Jaye 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.

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.


And isn't that what you are doing as you DON'T EVEN WEAR YOUR GARMENTS TO WORK?? And getting paid?

Sir John the Apostate wrote:
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.




It's not relevant, your trying to compare two issues from two different eras.

And your not smart enough to follow logic, I couldn't explain it to you for your simpleton mind to grasp, so I won't.

Dubbs wrote:
Jaye wrote:
Dubbs wrote:
BBBB wrote:
When their date relationship grows to a certain extent, either they take one step forward (to get married, to give a family to each other, etc.), or they take one step backward (to give up their date relationship, and to find someone who can give a family). That is a part of romantic love (in my eyes.) For pure friendship, we do not care when the friend relationship stops to grow and stays at a certain extent for a very long time.

If I see my relationship with Church by the view of friend relationship, I can see those problematic Church policies and practice (ONLY SOME Church policies and practice are problematic) and imagine I am seeing a movie, and I can just give a smile to whatever I see.

If I see my relationship with Church by the view of DATE relationship, I can see those problematic Church policies and practice and think when and how I can have a family and I can give a family to her. A family is a protection, a service, a commitment, etc. to each other. I can wait for a family, when I am not loving the girl so much. When my romantic love for the girl is becoming bigger and bigger, I will find out whether or not we can get married. If yes, both of us started doing something to prepare the marriage/family. If no, do not waste my time, and do not waste your time, and both of us had better find another one who can give us a family (a place suitable for my psychological and spiritual developments). Otherwise, the romantic love is a movie (not a reality). I am a very genuine person, and I do not like anything too virtual.


Dude, just a hint, until you tell us what the sam hell your talking about specifically, notbody even understands enough of your jiberish to even comment.


Oh, and stop with the attempt at parables, Only Christ was good at those, you are not.

The definition of a parable is this:

A parable is a brief, succinct story, in prose or verse, that illustrates a moral or religious lesson. It differs from a fable in that fables use animals, plants, inanimate objects, and forces of nature as actors while parables generally are stories featuring human actors or agents.

Jesus used parables, but Jesus was not the only individual who utilized parables in instruction, nor was He the only individual who was skilled in using parables.

Remember...Jesus was often frustrated by his Disciples frequent inability to decipher the meaning of His parables.

Parables are found within the Quran, and the Hasidic teachings.

Buddha taught utilizing parables.


Some are good at them, some are not, you and BBBB fall into the latter.


Clear and concise (short, not long winded) is a better way to communicate here.

1. Not every parable is clear and concise.

2. Even Christ's disciples didn't always grasp His meanings when he taught in Parables.

3. Other people have grasped my meaning when I have utilized parables.

The problem doesn't lie with my parables...but with your own poor level of comprehension and poor attention span.

Dubbs wrote:
Sir John the Apostate wrote:
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.




It's not relevant, your trying to compare two issues from two different eras.

And your not smart enough to follow logic, I couldn't explain it to you for your simpleton mind to grasp, so I won't.

Besides, what are you saying, that rich people can't be Christian?

Dubbs wrote:
KitKat wrote:
Dubbs wrote:
KitKat wrote:
Dubbs wrote:
Jaye wrote:

Are you going to try to claim that you and your wife have NEVER watched an R rated movie?


When we were married we promised each other we would follow the PRophets council, do you know the Prophets council in this regard Jaye?


Jaye said ..."rated are movies are porn anyways"

Yes, that's why we are counciled not to view the filth that is coming out more and more in the last days, you obviously don't follow this advice.
Heh...

I watch alot of "R" rated movies. Ever see "Fatal Attraction"? The Lethal Weapon movies? Some of my favorites..

By the way, if you keep throwing that word out, learn to spell it right. It is COUNSEL or COUNSELED.


Well why doesn't THAT surprise me you both don't follow the Prophets counsel.

Your both two peas in a pod.


You both ripped Marie Osmond a few months ago, only to find you Jaye does something similar, and you do also Kitkat.


The hypocrite twins.
Hypocrite? You just admitted you don't always wear your own garments, so isn't it a little hypocritical of you to get on me? You're a damn joke.

You sit there at your computer "yelling" at people who you think don't follow the prophets counsel. And yet, look at yourself, being all judgmental. Hypocritical? You bet. You have no room at all to be judging anyone else, so get off your high horse.


Never said I do the same things, I said I follow the guidlines given in the Bishops handbook.

Now YOU are the one ripping Marie, while doing the same thing.
Yes you did say you remove your garments for a period of time and then put them back on. Or was that a lie?

There are plenty of beautiful dresses out there that would cover Marie's garments if she so chose. And you know it, so shut up. The church counsels us to dress modestly. Baring your whole back, and I do mean the whole back, is not modest according to Church standards. I'm not ripping Marie, I know the kid and love her. I'm simply stating a fact.

As a teenager, my bishop was always commending me for dressing modestly and not going along with the crowd. And I still do, regardless of what you think.

Jaye wrote:
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.

True story.

Oops there we go being perverts again.