Guest Darrick Posted March 26, 2008 Share Posted March 26, 2008 The Mormon Church taught for 130 years that Negroes were: Inferior Children of Cain Under the Curse of Cain Had "Mark" of Cain (black skin, flat nose, kinky hair) Were less valiant in the War in Heaven Banned from the priesthood and temples In 1978, facing government threats to cancel its tax-exempt status, the President of the Mormon Church ended the priesthood/temple ban, allowing black Mormons to receive both. Want to speak to the Mormon missionaries? You can, for FREE at: 1-888-537-6600 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest ultimauw@hotmail.com Posted March 26, 2008 Share Posted March 26, 2008 Darrick wrote: > The Mormon Church taught for 130 years that Negroes were: > > > Inferior > Children of Cain > Under the Curse of Cain > Had "Mark" of Cain (black skin, flat nose, kinky hair) > Were less valiant in the War in Heaven > Banned from the priesthood and temples > > In 1978, facing government threats to cancel its tax-exempt status, > the President of the > Mormon Church ended the priesthood/temple ban, allowing black Mormons > to receive both. Amazing how fast their policies change when their wallets are threatened. LDS is just a firmly established cult.> Want to speak to the Mormon missionaries? You can, for FREE at: > > 1-888-537-6600 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Diana Posted March 26, 2008 Share Posted March 26, 2008 "Darrick" <darrick_evenson@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:4a029e34-0f0e-4f4c-9be5-bf035107b985@i7g2000prf.googlegroups.com... > > > > The Mormon Church taught for 130 years that Negroes were: > > > Inferior > Children of Cain > Under the Curse of Cain > Had "Mark" of Cain (black skin, flat nose, kinky hair) > Were less valiant in the War in Heaven > Banned from the priesthood and temples > > In 1978, facing government threats to cancel its tax-exempt status, > the President of the > Mormon Church ended the priesthood/temple ban, allowing black Mormons > to receive both. Except for one small problem. The church has never been threatened with the removal of its tax exempt status. Ever. You are thinking of Bob Jones University, which DID lose that status, because it had rules about interracial dating and marriage. It lost its tax exempt status as a school--but the church with which it was associated was in no danger. The IRS simply cannot remove the tax exempt status from a church. It never has, and simply can't. The only danger the LDS church would be in is if Brigham Young University had racist policies. Since it did not.... The IRS CAN revoke a tax exempt letter if the church has applied for one, and it has done so...about five times, and every time it was because the church actively supported or opposed a specific candidate for office. However, no church has to apply for such a letter; it's tax exempt status is automatic. Even if it does apply for one, its revocation means nothing. The church still doesn't have to pay taxes, and the donors can still deduct contributions. The only problem it would have is in the operation of any schools...and even then, it is the SCHOOLS that would have to deal with the problem, not the church itself. In other words, this charge that the LDS church changed its policies because it was afraid of having its tax exemption revoked is ludicrous. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest MrUniverse Posted March 27, 2008 Share Posted March 27, 2008 On Mar 26, 5:58 pm, "Diana" <diana...@noyoudont.com> wrote: > "Darrick" <darrick_even...@yahoo.com> wrote in message > > news:4a029e34-0f0e-4f4c-9be5-bf035107b985@i7g2000prf.googlegroups.com... > > > > > > > The Mormon Church taught for 130 years that Negroes were: > > > Inferior > > Children of Cain > > Under the Curse of Cain > > Had "Mark" of Cain (black skin, flat nose, kinky hair) > > Were less valiant in the War in Heaven > > Banned from the priesthood and temples > > > In 1978, facing government threats to cancel its tax-exempt status, > > the President of the > > Mormon Church ended the priesthood/temple ban, allowing black Mormons > > to receive both. > > Except for one small problem. > > The church has never been threatened with the removal of its tax exempt > status. Ever. You are thinking of Bob Jones University, which DID lose that > status, because it had rules about interracial dating and marriage. It lost > its tax exempt status as a school--but the church with which it was > associated was in no danger. The IRS simply cannot remove the tax exempt > status from a church. It never has, and simply can't. The only danger the > LDS church would be in is if Brigham Young University had racist policies. > Since it did not.... > > The IRS CAN revoke a tax exempt letter if the church has applied for one, > and it has done so...about five times, and every time it was because the > church actively supported or opposed a specific candidate for office. > However, no church has to apply for such a letter; it's tax exempt status is > automatic. Even if it does apply for one, its revocation means nothing. The > church still doesn't have to pay taxes, and the donors can still deduct > contributions. The only problem it would have is in the operation of any > schools...and even then, it is the SCHOOLS that would have to deal with the > problem, not the church itself. > > In other words, this charge that the LDS church changed its policies because > it was afraid of having its tax exemption revoked is ludicrous. The LDS church gave priesthood to blacks because the authorities knew their teachings were fucked up. How could anyone in the right reason, at this time, exclude a racial group from having stuff?. Brown vs. The Board Education sparked the Civil Rights Movement in 1954; later, in the 60s the government enforced integration through the Civil Rights laws. That is when Kennedy saw on TV the real stuff and decided to act. The LDS church was, of course, messed up with the teachings and the corporation and also the BYU basketball teams were suffering the consequences because criticism, etc. That is when the Priesthood to the Blacks "revelation" was conveniently obtained. The same about polygamy earlier: Utah had to cease polygamy to be admitted to the Union; so there was a convenient revelation in that regard; just in fucking time! The same happens today. Little by litte the teachings are changing with respect to the "curse" of the Lamanites. What before Prophets had said it was a litteral curse in which the lamanites skins were turned dark, now is interpreted as something else. There are changes in the BoM regarding this. Another change in the BoM is the inclution of the word "Among"; this should fix the issue with congruity with the DNA stuff. Fucked up stuff! Inco Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest John Posted March 27, 2008 Share Posted March 27, 2008 On Mar 26, 8:15 pm, MrUniverse <lame...