Dubbs wrote:
One thing that did not make sense? Make sense when?

What does that have to do with this story dude?

The John D Lee situation is one that will be worked out with God, no matter what man says or does in the temple. I don't worry about it personally, because I understand this fact. The church is still true, no matter what John D Lee or the leaders of the time did.

The church is true. Something wrong with your listening. You shifted my topic again. I also believe in the Gospel (The Mormon Gospel). Yet, this is not my topic now.

My topic is The Church is inconsistent. A man was found guilty of murder by US Government, and could own the membership through temple ordinances because of one hundred of signatures in a petition. A man was found guilty of publishing prono-related calendars by the Church Government, and could be excommunicated. Which man committed to a larger sin? The former one. If the former one could have mercy in a holy temple, why does the latter one not have mercy in an ordinary disciplinary council? This is inconsistent.

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.

Marylb wrote:
Dubbs wrote:
Marylb wrote:
Dubbs wrote:
Marylb wrote:
I have a good friend in California that was ex-communicated. Her husband wasn't. We all laughed when that happened as you had to know her to understand. She is a rebel. She is a leader as well and surrounded by people in all walks of life dancing for her. Any church would be proud to have this woman attend because of who she is. What she isn't is a mouse. Her greatest passion was books so she opened a chain of bookstores. Everyone agreed THAT was perfect. She found herself at odds with city officials so she ran for office. She won unanimously. In fact the margin was a landslide.

Her husband took the ex-communication in stride though he was more hurt than she seemed to be. His response was quiet on the surface but he never stopped being anything but the husband that loves, admires and is proud of that woman. She was born to be admired and she is. He apparently was born to love her and he does. Madly!

So for those ex-communicated for any reason, if there is TRUE love, ex-communication only makes people outside the marriage happy. I think of him and his eyes as they light up still, when she walks in the room and I think what a waste this all is and what a joke that any family is so weak in structure that this would even have meaning.

She still owns her world and she is still a little powerhouse and I personally LOVE it that she was ex-communicated for some undefinable reasoning and I love it that some few "little people" shunned her and I love it that her Mormon in good standing caters to her every whim as she does him. I love the love and I love the respect and I love the miserable outside parties. Who couldn't?

In the name of the city she named a street after a loved one of mine who passed away. The bylaws didn't allow it but she moved heaven and earth to make it happen because a representative long before she took office said he was going to do it, and didn't. That in and of itself means little except to show she was never one to be denied. And Mormons, Catholics, agnostics, athiests etc have to go through her if they have a localized need. Sweet, sweet justice. lol

I'm posting this because I am giving back and this string is a perfect setting to honor a magnificent woman of spirit who still rocks a piece of California.

So...bite me.

What was she excommunicated for?

What is an "miserable outside party" you love so much?

The miserable outside parties were the very, very few non-discript "little people in little boxes" who actually stopped talking to her. That had to be the funniest part of it all...they appeared to be miserable folk who wouldn't know happiness if it snuck up and bit them.

As for why she was ex-communicated I never knew. I knew the person who wouldn't know how to sin in her life except for this one time...oh nevermind. Anyway, who knows but more important, who cares. It isn't like she is a party animal. She has a big mouth when it comes to wrongdoing. Maybe that fierce heart for all things right done-done her in? Honestly I don't much care why she was booted as it doesn't much matter for couples and friends of couples who know what real love and marriage means. This is a minor issue for those who love.

I leave it to the little people to seek answers for a division that didn't work out that way. Her confident Mormon friends didn't seem to care much so why should any stranger? As a non-Mormon myself, she is just a very good friend with a beautiful mind.


Somethings strange about her story, at least the way you tell it. She was at odds with the city council, but you don't know why she was excommunicated?

What kind of book store was it?

Why would the city council be on her?

