Well gotta go the Doc's back-or is it I need to go so it looks like I have some sort of life! It is Friday night and to be posting just seems inherently wrong.

Egads-no doc I'm not on the internet. . . .

Crazy Pete wrote:
Lovie wrote:
Crazy Pete wrote:
Lovie wrote:
On the site LDS Church Temples, you will find that the changing moon can represent the stages of human progression from birth to resurrection or represent the patron's journey from darkness to light.

As stated more ancient forms of Moon phases can be found in, pagan beliefs regarding Diana or Artemis, the Queen of heaven. Moving yet further in time to about the 1600's and the height of enlightenment regarding witches, we find that the dark phases of the moon are for black magic, the full phases of the Moon for white magic.

As Mormon theology emerged in it's early years of development to the death of Joseph Smith hints of a feminine god emerged, with little of the divine feminine being canonized. Two weeks before Smith organized the Female Relief Society of Nauvoo, Ill., in 1842, he told the women that "the Society should move according to the ancient Priesthood" and he was "going to make this Society a kingdom of priests as in Enoch's day - as in Paul's day."

Joseph also wrote in his diary that, “At two o'clock I met the members of the 'Female Relief Society,' and after presiding at the admission of many new members, gave a lecture on the Priesthood, showing how the sisters would come in possession of the privileges, blessings and gifts of the Priesthood." (HC 4:602)

When Joseph Smith established parallel quorum to the priesthood he said, "I now turn the keys to you in the name of God and the Society shall rejoice and knowledge and intelligence shall flow down from this time." The April 28, 1842 minutes provide a wonderful insight into Joseph Smith's thinking. He also said that he was speaking because "some little things was circulating in the Society, that some persons were not going right in laying hands on the sick, &c." Joseph told them it was appropriate for them to heal the sick and implied that still greater gifts were in store for them when the Church was "organized in its proper order." Speaking with a sense of urgency while delivering them the keys he gently reminded them, "if God has appointed him and chosen him as an instrument to lead the Church, why not let him lead it through!"

Lovie are you saying that LDS women held/hold the priesthood-BLASPHEMY!! Everyone knows Spencer Kimball taught the only way his wife held the priesthood was every night.

I like this post interesting thought that JS told them it was appropriate for them to heal the sick and implied that still greater gifts were in store for them when the Church was organized in its proper order.

Call me crazy but a never changing god doesn't seem to know how to make up his mind-but we all know what I think about that. For those that don't see one of my early rants.

A mad as ever

Pete

I've been posting my artcial a few paragraphs at a time. The next few paragraphs are juicy!

Don't let D Oakes read this he would have to do a lot of back tracking. Sillie men. "You know who" can't help his ignorance, he's just following blindly.

Looks like you didn't get boosted. Good for you. So crazy hows "You know who's" wife and your kids?

I have felt pretty bad about the whole sorted affair. I think the advice of Sir John and your trying not to speak to certain persons might be in my best interest-less ranting

I have seen your posts on the moon and the feminine divine, wasn't sure where you were going. Interesting stuff though.

Crazy Pete

Where is Lovie going with all this Pish posh? I don't know just think the female deity's are interesting. J Smith was on the right track and then the evil designs of men railroaded the whole thing and wala the Mormon Church as we now know it. Should have left it alone... we would have been translated by now.

You have a fun Friday. I'm going to get Mr LOvie to take me out. Its been a while. Maybe we'll go see the grandbaby

Dubbs wrote:
Jaye wrote:
Dubbs wrote:
Jaye wrote:
Dubbs wrote:
Jaye wrote:
Dubbs wrote:
Jaye wrote:
Dubbs wrote:
Jaye wrote:
[bIf one of my crew deigned to badmouth the company...he is only badmouthing his own work, and the work of his fellow employees...because my employees ARE the company. And not a one of my employees are going to badmouth their own work..


Fact remains, you would fire that employee, but would it be the employee's fault who turned him in for bad mouthing the company? No, you wouldn't blame him, but you would blame me for doing the same thing.

And my reason for turning him in would be of a spiritual nature, as it is something sacred to me, but you still see a difference? Your beyond help, because you are not logical and see only your side any story.

Do not presume to tell me how I would deal with my employees Dubbs.

You have no understanding regarding contracting, or dealing with construction crews.