@yahoo.com> wrote: > > The LDS church gave priesthood to blacks because the authorities knew > their teachings were fucked up. How could anyone in the right reason, > at this time, exclude a racial group from having stuff?. From having stuff? :-) Get out of here with dopey comments like that. > > Brown vs. The Board Education sparked the Civil Rights Movement in > 1954; later, in the 60s the government enforced integration through > the Civil Rights laws. That is when Kennedy saw on TV the real stuff > and decided to act. Holding the priesthood is NOT a civil right. > The same happens today. Little by litte the teachings are changing In the eyes of those who cannot see > > Fucked up stuff! > You sure are. "For those who understand, no explanation is needed. For those who do not understand, no explanation is possible." Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Diana Posted March 27, 2008 Share Posted March 27, 2008 "MrUniverse" <lamevas@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:634e2bd2-ef92-4eb0-8569-651de7240d0f@s50g2000hsb.googlegroups.com... > On Mar 26, 5:58 pm, "Diana" <diana...@noyoudont.com> wrote: >> "Darrick" <darrick_even...@yahoo.com> wrote in message >> >> news:4a029e34-0f0e-4f4c-9be5-bf035107b985@i7g2000prf.googlegroups.com... >> >> >> >> >> >> > The Mormon Church taught for 130 years that Negroes were: >> >> > Inferior >> > Children of Cain >> > Under the Curse of Cain >> > Had "Mark" of Cain (black skin, flat nose, kinky hair) >> > Were less valiant in the War in Heaven >> > Banned from the priesthood and temples >> >> > In 1978, facing government threats to cancel its tax-exempt status, >> > the President of the >> > Mormon Church ended the priesthood/temple ban, allowing black Mormons >> > to receive both. >> >> Except for one small problem. >> >> The church has never been threatened with the removal of its tax exempt >> status. Ever. You are thinking of Bob Jones University, which DID lose >> that >> status, because it had rules about interracial dating and marriage. It >> lost >> its tax exempt status as a school--but the church with which it was >> associated was in no danger. The IRS simply cannot remove the tax exempt >> status from a church. It never has, and simply can't. The only danger the >> LDS church would be in is if Brigham Young University had racist >> policies. >> Since it did not.... >> >> The IRS CAN revoke a tax exempt letter if the church has applied for one, >> and it has done so...about five times, and every time it was because the >> church actively supported or opposed a specific candidate for office. >> However, no church has to apply for such a letter; it's tax exempt status >> is >> automatic. Even if it does apply for one, its revocation means nothing. >> The >> church still doesn't have to pay taxes, and the donors can still deduct >> contributions. The only problem it would have is in the operation of any >> schools...and even then, it is the SCHOOLS that would have to deal with >> the >> problem, not the church itself. >> >> In other words, this charge that the LDS church changed its policies >> because >> it was afraid of having its tax exemption revoked is ludicrous. > > The LDS church gave priesthood to blacks because the authorities knew > their teachings were fucked up. How could anyone in the right reason, > at this time, exclude a racial group from having stuff?. You guys need to make up your minds, y'know. Either we are to be blamed because we did not offer the priesthood to some people of African descent (the complexion meant nothing...plenty of men of very dark complexion did hold the priesthood) or we are to blame for extending it to all worthy male members. If it is the first, then you---NONE of you (unless perhaps you are Quakers, and I don't think there are any of those posting in here) ---have the right to criticise, given your own histories. Indeed, one of the biggest complaints the Baptists around the Mormons in Missourri had was that they were afraid that the Mormons were going to come in and free their slaves, or convert them and make them 'uppity.' Joseph Smith ran for President on an abolitionist ticket...and the Baptists STILL have a segregated black group. If it is the second, you still have no right to criticise. After all, YOU guys changed from blatant slave ownership and segregation to acceptance, and you did so because of considerably more pressure and force than was aimed at us; why can't we? Indeed, there is no excuse for you, either way. WE claim to have direct revelation from God, through prophets, to inform changes that we make. What's your excuse? <snip to end> Diana, having run entirely out of patience with this particular assininity. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest martinmurillo@gmail.com Posted March 27, 2008 Share Posted March 27, 2008 On Mar 26, 11:22 pm, John <ews...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Mar 26, 8:15 pm, MrUniverse <lame...@yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > > The LDS church gave priesthood to blacks because the authorities knew > > their teachings were fucked up. How could anyone in the right reason, > > at this time, exclude a racial group from having stuff?. > > From having stuff? :-) > Yeah, stuff, like pussy and stuff > Get out of here with dopey comments like that. > throw me out! > > > > Brown vs. The Board Education sparked the Civil Rights Movement in > > 1954; later, in the 60s the government enforced integration through > > the Civil Rights laws. That is when Kennedy saw on TV the real stuff > > and decided to act. > > Holding the priesthood is NOT a civil right. > I never said that > > The same happens today. Little by litte the teachings are changing > > In the eyes of those who cannot see > lol! what more blind than religious zealots! > > > > Fucked up stuff! > > You sure are. > No, the teachings I mean > "For those who understand, no explanation is needed. For those who do > not understand, no explanation is possible." Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest \john p\ Posted March 27, 2008 Share Posted March 27, 2008 On Mar 26, 8:25 pm, "Diana" <diana...@noyoudont.com> wrote: > "MrUniverse" <lame...@yahoo.com> wrote in message > > news:634e2bd2-ef92-4eb0-8569-651de7240d0f@s50g2000hsb.googlegroups.com... > > > > > On Mar 26, 5:58 pm, "Diana" <diana...@noyoudont.com> wrote: > >> "Darrick" <darrick_even...