I'm a pretty patient man Kent. I think that most on this forum would agree that I have shown the patience of a Saint in dealing with your impertinence and your hat-filled vitriol on this forum.

But I DO draw the line when it comes to mocking my wife, or outright lying about her physical ailments and very real sufferings.

The Wolf would LOVE to attend Church meetings. But neither she, nor I, enjoys the resultant visits to the Emergency Room, or spending most of the week recuperating from exposure to anaphylaxis.

Now you can either accept my word on this...or you can take your opinions and shove them up your narrow-minded little arse.

You would do well to study Anaphylaxis before making any more of your moronic and very calloused comments.

Anaphylaxis

Anaphylaxis is an acute systemic (multi-system) and severe Type I Hypersensitivity allergic reaction in humans and other mammals. The term comes from the Greek words ανα ana (against) and ��λαξι� phylaxis (protection).[1] Minute amounts of allergens may cause a life-threatening anaphylactic reaction. Anaphylaxis may occur after ingestion, skin contact, injection of an allergen or, in rare cases, inhalation.[2]

Anaphylactic shock, the most severe type of anaphylaxis, occurs when an allergic response triggers a quick release from mast cells of large quantities of immunological mediators (histamines, prostaglandins, leukotrienes) leading to systemic vasodilation (associated with a sudden drop in blood pressure) and edema of bronchial mucosa (resulting in bronchoconstriction and difficulty breathing). Anaphylactic shock can lead to death in a matter of minutes if left untreated.

An estimated 1.24% to 16.8% of the population of the United States is considered "at risk" for having an anaphylactic reaction if they are exposed to one or more allergens, especially penicillin and insect stings. Most of these people successfully avoid their allergens and will never experience anaphylaxis. Of those people who actually experience anaphylaxis, up to 1% may die as a result. Anaphylaxis results in approximately 18 deaths per year in the U.S. (compared to 2.4 million deaths from all causes each year in the U.S.). The most common presentation includes sudden cardiovascular collapse (88% of reported cases of severe anaphylaxis)."

Now...if an individual who suffers this malady manages to successfully avoid their allergins, they might never experience anaphylaxis.

My wife is extremely limited in where she might go and manage to avoid her allergins.

We have created a haven for her at home. Her relatives and many of her friends have followed suit.

The Church has not.

IMPO...any man who would willingly allow his wife to be exposed to allergins which could potentially prove harmful, or even fatal...is no kind of a man...and a very shoddy excuse for a husband.

I really don't give a flying fart what your wife THINKS she'd do under the same circumstances.

All I care about is not losing my wife.

So back the F**K OFF!!!

One more thing Kent.

You have insinuated that I would probably accept a Church calling if I were paid to do it.

I already DO serve without remuneration in the capacity of Home Teacher, and have done so for decades.

So no dice Kent. You'll have to try again.

Dubbs wrote:
Jaye wrote:
Dubss provided this cut and paste from Church history as his evidence regarding why God released the Saints from the obligations of the Law of Consecration.

But Dubss has misinterpreted this history.



"The Saints who went to Missouri in the early 1830s were commissioned to live the law of consecration, but they failed to do so.

In 1834 when they were being attacked by mobs and driven from their homes, Joseph Smith led a party known as Zion�s Camp, bringing clothing and provisions. While this party was encamped on Fishing River the Prophet received [a] revelation� (D&C 105 headnote) which began:

Verily I say unto you who have assembled yourselves together that you may learn my will concerning the redemption of mine afflicted people�

Behold, I say unto you, were it not for the transgressions of my people, � they might have been redeemed even now.

But behold, they have not learned to be obedient to the things which I required at their hands, but are full of all manner of evil, and do not impart of their substance, as becometh saints, to the poor and afflicted among them;

And are not united according to the union required by the law of the celestial kingdom;

And Zion cannot be built up unless it is by the principles of the law of the celestial kingdom; otherwise I cannot receive her unto myself.(D&C 105:1�5.)"

Here is where you have erred in interpretation Kent. The Lord was not releasing the people from the obligation of obedience...HE WAS REMINDING THEM THAT OBEDIENCE WAS ABSOLUTELY NECESSARY, AND IF THEY HAD OBEYED THAT EVERLASTING PRINCIPLE OF THE LAW OF CONSECRATION...THEY MIGHT HAVE ALREADY BEEN REDEEMED AT THAT POINT IN TIME.

HE WAS REBUKING THEM FOR THEIR FAILURE, KENT, AND REMINDING THEM THAT ZION COULD NOT BE BUILT UP UNLESS IT WAS BY THE PRINCIPLES OF THE LAW OF THE CELESTIAL KINGDOM...OTHERWISE GOD COULD NOT RECEIVE ZION UNTO HIMSELF.

Geez Kent...did you REALLY think this revelation was releasing the Saints from the Law of Consecration?

If that is true...why did Brigham Young attempt the United Order once the Saints reached Utah?

Or are you saying that God commanded the Saints to live the Law of Consecration, and released them from this obligation a few months later...and then turned around and commanded them through Brigham Young to live the Law of Consecration once they reached Utah?

Oy-flippin-VEY KENT. The way you understand it...God isn't, as he stated in Section 3 of the D&C, unvarying in what He says, and in His paths...but instead God is a changeable as the winds of His latest fancies.

Dubss said:

"Since this revelation was received, Church members have not been required to live the law of consecration."