And you have no understanding of the character of men like those who represent our company.

In 'real life' Dubbs...out in the dog eat dog of rude, crude construction workers...it isn't the guy who might do a little complaining about the boss, or the company rules, or company policies who is detested the most...but the rat who can't wait to turn his crew mate in for complaining who is detested the most.

It was the same in school. There was always a class rat-fink who ran to tattle every time someone looked at him cross ways, or any time he overheard other kids complaining about a teacher, or the principle, or about the school rules of behavior.

And to tell the truth...the teachers and the principles didn't really like the little rat finks either.

Nobody likes a rat fink. Nobody has any respect for the rat fink.

And it's usually the rat fink who comes out at the bottom of the dog-pile in the end.

This is a lesson which apparently you have never learned.

I have had companies where I worked with executives, rich powerful men, and understand how to do business, as do I.

Fact remains, if an employee of yours did what I said, you would fire him, and you wouldn't blame the employee who turned him in.

Fact is, you are a hypocrite in many areas, this being one more.

The only relevant fact here on this discussion is that you have no clue about the construction business in general, or in how General Contractors typically operate their businesses Dubbs.

There is a marked difference in the behavior of most every General I've ever had the privilege of knowing or working with...and the kind of high-powered executives you are thinking of.

I have also known many rich and powerful men, Dubbs, not only in the field of Construction and General Contracting, but in other avenues of business as well...men who have been clients of mine for decades.

Some of the richest, most powerful guys I know aren't afraid to pull on some old jeans, and a tee shirt and steel toed boots and a hard hat and go out in the field every day with his guys and get his hands dirty.

Sure...there are always those rich and powerful execs who sport their sprayed on tans, and highly manicured and lotioned hands and drive around in their Maseratis, and work Monday-Friday 9-5, and strut around giving orders, and issuing ultimatums, and hiring ornamental secretaries and firing guys who are approaching retirement for no good reason at all, so to screw them out of benefits...but those aren't usually the guys who merit, or receive the loyalty of their employees.

It's the guys who don't put on airs, and who actually get out there and shoulder the load who receive the respect and loyalty of their employees.

Don't be tricked into thinking that a rich and powerful executive would be happy with the corporate rat, Dubbs. Don't be tricked into thinking that the rat will be rewarded for finking out his co-worker.

More often, all the rat fink accomplishes is to attract unwanted attention upon himself...and usually they end up in the unemployment line right behind the poor slob they ratted out.

To tell the absolute truth...unless the erring employee is selling corporate secrets...the big boss doesn't really give a flying fig what an employee thinks about him, or the way he operates his business, or even what he thinks about the quality of the product they are selling...so long as that employee shows up for work on time every shift, and puts in an honest day of work for his pay.

Again...you haven't got a clue how it works.

Oh, I understand business more than you want to admit, and would put my business portfollio up against yours anyday.

Fact remains, you would fire the employee that bad mouthed your company, and you wouldn't blame the guy who told you he was bad mouthing the company.

Same diff sis.


That you want to deflect the conversation on who knows more about business is just a deflection from the fact you know I'm right about an employee not being moral bad mouthing a company. but then get on me that I would do the same. Hypocrite.

Again...do not presume to speak for me, my business practices...and what I might possibly terminate employment for Dubbs.

I really don't give a rat's patooties about your portfolio Dubbs...because wealth is not everything.

The Savior spoke of seeking one's treasures in heaven, rather than concerning themselves with worldly wealth.

I agree...and what matters more to me about any man or woman is what kind of human being they are.


Deflection.

Obviously you would terminate an employee who was speaking ill of your company, and if you wouldn't, your an idiot even bigger than I imagined.

And only an idiot would blame the employee who came and told you the guy is mouthing your company, for the guy bad mouthing being fired.


Same diff sis.

See your silly logic yet? I will repeat till you get it.

It's the same situation dude, obviously it is also wrong. Yet you say I would be to blame for a guy getting fired? No he was responsible for his own actions. typical Jaye logic.

1. Deflection? No Dubbs...just the way it is in my business.

If an employee speaks ill of the company...he is speaking ill of himself, and his co-workers. That is the way it stands with the nature of my business.

If an employee speaks ill of me...he is, of course, entitled to his opinions, and so long as he shows up for work on time, and puts in an honest day of work...I really don't care what he thinks of me personally.