@yahoo.com> wrote in message > > >>news:4a029e34-0f0e-4f4c-9be5-bf035107b985@i7g2000prf.googlegroups.com... > > >> > The Mormon Church taught for 130 years that Negroes were: > > >> > Inferior > >> > Children of Cain > >> > Under the Curse of Cain > >> > Had "Mark" of Cain (black skin, flat nose, kinky hair) > >> > Were less valiant in the War in Heaven > >> > Banned from the priesthood and temples > > >> > In 1978, facing government threats to cancel its tax-exempt status, > >> > the President of the > >> > Mormon Church ended the priesthood/temple ban, allowing black Mormons > >> > to receive both. > > >> Except for one small problem. > > >> The church has never been threatened with the removal of its tax exempt > >> status. Ever. You are thinking of Bob Jones University, which DID lose > >> that > >> status, because it had rules about interracial dating and marriage. It > >> lost > >> its tax exempt status as a school--but the church with which it was > >> associated was in no danger. The IRS simply cannot remove the tax exempt > >> status from a church. It never has, and simply can't. The only danger the > >> LDS church would be in is if Brigham Young University had racist > >> policies. > >> Since it did not.... > > >> The IRS CAN revoke a tax exempt letter if the church has applied for one, > >> and it has done so...about five times, and every time it was because the > >> church actively supported or opposed a specific candidate for office. > >> However, no church has to apply for such a letter; it's tax exempt status > >> is > >> automatic. Even if it does apply for one, its revocation means nothing. > >> The > >> church still doesn't have to pay taxes, and the donors can still deduct > >> contributions. The only problem it would have is in the operation of any > >> schools...and even then, it is the SCHOOLS that would have to deal with > >> the > >> problem, not the church itself. > > >> In other words, this charge that the LDS church changed its policies > >> because > >> it was afraid of having its tax exemption revoked is ludicrous. > > > The LDS church gave priesthood to blacks because the authorities knew > > their teachings were fucked up. How could anyone in the right reason, > > at this time, exclude a racial group from having stuff?. > > You guys need to make up your minds, y'know. > > Either we are to be blamed because we did not offer the priesthood to some > people of African descent (the complexion meant nothing...plenty of men of > very dark complexion did hold the priesthood) or we are to blame for > extending it to all worthy male members. > > If it is the first, then you---NONE of you (unless perhaps you are Quakers, > and I don't think there are any of those posting in here) ---have the right > to criticise, given your own histories. Indeed, one of the biggest > complaints the Baptists around the Mormons in Missourri had was that they > were afraid that the Mormons were going to come in and free their slaves, or > convert them and make them 'uppity.' Joseph Smith ran for President on an > abolitionist ticket...and the Baptists STILL have a segregated black group. > > If it is the second, you still have no right to criticise. After all, YOU > guys changed from blatant slave ownership and segregation to acceptance, and > you did so because of considerably more pressure and force than was aimed at > us; why can't we? Indeed, there is no excuse for you, either way. WE claim > to have direct revelation from God, through prophets, to inform changes that > we make. > > What's your excuse? > <snip to end> > > Diana, having run entirely out of patience with this particular assininity. You are assuming all the have a problem with the mormon church's racist past are christian. My family was mormon, and my wife's comes from slave owning mormons. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Diana Posted March 27, 2008 Share Posted March 27, 2008 ""john p"" <john.phile@gmail.com> wrote in message news:673f733f-b475-47ff-a092-777de2d7fcb9@h11g2000prf.googlegroups.com... > On Mar 26, 8:25 pm, "Diana" <diana...@noyoudont.com> wrote: >> "MrUniverse" <lame...@yahoo.com> wrote in message >> >> news:634e2bd2-ef92-4eb0-8569-651de7240d0f@s50g2000hsb.googlegroups.com... >> >> >> >> > On Mar 26, 5:58 pm, "Diana" <diana...@noyoudont.com> wrote: >> >> "Darrick" <darrick_even...@yahoo.com> wrote in message >> >> >>news:4a029e34-0f0e-4f4c-9be5-bf035107b985@i7g2000prf.googlegroups.com... >> >> >> > The Mormon Church taught for 130 years that Negroes were: >> >> >> > Inferior >> >> > Children of Cain >> >> > Under the Curse of Cain >> >> > Had "Mark" of Cain (black skin, flat nose, kinky hair) >> >> > Were less valiant in the War in Heaven >> >> > Banned from the priesthood and temples >> >> >> > In 1978, facing government threats to cancel its tax-exempt status, >> >> > the President of the >> >> > Mormon Church ended the priesthood/temple ban, allowing black >> >> > Mormons >> >> > to receive both. >> >> >> Except for one small problem. >> >> >> The church has never been threatened with the removal of its tax >> >> exempt >> >> status. Ever. You are thinking of Bob Jones University, which DID lose >> >> that >> >> status, because it had rules about interracial dating and marriage. It >> >> lost >> >> its tax exempt status as a school--but the church with which it was >> >> associated was in no danger. The IRS simply cannot remove the tax >> >> exempt >> >> status from a church. It never has, and simply can't. The only danger >> >> the >> >> LDS church would be in is if Brigham Young University had racist >> >> policies. >> >> Since it did not.... >> >> >> The IRS CAN revoke a tax exempt letter if the church has applied for >> >> one, >> >> and it has done so...about five times, and every time it was because >> >> the >> >> church actively supported or opposed a specific candidate for office. >> >> However, no church has to apply for such a letter; it's tax exempt >> >> status >> >> is >> >> automatic. Even if it does apply for one, its revocation means >> >> nothing. >> >> The >> >> church still doesn't have to pay taxes, and the donors can still >> >> deduct >> >> contributions. The only problem it would have is in the operation of >> >> any >> >> schools...and even then, it is the SCHOOLS that would have to deal >> >> with >> >> the >> >> problem, not the church itself. >> >> >> In other words, this charge that the LDS church changed its policies >> >> because >> >> it was afraid of having its tax exemption revoked is ludicrous. >> >> > The LDS church gave priesthood to blacks because the authorities knew >> > their teachings were fucked up. How could anyone in the right reason, >> > at this time, exclude a racial group from having stuff?. >> >> You guys need to make up your minds, y'know. >> >> Either we are to be blamed because we did not offer the priesthood to >> some >> people of African descent (the complexion meant nothing...plenty of men >> of >> very dark complexion did hold the priesthood) or we are to blame for >> extending it