Let's start there and see if we can see if she really is this great person you are portraying.
You crack me up. Surely you can just say "I think you are lying". lol

Silly boy. I wouldn't say it if I didn't mean it. You don't know that but I like your uptight way of not confronting truth. Kind of a lying way don'tcha think? Why, I ask you, would I care why she was ex-communicated. The sad answer is it never much mattered except to be a funny conclusion. She is a friend not a convict. lol

Real people are that way Dubbs. And if they think you are lying they don't hem haw around with suspician, they ask up front. I didn't mention city council did I? Just a book store like any other book store. Her passion is romance novels so I am pretty, pretty sure they are there. Did I say when she opened the book store (before or after the event?) Did I say the City council was "on her"?

Lets start with this. She is a great gal and that "ain't" no lie. What I wrote is what happened and what is. What you ask is a sad attempt at avoidance. Man up babe and just say what you mean. As if you actually think I care to share her personal information with you, a guy so filled with a multitude of self-important flaws? Not gonna happen. Anyone who can't even say what they mean with honesty may need to examine their own life.

Lets start with that and see if you are as shallow as you appear.

Question: Did you think I would stand for your dishonest suggestion of her charactor or did you only think someone who tells it like it is would not recognise your smarmy bottom line on truth? I only wonder which motive it is.

WOW Marylb is so, so much smarter then you Dubbs,
I would quit now if I was you "LOL"

Dubbs wrote:
Marylb wrote:
Dubbs wrote:
Marylb wrote:
Dubbs wrote:
Marylb wrote:
I have a good friend in California that was ex-communicated. Her husband wasn't. We all laughed when that happened as you had to know her to understand. She is a rebel. She is a leader as well and surrounded by people in all walks of life dancing for her. Any church would be proud to have this woman attend because of who she is. What she isn't is a mouse. Her greatest passion was books so she opened a chain of bookstores. Everyone agreed THAT was perfect. She found herself at odds with city officials so she ran for office. She won unanimously. In fact the margin was a landslide.

Her husband took the ex-communication in stride though he was more hurt than she seemed to be. His response was quiet on the surface but he never stopped being anything but the husband that loves, admires and is proud of that woman. She was born to be admired and she is. He apparently was born to love her and he does. Madly!

So for those ex-communicated for any reason, if there is TRUE love, ex-communication only makes people outside the marriage happy. I think of him and his eyes as they light up still, when she walks in the room and I think what a waste this all is and what a joke that any family is so weak in structure that this would even have meaning.

She still owns her world and she is still a little powerhouse and I personally LOVE it that she was ex-communicated for some undefinable reasoning and I love it that some few "little people" shunned her and I love it that her Mormon in good standing caters to her every whim as she does him. I love the love and I love the respect and I love the miserable outside parties. Who couldn't?

In the name of the city she named a street after a loved one of mine who passed away. The bylaws didn't allow it but she moved heaven and earth to make it happen because a representative long before she took office said he was going to do it, and didn't. That in and of itself means little except to show she was never one to be denied. And Mormons, Catholics, agnostics, athiests etc have to go through her if they have a localized need. Sweet, sweet justice. lol

I'm posting this because I am giving back and this string is a perfect setting to honor a magnificent woman of spirit who still rocks a piece of California.

So...bite me.

What was she excommunicated for?

What is an "miserable outside party" you love so much?

The miserable outside parties were the very, very few non-discript "little people in little boxes" who actually stopped talking to her. That had to be the funniest part of it all...they appeared to be miserable folk who wouldn't know happiness if it snuck up and bit them.

As for why she was ex-communicated I never knew. I knew the person who wouldn't know how to sin in her life except for this one time...oh nevermind. Anyway, who knows but more important, who cares. It isn't like she is a party animal. She has a big mouth when it comes to wrongdoing. Maybe that fierce heart for all things right done-done her in? Honestly I don't much care why she was booted as it doesn't much matter for couples and friends of couples who know what real love and marriage means. This is a minor issue for those who love.