And I have a policy which my employees are well aware of that if they have questions, or concerns about their work, or the business, or company policies...they are free to come to me any time they wish, and we will discuss them.

Unlike some employers, who have very rigid standards of inter-office discipline, who rarely if ever stoop to actually speaking with their employees face to face...I am actually out there with the crew, and have an open policy of communication even with the newest trainees.

As a matter of fact...I would be more likely to terminate the employment of a company rat fink who is trying to stir up trouble in the ranks, or who is being disloyal to his crew mates than to terminate the employment of someone who disagrees with me, or the way I run my business.

Why? Because the crew must depend upon each other for our mutual safety, and even our very lives out in the field.

There is a level of trust which must be maintained between crew members, especially when operating and working around heavy equipment.

Now you, on the other hand...I can easily picture you as having worked as a corporate headhunter. I can easily picture your immense enjoyment as you spied on the employees, and wrote up your reports and recommendations for termination of erring employees.

It takes a certain type of personality to not only enjoy, but to excell in such a task. And I believe that personality matches yours to a tee.

I believe that the reason my crew are so loyal to the company is due to the fact that they understand that they ARE the company...and they understand that I encourage open lines of communication between everyone, down to the newest trainees.

2. I am not your sister Dubbs. Do at least try to act like an adult.

3. I believe that you were recently blathering about your opinion that repeating something over and over didn't make it truth. But don't let me stop you. Go ahead and repeat your nonsense as many times as you wish.

4. I never said that an employee who is fired for some infraction or other doesn't shoulder any blame for having his/her employment terminated.

But your actions and motives regarding the fictional AndrewJackson were not pure, nor were they spiritually motivated as you have attempted to claim.

And we all know it.

You seek to stymie and extinguish free speech, free thinking, and free agency when you interfere with someone else's personal life and livelihood just because they are saying something you don't like, and don't agree with.

Anyone with an ounce of intelligence could see this.

Fact remains, if an employee continued to use company money and resources to deride your compnay, you would fire them. That is fact.


And makes my example clear and concise. to most, to the logical.

No Dubbs...the fact does not remain at all. Because all you can do with your example is to say what YOU would do for a fact if you caught an employee using company money and resources to deride my company.

You cannot say what I would do for a fact, or what reasons I might have for terminating employment.

Your beliefs and opinions are not binding to me in any way, shape or form...and only apply to yourself.

Dubbs wrote:
Just Reading wrote:
Dubbs wrote:
Just Reading wrote:
Dubbs wrote:
Jaye wrote:
Dubbs wrote:
Jaye wrote:
Dubbs wrote:
Jaye wrote:
Dubbs wrote:
Jaye wrote:
Dubbs wrote:
Jaye wrote:
[bIf one of my crew deigned to badmouth the company...he is only badmouthing his own work, and the work of his fellow employees...because my employees ARE the company. And not a one of my employees are going to badmouth their own work..


Fact remains, you would fire that employee, but would it be the employee's fault who turned him in for bad mouthing the company? No, you wouldn't blame him, but you would blame me for doing the same thing.

And my reason for turning him in would be of a spiritual nature, as it is something sacred to me, but you still see a difference? Your beyond help, because you are not logical and see only your side any story.

Do not presume to tell me how I would deal with my employees Dubbs.

You have no understanding regarding contracting, or dealing with construction crews.

And you have no understanding of the character of men like those who represent our company.

In 'real life' Dubbs...out in the dog eat dog of rude, crude construction workers...it isn't the guy who might do a little complaining about the boss, or the company rules, or company policies who is detested the most...but the rat who can't wait to turn his crew mate in for complaining who is detested the most.

It was the same in school. There was always a class rat-fink who ran to tattle every time someone looked at him cross ways, or any time he overheard other kids complaining about a teacher, or the principle, or about the school rules of behavior.

And to tell the truth...the teachers and the principles didn't really like the little rat finks either.

Nobody likes a rat fink. Nobody has any respect for the rat fink.

And it's usually the rat fink who comes out at the bottom of the dog-pile in the end.

This is a lesson which apparently you have never learned.

I have had companies where I worked with executives, rich powerful men, and understand how to do business, as do I.

Fact remains, if an employee of yours did what I said, you would fire him, and you wouldn't blame the employee who turned him in.