to all worthy male members. >> >> If it is the first, then you---NONE of you (unless perhaps you are >> Quakers, >> and I don't think there are any of those posting in here) ---have the >> right >> to criticise, given your own histories. Indeed, one of the biggest >> complaints the Baptists around the Mormons in Missourri had was that they >> were afraid that the Mormons were going to come in and free their slaves, >> or >> convert them and make them 'uppity.' Joseph Smith ran for President on an >> abolitionist ticket...and the Baptists STILL have a segregated black >> group. >> >> If it is the second, you still have no right to criticise. After all, YOU >> guys changed from blatant slave ownership and segregation to acceptance, >> and >> you did so because of considerably more pressure and force than was aimed >> at >> us; why can't we? Indeed, there is no excuse for you, either way. WE >> claim >> to have direct revelation from God, through prophets, to inform changes >> that >> we make. >> >> What's your excuse? >> <snip to end> >> >> Diana, having run entirely out of patience with this particular >> assininity. > > You are assuming all the have a problem with the mormon church's > racist past are christian. My family was mormon, and my wife's comes > from slave owning mormons. Actually, I am not. As for your wife coming from 'slave owning Mormons,' I suggest that you expand on that. Not that there were not Mormon slave owners---there were. However, not many, and if a Mormon purchased a slave after he or she was converted, it was not considered a good thing. Yes, there were about a hundred black slaves in Utah between 1847 and 1852, who were placed under Brigham Young's rules of indentured servitude, in which they had considerably more rights than the slaves in the south. For instance, they were not considered property, but rather men and women with rights. Not many, mind you--racism was still in place, but certainly more than they had in the south. But whether I am assuming that everyone is Christian or not, it doesn't matter. NOBODY has a right to point fingers, not if even one of their ancestors (and I guess that includes you, John...) ever was racist, or if you have ever belonged to an organization that was ever racist. Ever. If there is racism NOW, yeah. you can criticise. If, that is, you are not even the tiniest bit racist yourself. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Anonymous Infidel - the anti-polit Posted March 27, 2008 Share Posted March 27, 2008 On Mar 26, 12:26 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted March 28, 2008 Share Posted March 28, 2008 In article <007e6f8f-ed75-4f62-b427-08bc8a604c21@s13g2000prd.googlegroups.com>, Anonymous Infidel - the anti-political talking head <messiah2999@yahoo.com> wrote: > On Mar 26, 12:26=A0pm, Darrick <darrick_even...@yahoo.com> wrote: > > The Mormon Church taught for 130 years that Negroes were: > Yea, Brigham Youngs worst move...Which clearly went against the > teachings of Joseph Smith. > > > > Inferior > > Children of Cain > > Under the Curse of Cain > > Had "Mark" of Cain (black skin, flat nose, kinky hair) > > Were less valiant in the War in Heaven > > Banned from the priesthood and temples > It's nice that they no longer do that...And it seems to be paying off > considering now they have more nonwhite members than white. > > > > In 1978, facing government threats to cancel its tax-exempt status, > > the President of the Mormon Church ended the priesthood/temple ban, > > allowing black Mormons to receive both. > No, I think they changed due to their expansions into Latin America > and Africa. it was the tax issue [lus the threat of boycott of BYU football. > > Note: It's good that the Mormon Church is a living testament and can > change with the times..Unlike Obama's church. -- R.L. Measures. 805-386-3734, http://www.somis.org Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Diana Posted March 28, 2008 Share Posted March 28, 2008 ".R. L. Measures" <2@vc.net> wrote in message news:2-2703082329400001@10.0.1.198... > In article > <007e6f8f-ed75-4f62-b427-08bc8a604c21@s13g2000prd.googlegroups.com>, > Anonymous Infidel - the anti-political talking head > <messiah2999@yahoo.com> wrote: > >> On Mar 26, 12:26=A0pm, Darrick <darrick_even...@yahoo.com> wrote: >> > The Mormon Church taught for 130 years that Negroes were: >> Yea, Brigham Youngs worst move...Which clearly went against the >> teachings of Joseph Smith. >> > >> > Inferior >> > Children of Cain >> > Under the Curse of Cain >> > Had "Mark" of Cain (black skin, flat nose, kinky hair) >> > Were less valiant in the War in Heaven >> > Banned from the priesthood and temples >> It's nice that they no longer do that...And it seems to be paying off >> considering now they have more nonwhite members than white. >> > >> > In 1978, facing government threats to cancel its tax-exempt status, >> > the President of the Mormon Church ended the priesthood/temple ban, >> > allowing black Mormons to receive both. >> No, I think they changed due to their expansions into Latin America >> and Africa. > > it was the tax issue [lus the threat of boycott of BYU football. Measures, the 'tax issue' was a complete non-issue, and you know it. So was any 'threat' to BYU football. >> >> Note: It's good that the Mormon Church is a living testament and can >> change with the times..Unlike Obama's church. > > -- > R.L. Measures. 805-386-3734, http://www.somis.org Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted March 29, 2008 Share Posted March 29, 2008 In article <Lh6Hj.1$p97.0@trnddc03>, "Diana" <dianaiad@noyoudont.com> wrote: > ".R. L. Measures" <2@vc.net> wrote in message > news:2-2703082329400001@10.0.1.198... > > In article > > <007e6f8f-ed75-4f62-b427-08bc8a604c21@s13g2000prd.googlegroups.com>, > > Anonymous Infidel - the anti-political talking head > > <messiah2999@yahoo.com> wrote: > > > >> On Mar 26, 12:26=A0pm, Darrick <darrick_even...@yahoo.com> wrote: > >> > The Mormon Church taught for 130 years that Negroes were: > >> Yea, Brigham Youngs worst move...Which clearly went against the > >> teachings of Joseph Smith. > >> > > >> > Inferior > >> > Children of Cain > >> > Under the Curse of Cain > >> > Had "Mark" of Cain (black skin, flat nose, kinky hair) > >> > Were less valiant in the War in Heaven > >> > Banned from the priesthood and temples > >> It's nice that they no longer do that...And it seems to be paying off > >> considering now they have more nonwhite members than white. > >> > > >> > In 1978, facing government threats to cancel its tax-exempt status, > >> > the President of the Mormon Church ended the priesthood/temple ban, > >> > allowing black Mormons to receive both. > >> No, I think they changed due to their expansions into Latin America > >> and Africa. > > > > it was the tax issue plus the threat of boycott of BYU football. > > Measures, the 'tax issue' was a complete non-issue, and you know it. The income tax on $6-Billion is nuttin' to sneeze at Diana. The fact is that the Civil Rights Act of 1964 denied tax exemption to any org that discriminated against race. >So was any 'threat' to BYU football. "Unlearned in history, they allow themselves to be governed by the Unknown Past." Historian John Acton -- R.L. Measures. 