????? Be a real priesthood holder and not the shallow little man you show us here on the DH......

Have Wonderful Day dubbss.....

Jaye wrote:
[bYou have also recently mentioned not really having spoken much with your Stake President either.

What's the problem Kent? You as pissy with your area leaders as you are here on the forum?.


When you follow the Prophets, my thinking is you won't speak to them personally very often, with the exception of a stake calling, or a Temple recommend interview, which is now every two years. So yes, I haven't had a need to visit with them.


I guess when you have to get exceptions and agrue silly things like whether wine is a drink you can use for your sacrament etc, I guess you would see them more often. I would imagine there are other silly things you argue with them about.

You actually remind me of BBBB in many ways.