Fact is, you are a hypocrite in many areas, this being one more.

The only relevant fact here on this discussion is that you have no clue about the construction business in general, or in how General Contractors typically operate their businesses Dubbs.

There is a marked difference in the behavior of most every General I've ever had the privilege of knowing or working with...and the kind of high-powered executives you are thinking of.

I have also known many rich and powerful men, Dubbs, not only in the field of Construction and General Contracting, but in other avenues of business as well...men who have been clients of mine for decades.

Some of the richest, most powerful guys I know aren't afraid to pull on some old jeans, and a tee shirt and steel toed boots and a hard hat and go out in the field every day with his guys and get his hands dirty.

Sure...there are always those rich and powerful execs who sport their sprayed on tans, and highly manicured and lotioned hands and drive around in their Maseratis, and work Monday-Friday 9-5, and strut around giving orders, and issuing ultimatums, and hiring ornamental secretaries and firing guys who are approaching retirement for no good reason at all, so to screw them out of benefits...but those aren't usually the guys who merit, or receive the loyalty of their employees.

It's the guys who don't put on airs, and who actually get out there and shoulder the load who receive the respect and loyalty of their employees.

Don't be tricked into thinking that a rich and powerful executive would be happy with the corporate rat, Dubbs. Don't be tricked into thinking that the rat will be rewarded for finking out his co-worker.

More often, all the rat fink accomplishes is to attract unwanted attention upon himself...and usually they end up in the unemployment line right behind the poor slob they ratted out.

To tell the absolute truth...unless the erring employee is selling corporate secrets...the big boss doesn't really give a flying fig what an employee thinks about him, or the way he operates his business, or even what he thinks about the quality of the product they are selling...so long as that employee shows up for work on time every shift, and puts in an honest day of work for his pay.

Again...you haven't got a clue how it works.

Oh, I understand business more than you want to admit, and would put my business portfollio up against yours anyday.

Fact remains, you would fire the employee that bad mouthed your company, and you wouldn't blame the guy who told you he was bad mouthing the company.

Same diff sis.


That you want to deflect the conversation on who knows more about business is just a deflection from the fact you know I'm right about an employee not being moral bad mouthing a company. but then get on me that I would do the same. Hypocrite.

Again...do not presume to speak for me, my business practices...and what I might possibly terminate employment for Dubbs.

I really don't give a rat's patooties about your portfolio Dubbs...because wealth is not everything.

The Savior spoke of seeking one's treasures in heaven, rather than concerning themselves with worldly wealth.

I agree...and what matters more to me about any man or woman is what kind of human being they are.


Deflection.

Obviously you would terminate an employee who was speaking ill of your company, and if you wouldn't, your an idiot even bigger than I imagined.

And only an idiot would blame the employee who came and told you the guy is mouthing your company, for the guy bad mouthing being fired.


Same diff sis.

See your silly logic yet? I will repeat till you get it.

It's the same situation dude, obviously it is also wrong. Yet you say I would be to blame for a guy getting fired? No he was responsible for his own actions. typical Jaye logic.

1. Deflection? No Dubbs...just the way it is in my business.

If an employee speaks ill of the company...he is speaking ill of himself, and his co-workers. That is the way it stands with the nature of my business.

If an employee speaks ill of me...he is, of course, entitled to his opinions, and so long as he shows up for work on time, and puts in an honest day of work...I really don't care what he thinks of me personally.

And I have a policy which my employees are well aware of that if they have questions, or concerns about their work, or the business, or company policies...they are free to come to me any time they wish, and we will discuss them.

Unlike some employers, who have very rigid standards of inter-office discipline, who rarely if ever stoop to actually speaking with their employees face to face...I am actually out there with the crew, and have an open policy of communication even with the newest trainees.

As a matter of fact...I would be more likely to terminate the employment of a company rat fink who is trying to stir up trouble in the ranks, or who is being disloyal to his crew mates than to terminate the employment of someone who disagrees with me, or the way I run my business.

Why? Because the crew must depend upon each other for our mutual safety, and even our very lives out in the field.

There is a level of trust which must be maintained between crew members, especially when operating and working around heavy equipment.

Now you, on the other hand...I can easily picture you as having worked as a corporate headhunter. I can easily picture your immense enjoyment as you spied on the employees, and wrote up your reports and recommendations for termination of erring employees.