805-386-3734, http://www.somis.org Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Bill O'Really Posted March 29, 2008 Share Posted March 29, 2008 On Mar 26, 12:26 pm, Darrick <darrick_even...@yahoo.com> wrote: > The Mormon Church taught for 130 years that Negroes were: > > Inferior > Children of Cain > Under the Curse of Cain > Had "Mark" of Cain (black skin, flat nose, kinky hair) > Were less valiant in the War in Heaven > Banned from the priesthood and temples > > In 1978, facing government threats to cancel its tax-exempt status, > the President of the > Mormon Church ended the priesthood/temple ban, allowing black Mormons > to receive both. > > Want to speak to the Mormon missionaries? You can, for FREE at: > > 1-888-537-6600 Yeah and Southern Baptists splintered off so that they could own Blacks as slaves. What a hell of a reason to start a church. So fuck off and die cock sucker. Bill O'Really Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest NickYoungh Posted March 29, 2008 Share Posted March 29, 2008 On 26 mrt, 20:26, Darrick <darrick_even...@yahoo.com> wrote: > The Mormon Church taught for 130 years that Negroes were: > Inferior > Children of Cain > Under the Curse of Cain > Had "Mark" of Cain (black skin, flat nose, kinky hair) > Were less valiant in the War in Heaven > Banned from the priesthood and temples\ Nieuwsgroepen: alt.religion.mormon Van: Bret Ripley <rip...@gotsky.com> Datum: Thu, 24 Jan 2008 12:18:07 -0800 Lokaal: do 24 jan 2008 21:18 Onderwerp: Re: If the American Indians were even "part" Jewish or had "any" >> Where do you read in the BoM that Jews lived in America ? >> 1 Nephi18:23 and we arrived at the prommissed land. >> So the BoM is situated in Isra Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Diana Posted March 29, 2008 Share Posted March 29, 2008 ".R. L. Measures" <2@vc.net> wrote in message news:2-2903080311190001@10.0.1.198... > In article <Lh6Hj.1$p97.0@trnddc03>, "Diana" <dianaiad@noyoudont.com> > wrote: > >> ".R. L. Measures" <2@vc.net> wrote in message >> news:2-2703082329400001@10.0.1.198... >> > In article >> > <007e6f8f-ed75-4f62-b427-08bc8a604c21@s13g2000prd.googlegroups.com>, >> > Anonymous Infidel - the anti-political talking head >> > <messiah2999@yahoo.com> wrote: >> > >> >> On Mar 26, 12:26=A0pm, Darrick <darrick_even...@yahoo.com> wrote: >> >> > The Mormon Church taught for 130 years that Negroes were: >> >> Yea, Brigham Youngs worst move...Which clearly went against the >> >> teachings of Joseph Smith. >> >> > >> >> > Inferior >> >> > Children of Cain >> >> > Under the Curse of Cain >> >> > Had "Mark" of Cain (black skin, flat nose, kinky hair) >> >> > Were less valiant in the War in Heaven >> >> > Banned from the priesthood and temples >> >> It's nice that they no longer do that...And it seems to be paying off >> >> considering now they have more nonwhite members than white. >> >> > >> >> > In 1978, facing government threats to cancel its tax-exempt status, >> >> > the President of the Mormon Church ended the priesthood/temple ban, >> >> > allowing black Mormons to receive both. >> >> No, I think they changed due to their expansions into Latin America >> >> and Africa. >> > >> > it was the tax issue plus the threat of boycott of BYU football. >> >> Measures, the 'tax issue' was a complete non-issue, and you know it. > > The income tax on $6-Billion is nuttin' to sneeze at Diana. The fact > is that the Civil Rights Act of 1964 denied tax exemption to any org that > discriminated against race. The fact is, that the IRS cannot take a church's tax exemption away. It can, if the church has applied for one in the first place, revoke a tax exemption letter. However, that revocation means nothing; the church still doesn't have to pay taxes, and the donors to it may still declare their contributions on their income tax forms. True, a couple of church SCHOOLS have lost that exemption, with some real consequences to the schools: Bob Jones University had a problem because of their prohibition against inter-racial dating, and another church school lost theirs for blatantly getting into a local election, but the churches they were associated with were not in any danger whatsoever. And BYU didn't have any of the official discriminatory practices that would have gotten their status yanked, anyway. In fact, Rich, the IRS only has a rule about churches that meddle in politics, thanks to that 1954 law that Lyndon Johnson cobbled together...and its enforcement of THAT law amounts to, well....nuttin. Excise taxes for the year in which the church was found 'guilty', and that is equivalent to a very light fine. Indeed, it has only revoked a CHURCH tax exempt status twice in the half century since that bill was passed, that that revocation didn't mean anything to the church, in terms of its ability to not pay taxes. As to revoking the tax exempt status because of racial discrimination...no. The matter was brought up, briefly--and Rex Lee appeared before the IRS. The matter was dismissed. Now tell me, Rich--if the matter of the LDS church was already examined by the IRS, and settled in favor of the church a good ten years BEFORE the priesthood was extended to all worthy male members, then how in the name of all that is wonderful can it be claimed that this was done because the church was afraid of the IRS? The matter had already been settled--and it wouldn't have mattered to the church, financially, anyway. You might try actually looking up the court cases, Rich. > >>So was any 'threat' to BYU football. > > "Unlearned in history, they allow themselves to be governed by the > Unknown Past." > Historian John Acton > > -- > R.L. Measures. 805-386-3734, http://www.somis.org Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Diana Posted March 29, 2008 Share Posted March 29, 2008 "Diana" <dianaiad@noyoudont.com> wrote in message news:fZsHj.182$Re7.145@trnddc04... > > ".R. L. Measures" <2@vc.net> wrote in message > news:2-2903080311190001@10.0.1.198... >> In article <Lh6Hj.1$p97.0@trnddc03>, "Diana" <dianaiad@noyoudont.com> >> wrote: >> >>> ".R. L. Measures" <2@vc.net> wrote in message >>> news:2-2703082329400001@10.0.1.198... >>> > In article >>> > <007e6f8f-ed75-4f62-b427-08bc8a604c21@s13g2000prd.googlegroups.com>, >>> > Anonymous Infidel - the anti-political talking head >>> > <messiah2999@yahoo.com> wrote: >>> > >>> >> On Mar 26, 12:26=A0pm, Darrick <darrick_even...