Incorrect...as I explained above...God was not releasing the Saints from the requirement of living the law of Consecration...HE WAS REMINDING THEM THAT THEY'D BETTER START OBEYING HIM AND LIVING THE LAW OF CONSECRATION...and warning of the consequences should they not obey.



One problem I didn't say it, it was from the churches website, I'll go with that.

Marion G Romney said it. DOH!

1. I didn't say that you said it...I said that you cut and pasted it from Church history.

And the fact remains that you misinterpreted what Marion G.Romney had to say about it.

A. God commanded the Saints to live the Law of Consecration until such time as Christ returned to reign on earth.

This is what was meant by an Everlasting Principle.

There were no excuses, Kent. This law was revealed, they were commanded to live it until Christ returned to reign upon the earth, they failed...and they were in deep doo-doo with God.

In this cut and paste from Church History, God was basically chewing out the Saints. He told them that if only they had been obedient in this principle...they might already have been redeemed.

In other words...they might have enjoyed the same blessing that the City of Enoch enjoyed...translation without ever tasting death.

The entire City and all it's inhabitants ascending into heaven in the twinkling of an eye.

BUT...since they had failed to obey...God gave this warning.

EITHER OBEY...OR FACE THE CONSEQUENCES.

And what were the consequences for failing to live the Law of Consecration?

God explained that if they did not obey this law...He could NOT draw Zion unto Himself.

This means that everything the Saints hoped for would come to naught.

And...they did not apply themselves in light of God's tongue-lashing, and try to live the law.

And since God said that unless they were obedient and lived this law and principle...HE COULD NOT, AND WOULD NOT GATHER ZION UNTO HIMSELF.

Dubss said:

"Yes, man made degrees to do something God has to call you to do. He also get's paid for his writing of priestcraft and anti mormon writings."

God calls whom God chooses to call.

The call to serve comes to many, in many faiths...and not restricted to the Christian faith...nor to the LDS faith.

Some feel God's call to the ministry from their youth...just as Joseph Smith did.

There is nothing wrong with a man, or a woman who has received a call through the Spirit to serve the Lord.

And there is certainly nothing wrong with such a man, or a woman, undergoing extensive education...especially in the area of counseling those in need.

In fact...it would be preferable.

Dubbs wrote:
Wren wrote:
Dubbs wrote:
Jaye wrote:

Russel Ballard clearly indicated that the Bible is directly responsible for motivating young Joseph Smith to walk out to an isolated grove of trees one morning.

Yes, sure it did, but that doesn't say anywhere that any scripture is more important than another, I'm still waiting for this claim.


This indicates to me that the Bible is of utmost importance to the LDS Church.

Utmost as much as the BofM, equal, here's proof from the BofM itself...

The Bible and the Book of Mormon "shall grow together, unto the confounding of false doctrines and laying down of contentions, and establishing peace" (2 Nephi 3:12).

If something grows together, they become equal.


It contains the first witness to salvation through Jesus Christ. And the Book of Mormon is simply another witness to salvation through Jesus Christ.

Simply another witness, to some it's the only witness, and their converstion tool, you downplay it's importance, without it, the LDS faith wouldn't exist.


If both are equal...than the Church's belief that the Book of Mormon is the keystone of the LDS Church is false, and misleading.

It is the keystone because without it, we would be just another church, with it, we have proof of continued revelation, Prophets, etc etc etc, our church would fall without it.

Please notice that Dubbs left out the statement that the Bible is the foundation of Mormonism.


Is the word foundation used in that post? Then how did I leave it out?



Kitkat correctly said that Christ is the Foundation and Cornerstone,

The scriptures are all equal in importance.

Flip-flop, flippety-FLOP!

Wren wrote:
Dubbs wrote:
Wren wrote:
Dubbs wrote:
Jaye wrote:
Just Reading wrote:
Dubbs wrote:
Just Reading wrote:
Dubbs wrote:
Wren wrote:
Dubbs replies, "So again, what does gaslighting mean to you? And how was I gaslighted? // What I showed that if I found an LDS person using LDS computers and time to bash the church, I would turn them in, yes, I would, as would most good LDS people who want to protect the church. // So how was I 'gaslighed again?"

By revealing your rotten character for one, and that you were made a fool of for two.


How is it rotten character protecting my church? I look at that as an honorable person.

Dubbs what you do doesn't protect your Church, it just makes you and your church look bad.....

and by trying to get someone fired from their job for having a different opionion then you!!! there is NOTHING honorable in that......nothing at all....

Don't want to get fired? Don't use company resources and time to bash said company. Espeically my church, I'll turn you in in a heart beat, deal with it.

What ever you say Judas Iscariot....

Interesting isn't it? The teachings found within the gospel indicate that Christ's followers are not to seek ways to put stumbling blocks, or occasions to fall in the paths of their brothers and sisters.

Yet old Kent is just ITCHING to cause trouble, and to do real harm to someone just because he disagrees with him on this forum.


This is not a matter of putting stumbling blocks, it's a matter of looking after the welfare of the church, and having an employee bad mouthing the church, while sitting at a desk and drawing a paycheck from the church, which is

No, Dubbs, you would not. You had the opportunity and bailed. You are a flippety-flop coward.

give me your real name wrenster and i will call Jean today. You dare? Or are cowardly?

Wouldn't change anything since I don't work at the FHC, but rather more than a thousand miles and more away.

But if I gave you my name, you would harass my employers. You are a flippety-flop bunny, who runs away every time.

I picture him more as a cod-fish.