It takes a certain type of personality to not only enjoy, but to excell in such a task. And I believe that personality matches yours to a tee.

I believe that the reason my crew are so loyal to the company is due to the fact that they understand that they ARE the company...and they understand that I encourage open lines of communication between everyone, down to the newest trainees.

2. I am not your sister Dubbs. Do at least try to act like an adult.

3. I believe that you were recently blathering about your opinion that repeating something over and over didn't make it truth. But don't let me stop you. Go ahead and repeat your nonsense as many times as you wish.

4. I never said that an employee who is fired for some infraction or other doesn't shoulder any blame for having his/her employment terminated.

But your actions and motives regarding the fictional AndrewJackson were not pure, nor were they spiritually motivated as you have attempted to claim.

And we all know it.

You seek to stymie and extinguish free speech, free thinking, and free agency when you interfere with someone else's personal life and livelihood just because they are saying something you don't like, and don't agree with.

Anyone with an ounce of intelligence could see this.

Fact remains, if an employee continued to use company money and resources to deride your compnay, you would fire them. That is fact.


And makes my example clear and concise. to most, to the logical.


Hmmm isn't it funny that now you say the Church is a business or company "LOL"


It was an example big, try to follow.

And to me it makes it worse that Wren is sitting in a church owned building, using Church owned computers, getting paid by tithing funds, bad mouthing the church.

"LOL" but the thing is he isn't or wasn't..

but it did show that you would try to hurt someone if you disagree with them...

the hurt would be self inflicted, as my example with Jayes company.

Your example didn't prove a thing...and I've explained why numerous times.

Dubbs wrote:
Lovie wrote:
Crazy Pete wrote:


Your a funnie man, Pictured you a bit younger, but this give as a visual when we read you stuff.... Thanks for the laugh.

Yes, that is a perfect picture of him I'm sure, except put his hand going down his pants, and prop him up to a computer let him sit naked and I think you crazy pete to a T.

I'd post the pic, but I know some get offended.

If you're picturing him naked sitting at a computer...how the hell can he have his hands down his pants?

And why the hell do you keep picturing other men sitting naked at the computer?

Dubbs wrote:
Crazy Pete wrote:
Dubbs wrote:
Crazy Pete wrote:
[

You Bishop he ain't or is that he who wont read I said, "He further illustrates a bias against any evidence against BY when he tries to define what "Americans" meant to the Native Americans.


He does no such thing, he merely states that Brigham Young was using the Indians on the Southern trail from Wyoming to scatter and take supplies from the US Army that was approaching,

Bagley then incurrectly assumes this means the southern route of the Fancher party, But if you look at the tribe and where they were, in Northern Utah, it becomes clear what the meeting was in relation to.


Bagley also does not look at the dates of the meetings as they were actually to late to be related to MMM.

slow down bro, take your hand out of our pants, and read with comprehension. By the way, I reported your little comment to the moderator, and will follow up with a call.

Dubbs,

I think he does when he quotes Huntingtons Journal entry about the meeting with Kanosh he notes this also from John D. Lee and than uses this little tidbit to prove his time line theses which he says, "Although I have doubts about this encounter, it shows that Mormon leaders, when they referred to the Americans, referred to the advancing armies and not emigrants." come on man this is not the height of scholarship even if it argues the view you like.


I think Wren is also correct when he argues that "the meeting still reveals that BY intended the Mormons' "war hammer", the Indians, were to be released against the emigrants and their property." This is a big problem.

Crazier than you

Pete


If you look at the group of Indians and where they were located, in Northern Utah, it becomes clear, the Indians wouldn't be stealing the US Armies supplies in Southern Utah, when the soldiers weren't even there yet!! And this group of Indians was in close proximity to the sourthern trail the US Army was coming on.(southern from Wyoming) Makes sense when you apply this to the facts.

Use your brain nutjob.

If you ever take the time to study the habits of the Native Americans...you might find that depending upon circumstances, raiding parties might travel great distances...sometimes for hundreds of miles.

Because of this tendency, white settlers, who didn't understand the Native's ways, usually blamed raids on those tribals who lived nearest to them.

Many times the whites visited their wrath and retribution upon innocent tribes, who hadn't been the ones who raided them in the first place.