@yahoo.com> wrote: >>> >> > The Mormon Church taught for 130 years that Negroes were: >>> >> Yea, Brigham Youngs worst move...Which clearly went against the >>> >> teachings of Joseph Smith. >>> >> > >>> >> > Inferior >>> >> > Children of Cain >>> >> > Under the Curse of Cain >>> >> > Had "Mark" of Cain (black skin, flat nose, kinky hair) >>> >> > Were less valiant in the War in Heaven >>> >> > Banned from the priesthood and temples >>> >> It's nice that they no longer do that...And it seems to be paying off >>> >> considering now they have more nonwhite members than white. >>> >> > >>> >> > In 1978, facing government threats to cancel its tax-exempt status, >>> >> > the President of the Mormon Church ended the priesthood/temple ban, >>> >> > allowing black Mormons to receive both. >>> >> No, I think they changed due to their expansions into Latin America >>> >> and Africa. >>> > >>> > it was the tax issue plus the threat of boycott of BYU football. >>> >>> Measures, the 'tax issue' was a complete non-issue, and you know it. >> >> The income tax on $6-Billion is nuttin' to sneeze at Diana. The fact >> is that the Civil Rights Act of 1964 denied tax exemption to any org that >> discriminated against race. > > > The fact is, that the IRS cannot take a church's tax exemption away. It > can, if the church has applied for one in the first place, revoke a tax > exemption letter. However, that revocation means nothing; the church still > doesn't have to pay taxes, and the donors to it may still declare their > contributions on their income tax forms. True, a couple of church SCHOOLS > have lost that exemption, with some real consequences to the schools: Bob > Jones University had a problem because of their prohibition against > inter-racial dating, and another church school lost theirs for blatantly > getting into a local election, but the churches they were associated with > were not in any danger whatsoever. > > And BYU didn't have any of the official discriminatory practices that > would have gotten their status yanked, anyway. > > In fact, Rich, the IRS only has a rule about churches that meddle in > politics, thanks to that 1954 law that Lyndon Johnson cobbled > together...and its enforcement of THAT law amounts to, well....nuttin. > Excise taxes for the year in which the church was found 'guilty', and that > is equivalent to a very light fine. Indeed, it has only revoked a CHURCH > tax exempt status twice in the half century since that bill was passed, > that that revocation didn't mean anything to the church, in terms of its > ability to not pay taxes. > > As to revoking the tax exempt status because of racial > discrimination...no. The matter was brought up, briefly--and Rex Lee > appeared before the IRS. The matter was dismissed. Now tell me, Rich--if > the matter of the LDS church was already examined by the IRS, and settled > in favor of the church a good ten years BEFORE the priesthood was extended > to all worthy male members, then how in the name of all that is wonderful > can it be claimed that this was done because the church was afraid of the > IRS? The matter had already been settled--and it wouldn't have mattered > to the church, financially, anyway. > > You might try actually looking up the court cases, Rich. > >> >>>So was any 'threat' to BYU football. >> >> "Unlearned in history, they allow themselves to be governed by the >> Unknown Past." >> Historian John Acton And given your constant insistance that the IRS made the church change, the above quote is more than a little ironic, Rich. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted March 29, 2008 Share Posted March 29, 2008 In article <fZsHj.182$Re7.145@trnddc04>, "Diana" <dianaiad@noyoudont.com> wrote: > ".R. L. Measures" <2@vc.net> wrote in message > news:2-2903080311190001@10.0.1.198... > > In article <Lh6Hj.1$p97.0@trnddc03>, "Diana" <dianaiad@noyoudont.com> > > wrote: > > > >> ".R. L. Measures" <2@vc.net> wrote in message > >> news:2-2703082329400001@10.0.1.198... > >> > In article > >> > <007e6f8f-ed75-4f62-b427-08bc8a604c21@s13g2000prd.googlegroups.com>, > >> > Anonymous Infidel - the anti-political talking head > >> > <messiah2999@yahoo.com> wrote: > >> > > >> >> On Mar 26, 12:26=A0pm, Darrick <darrick_even...@yahoo.com> wrote: > >> >> > The Mormon Church taught for 130 years that Negroes were: > >> >> Yea, Brigham Youngs worst move...Which clearly went against the > >> >> teachings of Joseph Smith. > >> >> > > >> >> > Inferior > >> >> > Children of Cain > >> >> > Under the Curse of Cain > >> >> > Had "Mark" of Cain (black skin, flat nose, kinky hair) > >> >> > Were less valiant in the War in Heaven > >> >> > Banned from the priesthood and temples > >> >> It's nice that they no longer do that...And it seems to be paying off > >> >> considering now they have more nonwhite members than white. > >> >> > > >> >> > In 1978, facing government threats to cancel its tax-exempt status, > >> >> > the President of the Mormon Church ended the priesthood/temple ban, > >> >> > allowing black Mormons to receive both. > >> >> No, I think they changed due to their expansions into Latin America > >> >> and Africa. > >> > > >> > it was the tax issue plus the threat of boycott of BYU football. > >> > >> Measures, the 'tax issue' was a complete non-issue, and you know it. > > > > The income tax on $6-Billion is nuttin' to sneeze at Diana. The fact > > is that the Civil Rights Act of 1964 denied tax exemption to any org that > > discriminated against race. > > > The fact is, that the IRS cannot take a church's tax exemption away. Under the Civil Rights Act of 1964 it can -- under due process of course. > It can, if the church has applied for one in the first place, revoke a tax exemption > letter. However, that revocation means nothing; the church still doesn't > have to pay taxes, and the donors to it may still declare their > contributions on their income tax forms. Undiluted fiction. >True, a couple of church SCHOOLS > have lost that exemption, with some real consequences to the schools: Bob > Jones University had a problem because of their prohibition against > inter-racial dating, and another church school lost theirs for blatantly > getting into a local election, but the churches they were associated with > were not in any danger whatsoever. > > And BYU didn't have any of the official discriminatory practices that would > have gotten their status yanked, anyway. It was official nothing. Black football players were agitating for a black player boycott of BYU because the church that runs it discriminated against persons with African blood. > > In fact, Rich, the IRS only has a rule about churches that meddle in > politics, Its not the IRS, the '64 CR Act was from