Dubbs wrote:
KitKat wrote:
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.


No, I said when I work out, I take them off, work out, shower, put them back on. As has been an excpetion in the Bishops handbook that is Ok, do you even know what a bishops handbook is Kitkat? Or what it says on this topic?
Yes, honey, I do know what the Bishop's handbook is. (That was said sarcastically, for your simple mind). For your infomation, spending several hours in hot sun doing yard work and sweating like a stuck hog IS a workout. And I'll wear my shorts (NOT daisy dukes..) and my modest tank top for the time being. After i shower, I put my garments back on. How in the hell is that any different from what you do. Enough of the judging, you little hypocrite.

Sir John the Apostate wrote:
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.

I'll take that to mean that, you don't have a defence for your argument Percy.




Take it however you want, because what your saying in reality is if a man has money, he can't be Christian, and that is simply not true, and you are ignorant and shows me more clearly you fell out of bed, not getting in far enough.

Dubbs wrote:
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?

What's that part about "it's as hard for a rich man in to enter heaven. As it is for a camel to go through the eye of a needle"?

Dubbs wrote:
Sir John the Apostate wrote:
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.

I'll take that to mean that, you don't have a defence for your argument Percy.




Take it however you want, because what your saying in reality is if a man has money, he can't be Christian, and that is simply not true, and you are ignorant and shows me more clearly you fell out of bed, not getting in far enough.
And you are way too far in bed. Take that to mean what you will.

KitKat wrote:
Dubbs wrote:
KitKat wrote:
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.


No, I said when I work out, I take them off, work out, shower, put them back on. As has been an excpetion in the Bishops handbook that is Ok, do you even know what a bishops handbook is Kitkat? Or what it says on this topic?
Yes, honey, I do know what the Bishop's handbook is. (That was said sarcastically, for your simple mind). For your infomation, spending several hours in hot sun doing yard work and sweating like a stuck hog IS a workout. And I'll wear my shorts (NOT daisy dukes..) and my modest tank top for the time being. After i shower, I put my garments back on. How in the hell is that any different from what you do. Enough of the judging, you little hypocrite.


And that's fine, I agree with you that you are fine, never said otherwise, what I have disagreed with you on is how you ripped Marie for her custume she wore for a show, as an entertainer, I don't see that as wrong. You do, fine, let her Bishop judge her.

Sir John the Apostate wrote:
Dubbs wrote:
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?

What's that part about "it's as hard for a rich man in to enter heaven. As it is for a camel to go through the eye of a needle"?




Is there exceptions? Or is that a "accross the board" rule?