I leave it to the little people to seek answers for a division that didn't work out that way. Her confident Mormon friends didn't seem to care much so why should any stranger? As a non-Mormon myself, she is just a very good friend with a beautiful mind.


Somethings strange about her story, at least the way you tell it. She was at odds with the city council, but you don't know why she was excommunicated?

What kind of book store was it?

Why would the city council be on her?

Let's start there and see if we can see if she really is this great person you are portraying.
You crack me up. Surely you can just say "I think you are lying". lol

Silly boy. I wouldn't say it if I didn't mean it. You don't know that but I like your uptight way of not confronting truth. Kind of a lying way don'tcha think? Why, I ask you, would I care why she was ex-communicated. The sad answer is it never much mattered except to be a funny conclusion. She is a friend not a convict. lol

Real people are that way Dubbs. And if they think you are lying they don't hem haw around with suspician, they ask up front. I didn't mention city council did I? Just a book store like any other book store. Her passion is romance novels so I am pretty, pretty sure they are there. Did I say when she opened the book store (before or after the event?) Did I say the City council was "on her"?

Lets start with this. She is a great gal and that "ain't" no lie. What I wrote is what happened and what is. What you ask is a sad attempt at avoidance. Man up babe and just say what you mean. As if you actually think I care to share her personal information with you, a guy so filled with a multitude of self-important flaws? Not gonna happen. Anyone who can't even say what they mean with honesty may need to examine their own life.

Lets start with that and see if you are as shallow as you appear.

Question: Did you think I would stand for your dishonest suggestion of her charactor or did you only think someone who tells it like it is would not recognise your smarmy bottom line on truth? I only wonder which motive it is.


I notice you avoid the question, telling.


Again, why was the city council getting involved with her at all? What did they claim she did?


Your lack of understanding of why she was excommunicated is also telling, she could be have been running a porn site for all you know, would you think the same of her then?

I sometimes felt sorry for you when others showed utmost distain for you but now I get it. You are not just a small time liar in trying to make an invalid point with smarmy material but you are also not very bright and that combination earns contempt points. Did you even read my answer to you? If so why would you repeat your ignorant wrong-headed questioning? Don't you have to at least establish that your off the wall questions have any validity? Thus far they were made up in your mind and you are sticking with them. I never mentioned city council related to her nor did I say when she opened the book store (before or after ex-communication.) I'll just say if you want porn, you'd avoid her well respected book stores. I'll add this: If you believed your made up city council, how in the heck can you come up with her as the owner of a porn shop considering her elected official position of some level. You are one thick piece of work.

Dubbs wrote:
BBBB wrote:
[
My topic was: using the Ads (not using technology).


Actually the topic here is excommunication of this person who made a calender, not sure why it went from that to Ads.


You shifted my topic to a new topic. You did not listen, as similarly the guy talking about your motives of questioning the bookstore was not listening to you.

No, I asked for clarification why you made a post about the church using modern communication devices, and what that has to do with this topic, and why it's a problem anyway?

The David Letterman was like a soap opera, for me. It was a cheap image. The Church did not use Ads 30 years ago, because the Church did not want a cheap image.

I don't think using advertising creates a cheap image, if it did, the church would not use it. All the advertising I've seen is well done and does not cheapen anything, you have an ad you are speaking of that shows otherwise, show it, or I think you are not accurate.



Next, John D. Lee was assisted in resuming temple ceremonies, because of one hundred of signatures, not because of a message from Heaven that Lee was innocent. It was politics, more than truths the Church employed. What a changing Gospel! What an inconsistency of the Church!


Doesn't really make the church true or not true, the doctrines of the church are what make it truth. As I said, the John Lee situation will be worked out in heaven between he and God, what man does in a temple has no bearing. Doesn't make the church not true.

And what did this have to do with this topic anyway ? Your a strange duck dude.

The guy making a prono-related calendar was ex-communicated because he offended the authority in the Church Court. If he soothed the authority in the Church Court, he would not be excommunicated. A member was excommunicated because the Church wanted to excommunicate him. If the Church wanted to resume the membership for a man guilty of murder, the Church would do it, no matter whether or not guilty of murder.