Congress. > thanks to that 1954 law that Lyndon Johnson cobbled together...and > its enforcement of THAT law amounts to, well....nuttin. Excise taxes for the > year in which the church was found 'guilty', and that is equivalent to a > very light fine. Indeed, it has only revoked a CHURCH tax exempt status > twice in the half century since that bill was passed, that that revocation > didn't mean anything to the church, in terms of its ability to not pay > taxes. > > As to revoking the tax exempt status because of racial discrimination...no. > The matter was brought up, briefly--and Rex Lee appeared before the IRS. The > matter was dismissed. Now tell me, Rich--if the matter of the LDS church was > already examined by the IRS, and settled in favor of the church a good ten > years BEFORE the priesthood was extended to all worthy male members, then > how in the name of all that is wonderful can it be claimed that this was > done because the church was afraid of the IRS? The matter had already been > settled--and it wouldn't have mattered to the church, financially, anyway. > > You might try actually looking up the court cases, Rich. > > > > >>So was any 'threat' to BYU football. > > > > "Unlearned in history, they allow themselves to be governed by the > > Unknown Past." > > Historian John Acton > > > > -- > > R.L. Measures. 805-386-3734, http://www.somis.org -- R.L. Measures. 805-386-3734, http://www.somis.org Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Diana Posted March 29, 2008 Share Posted March 29, 2008 ".R. L. Measures" <2@vc.net> wrote in message news:2-2903080843310001@10.0.1.198... > In article <fZsHj.182$Re7.145@trnddc04>, "Diana" <dianaiad@noyoudont.com> > wrote: > >> ".R. L. Measures" <2@vc.net> wrote in message >> news:2-2903080311190001@10.0.1.198... >> > In article <Lh6Hj.1$p97.0@trnddc03>, "Diana" <dianaiad@noyoudont.com> >> > wrote: >> > >> >> ".R. L. Measures" <2@vc.net> wrote in message >> >> news:2-2703082329400001@10.0.1.198... >> >> > In article >> >> > <007e6f8f-ed75-4f62-b427-08bc8a604c21@s13g2000prd.googlegroups.com>, >> >> > Anonymous Infidel - the anti-political talking head >> >> > <messiah2999@yahoo.com> wrote: >> >> > >> >> >> On Mar 26, 12:26=A0pm, Darrick <darrick_even...@yahoo.com> wrote: >> >> >> > The Mormon Church taught for 130 years that Negroes were: >> >> >> Yea, Brigham Youngs worst move...Which clearly went against the >> >> >> teachings of Joseph Smith. >> >> >> > >> >> >> > Inferior >> >> >> > Children of Cain >> >> >> > Under the Curse of Cain >> >> >> > Had "Mark" of Cain (black skin, flat nose, kinky hair) >> >> >> > Were less valiant in the War in Heaven >> >> >> > Banned from the priesthood and temples >> >> >> It's nice that they no longer do that...And it seems to be paying >> >> >> off >> >> >> considering now they have more nonwhite members than white. >> >> >> > >> >> >> > In 1978, facing government threats to cancel its tax-exempt >> >> >> > status, >> >> >> > the President of the Mormon Church ended the priesthood/temple >> >> >> > ban, >> >> >> > allowing black Mormons to receive both. >> >> >> No, I think they changed due to their expansions into Latin America >> >> >> and Africa. >> >> > >> >> > it was the tax issue plus the threat of boycott of BYU football. >> >> >> >> Measures, the 'tax issue' was a complete non-issue, and you know it. >> > >> > The income tax on $6-Billion is nuttin' to sneeze at Diana. The >> > fact >> > is that the Civil Rights Act of 1964 denied tax exemption to any org >> > that >> > discriminated against race. >> >> >> The fact is, that the IRS cannot take a church's tax exemption away. > > Under the Civil Rights Act of 1964 it can -- under due process of > course. Actually, no. It can't. In fact, the act specifies that non-profit organizations that accept government funds have to abide by the act--but it specifically exempts churches. Which, by the way, is why Bob Jones University got nailed, but the Baptists didn't. The prohibition against churches actively campaigning for one or another candidate--that's a different act. And the IRS hasn't enforced either one on churches. >> It can, if the church has applied for one in the first place, revoke a > tax exemption >> letter. However, that revocation means nothing; the church still doesn't >> have to pay taxes, and the donors to it may still declare their >> contributions on their income tax forms. > > Undiluted fiction. Absolute fact, Rich. But...feel free to show me where the IRS has revoked the non-profit status of a church so that it has actually payed income taxes, and that the donors have been unable to declare contributions as deductions. >>True, a couple of church SCHOOLS >> have lost that exemption, with some real consequences to the schools: Bob >> Jones University had a problem because of their prohibition against >> inter-racial dating, and another church school lost theirs for blatantly >> getting into a local election, but the churches they were associated with >> were not in any danger whatsoever. >> >> And BYU didn't have any of the official discriminatory practices that >> would >> have gotten their status yanked, anyway. > > It was official nothing. Black football players were agitating for a > black player boycott of BYU because the church that runs it discriminated > against persons with African blood. Rich, c'mon now. You think the church changed it's policies over a threat of THAT? Get a grip on reality. >> In fact, Rich, the IRS only has a rule about churches that meddle in >> politics, > > Its not the IRS, the '64 CR Act was from Congress. Which specifically EXEMPTS churches. Take a good look at title VII, for one thing. It's why Wright's church isn't in trouble over the Civil Rights Act--just (perhaps, and not really) with the political activism bit. <snip to end> Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted March 29, 2008 Share Posted March 29, 2008 In article <GFxHj.312$s27.77@trnddc02>, "Diana" <dianaiad@noyoudont.com> wrote: > ".R. L. Measures" <2@vc.net> wrote in message > news:2-2903080843310001@10.0.1.198... > > In article <fZsHj.182$Re7.145@trnddc04>, "Diana" <dianaiad@noyoudont.com> > > wrote: > > > >> ".R. L. Measures" <2@vc.net> wrote in message > >> news:2-2903080311190001@10.0.1.198... > >> > In article <Lh6Hj.1$p97.0@trnddc03>, "Diana" <dianaiad@noyoudont.com> > >> > wrote: > >> > > >> >> ".R. L. Measures" <2@vc.net> wrote in message > >> >> news:2-2703082329400001@10.0.1.198... > >> >> > In article > >> >> > <007e6f8f-ed75-4f62-b427-08bc8a604c21@s13g2000prd.googlegroups.com>, > >> >> > Anonymous Infidel - the anti-political talking head > >> >> > <messiah2999@yahoo.com> wrote: > >> >> > > >> >> >> On Mar 26, 12:26=A0pm, Darrick <darrick_even...