Dubbs wrote:
KitKat wrote:
Dubbs wrote:
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.
What's very telling to me is that you supported Marie in removing her garments, but you're saying these young missionaries were wrong. Same diff!! Or did you just like the view of Marie better? Pervert.



If you don't see a difference between Marie and these missionaries, I can't help you.

Well Marie is female and, the missionaries are male. It's really very elementary.

Dubbs wrote:
KitKat wrote:
Dubbs wrote:
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.
What's very telling to me is that you supported Marie in removing her garments, but you're saying these young missionaries were wrong. Same diff!! Or did you just like the view of Marie better? Pervert.



If you don't see a difference between Marie and these missionaries, I can't help you.

1. There is no difference. Marie wears immodest attire and she gets paid good money to do so.

These return missionaries took off their shirts and posed shirtless. I don't know whether or not they were paid...but the fact remains that even if they did it for a bit of attention...Marie has done quite a LOT of things specifically for attention.

2. I have never asked for your help, I don't want your help...and you are ill equipped to help ANYONE with ANYTHING.

Sir John the Apostate wrote:
Dubbs wrote:
Sir John the Apostate wrote:
Dubbs wrote:
Sir John the Apostate wrote:
Dubbs wrote:
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.

Tell me something Percy. What size condo did Jesus live in?

Did they have condo's back then?


Different era apostate, differing times.

OK what size home did he live in then?




Differing times, differing circumstances apostate, silly arugement, immature arguement.

Was Jesus's home located in the richest part of town? Was it in a luxurious neighborhood?

You haven't answered the question yet Percy.

Jaye wrote:
[b]

They are given access to a condo worth $1.2 MILLION dollars to use until the day that they draw their last breath on the earth.
.

Who cares what it's worth if they aren't given it as an asset, what does that have to do with the price of rice in China.

I'm glad to see you changed it from "given the condo" to "given access to the condo"


That is more accurate and less twisting of the brethens acomodations to make them look bad.

Sir John the Apostate wrote:
Dubbs wrote:
KitKat wrote:
Dubbs wrote:
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.
What's very telling to me is that you supported Marie in removing her garments, but you're saying these young missionaries were wrong. Same diff!! Or did you just like the view of Marie better? Pervert.



If you don't see a difference between Marie and these missionaries, I can't help you.

Well Marie is female and, the missionaries are male. It's really very elementary.

HAR!!!

Yep...there's always THAT.

I'd probably rather see her in one of those skimpy costumes she wore for Dancing With the Stars than to see a bunch of guys without shirts at any rate.

She's managed to keep her looks pretty well...considering all she's been through in her life and times.

Dubbs wrote:
KitKat wrote:
Dubbs wrote:
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.
What's very telling to me is that you supported Marie in removing her garments, but you're saying these young missionaries were wrong. Same diff!! Or did you just like the view of Marie better? Pervert.



If you don't see a difference between Marie and these missionaries, I can't help you.
Good grief. Did I even ask for your help? You're the one who needs help.