A Church Leader appeared to be a guest in the David Letterman's Show. For me, it is a cheap image of the Church, but the Church gained some air time, gained some effects (or popularity) given by advertising. A guest in the Show is a way to advertise oneself.

Excommunicating the guy make prono-related calendar is just an individual episode of inconsistency in the Church's culture. This is my topic.

Dubbs wrote:
Just Reading wrote:
Dubbs wrote:
utocoman wrote:
Boys and girls. The LDS church is really the church of Joeseph's myth. Now move along to real world events.

Opinion, conjecture, stupidity.

No Dubbs, utocoman is wrong!!

The LDS church is "NOT" the church of Joeseph's myth, at least not anymore!!!

The LDS Church has changed,
for one the church does not like it's past and is trying to get as far away from it as possible, they don't want members to have beards anymore, and since Dubbs you said something about James the Church wants to get away from the Drugs, that they used to see visions when the church first started like Peyote Cactus, Amanita muscaria and the Datura species, The Church is staying away from Poligamy and they don't let the prophet and members marry little under aged girls anymore, they have let the blacks get the Priesthood They are still into Banking but so far they have not stolen all the peoples money out of it, like Joseph did his bank, so no I don't think the Church wants to be the Joeseph's myth church anymore

Well if it's not a myth anymore, get back to church big!! LOL

I never said it wasn't a myth anymore,
I said the LDS Church is trying to avoid what Joseph Smith and Brigham Young added to the church,

Now as the belief in a mythical, imaginary or fictitious thing or person like you and your church does is up to you,
You can believe what you want to believe Dubbs but don't try and force or tell others that your way is the truth it is not....

BBBB wrote:
Dubbs wrote:
BBBB wrote:
[
My topic was: using the Ads (not using technology).


Actually the topic here is excommunication of this person who made a calender, not sure why it went from that to Ads.


You shifted my topic to a new topic. You did not listen, as similarly the guy talking about your motives of questioning the bookstore was not listening to you.

No, I asked for clarification why you made a post about the church using modern communication devices, and what that has to do with this topic, and why it's a problem anyway?

The David Letterman was like a soap opera, for me. It was a cheap image. The Church did not use Ads 30 years ago, because the Church did not want a cheap image.

I don't think using advertising creates a cheap image, if it did, the church would not use it. All the advertising I've seen is well done and does not cheapen anything, you have an ad you are speaking of that shows otherwise, show it, or I think you are not accurate.



Next, John D. Lee was assisted in resuming temple ceremonies, because of one hundred of signatures, not because of a message from Heaven that Lee was innocent. It was politics, more than truths the Church employed. What a changing Gospel! What an inconsistency of the Church!


Doesn't really make the church true or not true, the doctrines of the church are what make it truth. As I said, the John Lee situation will be worked out in heaven between he and God, what man does in a temple has no bearing. Doesn't make the church not true.

And what did this have to do with this topic anyway ? Your a strange duck dude.

The guy making a prono-related calendar was ex-communicated because he offended the authority in the Church Court. If he soothed the authority in the Church Court, he would not be excommunicated. A member was excommunicated because the Church wanted to excommunicate him. If the Church wanted to resume the membership for a man guilty of murder, the Church would do it, no matter whether or not guilty of murder.

A Church Leader appeared to be a guest in the David Letterman's Show. For me, it is a cheap image of the Church, but the Church gained some air time, gained some effects (or popularity) given by advertising. A guest in the Show is a way to advertise oneself.

Excommunicating the guy make prono-related calendar is just an individual episode of inconsistency in the Church's culture. This is my topic.

If it bothers you so, I'd recommend contacting the LDS church leadership about it. No one here can tell you why a person is, or isn't, excommunicated, only those responsible (and the person excommunicated) can do that.