@yahoo.com> wrote: > >> >> >> > The Mormon Church taught for 130 years that Negroes were: > >> >> >> Yea, Brigham Youngs worst move...Which clearly went against the > >> >> >> teachings of Joseph Smith. > >> >> >> > > >> >> >> > Inferior > >> >> >> > Children of Cain > >> >> >> > Under the Curse of Cain > >> >> >> > Had "Mark" of Cain (black skin, flat nose, kinky hair) > >> >> >> > Were less valiant in the War in Heaven > >> >> >> > Banned from the priesthood and temples > >> >> >> It's nice that they no longer do that...And it seems to be paying > >> >> >> off > >> >> >> considering now they have more nonwhite members than white. > >> >> >> > > >> >> >> > In 1978, facing government threats to cancel its tax-exempt > >> >> >> > status, > >> >> >> > the President of the Mormon Church ended the priesthood/temple > >> >> >> > ban, > >> >> >> > allowing black Mormons to receive both. > >> >> >> No, I think they changed due to their expansions into Latin America > >> >> >> and Africa. > >> >> > > >> >> > it was the tax issue plus the threat of boycott of BYU football. > >> >> > >> >> Measures, the 'tax issue' was a complete non-issue, and you know it. > >> > > >> > The income tax on $6-Billion is nuttin' to sneeze at Diana. The > >> > fact > >> > is that the Civil Rights Act of 1964 denied tax exemption to any org > >> > that > >> > discriminated against race. > >> > >> > >> The fact is, that the IRS cannot take a church's tax exemption away. > > > > Under the Civil Rights Act of 1964 it can -- under due process of > > course. > > > Actually, no. It can't. In fact, the act specifies that non-profit > organizations that accept government funds have to abide by the act--but it > specifically exempts churches. > > Which, by the way, is why Bob Jones University got nailed, but the Baptists > didn't. > > The prohibition against churches actively campaigning for one or another > candidate--that's a different act. > > And the IRS hasn't enforced either one on churches. because the LdS church backed down in the Summer of 1978 by claiming that "God" had called off the supposed curse of dark skin. > > >> It can, if the church has applied for one in the first place, revoke a > > tax exemption > >> letter. However, that revocation means nothing; the church still doesn't > >> have to pay taxes, and the donors to it may still declare their > >> contributions on their income tax forms. > > > > Undiluted fiction. > > Absolute fact, Rich. But...feel free to show me where the IRS has revoked > the non-profit status of a church so that it has actually payed income > taxes, It didn't happen because "prophet" Woodruff supposedly got a timely revlation. >and that the donors have been unable to declare contributions as > deductions. > > >>True, a couple of church SCHOOLS > >> have lost that exemption, with some real consequences to the schools: Bob > >> Jones University had a problem because of their prohibition against > >> inter-racial dating, and another church school lost theirs for blatantly > >> getting into a local election, but the churches they were associated with > >> were not in any danger whatsoever. > >> > >> And BYU didn't have any of the official discriminatory practices that > >> would > >> have gotten their status yanked, anyway. > > > > It was official nothing. Black football players were agitating for a > > black player boycott of BYU because the church that runs it discriminated > > against persons with African blood. > > Rich, c'mon now. You think the church changed it's policies over a threat of > THAT? Yes. In the LdS church, mo' money is seen as having God's approval. >Get a grip on reality. > > >> In fact, Rich, the IRS only has a rule about churches that meddle in > >> politics, > > > > Its not the IRS, the '64 CR Act was from Congress. > > Which specifically EXEMPTS churches. Take a good look at title VII, for one > thing. It's why Wright's church isn't in trouble over the Civil Rights > Act--just (perhaps, and not really) with the political activism bit. > > <snip to end> -- R.L. Measures. 805-386-3734, http://www.somis.org Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Guy R. Briggs Posted March 29, 2008 Share Posted March 29, 2008 2@vc.net ( Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted March 30, 2008 Share Posted March 30, 2008 In article <Xns9A7093A30A5FAbrickwall@69.28.186.121>, "Guy R. Briggs" <netzach@GeoCities.com> wrote: > 2@vc.net ( Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Guy R. Briggs Posted March 30, 2008 Share Posted March 30, 2008 2@vc.net ( Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Diana Posted March 30, 2008 Share Posted March 30, 2008 ".R. L. Measures" <2@vc.net> wrote in message news:2-2903081415050001@10.0.1.198... <snip to here> >> >> And the IRS hasn't enforced either one on churches. > > because the LdS church backed down in the Summer of 1978 by claiming > that "God" had called off the supposed curse of dark skin. What were they supposed to have been backing down FROM, Rich? >> >> It can, if the church has applied for one in the first place, revoke a >> > tax exemption >> >> letter. However, that revocation means nothing; the church still >> >> doesn't >> >> have to pay taxes, and the donors to it may still declare their >> >> contributions on their income tax forms. >> > >> > Undiluted fiction. >> >> Absolute fact, Rich. But...feel free to show me where the IRS has revoked >> the non-profit status of a church so that it has actually payed income >> taxes, > > It didn't happen because "prophet" Woodruff supposedly got a timely > revlation. Ah. I can always tell when Rich has lost the point and the debate; he throws in a quick red herring change of subject, hoping that nobody notices. True, there was a revelation. True, the priesthood was extended to all worthy male members of the church. However, since the IRS wasn't after the church, would never BE after the church, and the church was in absolutely no danger of having the IRS after it, (something that was settled in the sixties) then you have a problem with cause and effect. You may as accurately claim that the sun came up this morning because a mockingbird sang two days ago. Post hoc, ergo propter hoc is a fallacy, Rich. It is especially a fallacy when the "hoc" that the event is "post" wasn't real. <snip to> > Yes. In the LdS church, mo' money is seen as having God's approval. Yep, you lost this one. What is it about you, Rich, that you can't just take defeat well? You have to flounder? It's not as if, by losing this and admitting to fact, you actually have to go get baptised or anything. <snip to end> Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted March 30, 2008 Share Posted March 30, 2008 In article <Xns9A70BEC11A8BFbrickwall@69.28.186.121>, "Guy R. Briggs" <netzach@GeoCities.com> wrote: > 2@vc.net ( Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.