The Mormon Church and Black People...

[\john p\]

On Mar 31, 5:54 pm, Duwaynea Anderson <DuwayneAnder...@gmail.com>
wrote:
> On Mar 30, 2:40 pm, "Guy R. Briggs" <netz...@GeoCities.com> wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
> > > As I understand it, according to the Book of Mormon,
> > > polygamy is a sin.
>
> > Non sequitur, but correct. A sin /except/ when it's commanded by God,
> > through a living prophet, for a specific purpose.
>
> Okay.....what specific and verifiable action would you refuse to do,
> even if commanded by the prophet of the Church of Jesus Christ of
> Latter-day Saints?
>
> <snip to end>
>
> Duwayne Anderson
> Author of "Farewell to Eden: Coming to terms with Mormonism and
> science"
> American Quarter Horse: The ultimate all-terrain vehicle

I believe he doesn't understand the question. You aren't asking
whether he thinks the prophet would ask him to do some evil deed, but
what action is sufficiently wrong that they would have to draw the
line and refuse to do, even if the prophet commanded it. Does that
sound about right?

A comparable question would be what action would you refuse to do even
if the government commanded it. I would never murder, and I don't
believe the government would command me to do it, but if they did, I
would rather refuse and suffer the legal consequences. There are many
actions that I would refuse to do if the president, or congress, of
the U.S. "commanded", even if the majority of the population supported
the draconian laws.

 

In article
<a6975751-c0ad-4b54-bf9f-f4d80790a1ed@i7g2000prf.googlegroups.com>,
Duwaynea Anderson <DuwayneAnderson@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Mar 30, 2:40 pm, "Guy R. Briggs" <netz...@GeoCities.com> wrote:
>
> <snip>
> > > As I understand it, according to the Book of Mormon,
> > > polygamy is a sin.
> >
> > Non sequitur, but correct. A sin /except/ when it's commanded by God,
> > through a living prophet, for a specific purpose.
>
> Okay.....what specific and verifiable action would you refuse to do,
> even if commanded by the prophet of the Church of Jesus Christ of
> Latter-day Saints?
>
Let the hair pull begin.

--
R.L. Measures. 805-386-3734, www.somis.org

 

[Diana]

".R. L. Measures" <2@vc.net> wrote in message
news:2-3103080315410001@10.0.1.198...
> In article <dUUHj.1049$s27.210@trnddc02>, "Diana" <dianaiad@noyoudont.com>
> wrote:
><snip>
>> Then why are you talking about lawsuits? Because, Rich, it was the
>> lawsuits,
>> not the 'bad press,' that caused all those settlements.
>>
>> Rich, give it up. YOu lost.
>
> The RCC settled in en masse to avoid going through c. 1000 individual
> trials and having the downtown pukesville testimony of sodomized
> altar-boys published in newspapers over a period of probably several years
> as the cases slowly made their way to trial.

That's what I said. Lawsuits. Real ones.

I note, however, your complete absence of any sense of proportion here.

 

In article <gJhIj.9458$Eq.6102@trnddc05>, "Diana" <dianaiad@noyoudont.com>
wrote:

> ".R. L. Measures" <2@vc.net> wrote in message
> news:2-3103080315410001@10.0.1.198...
> > In article <dUUHj.1049$s27.210@trnddc02>, "Diana" <dianaiad@noyoudont.com>
> > wrote:
> ><snip>
> >> Then why are you talking about lawsuits? Because, Rich, it was the
> >> lawsuits,
> >> not the 'bad press,' that caused all those settlements.
> >>
> >> Rich, give it up. YOu lost.
> >
> > The RCC settled in en masse to avoid going through c. 1000 individual
> > trials and having the downtown pukesville testimony of sodomized
> > altar-boys published in newspapers over a period of probably several years
> > as the cases slowly made their way to trial.
>
> That's what I said. Lawsuits. Real ones.
>
> I note, however, your complete absence of any sense of proportion here.

The hingepin was unfavourable publicity that would cast doubt on the
church's claim to be divinely authorized to teach the world about ethics
and morals. .

--
R.L. Measures. 805-386-3734, www.somis.org

 

[Gerry Ford]

The LDS church doesn't even carry insurance for bishops cornholing deacons.
LDS theology is clear on this, with such persons it's "get the **** out on
the first strike."

So while my own lutheran faith is spending tens of millions of dollars to
settle priest-boy bugger lawsuits, the lds church says "come at us at our
checkbook." There are small settlements for those who sue the church for
this type of thing. A clergyman will take a teenage girl in his confidence
and pull a fanny with her. The reason that people don't get much money from
the church is that they're down the road. These guys also were smoking pot,
had unknown gambling debts and misrepresented himself to everyone, including
the church.

The big awards come when you have one faggot priest who is ecclesiastical
authority to another faggot priest and it's fifteen kids over ten years. I
hope not to come off as homophobic. I think that whatever language the
Catholic church uses to bar women from ordination is instead for
homosexuals, who have a significant precentage of predators in this class.

--

"That this social order with its pauperism, famines, prisons, gallows,
armies, and wars is necessary to society; that still greater disaster
would ensue if this organization were destroyed; all this is said only
by those who profit by this organization, while those who suffer from it
- and they are ten times as numerous - think and say quite the contrary."

~~ Leo Tolstoy

"Diana" <dianaiad@noyoudont.com> wrote in message
news:lDTHj.8276$gS1.838@trndny07...
>
> ".R. L. Measures" <2@vc.net> wrote in message
> news:2-3003081147460001@10.0.1.198...
>> In article <OuQHj.5637$A87.959@trnddc06>, "Diana"
>> <dianaiad@noyoudont.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> ".R. L. Measures" <2@vc.net> wrote in message
>>> news:2-3003080736570001@10.0.1.198...
>>> > In article <uxMHj.1724$Eq.1352@trnddc05>, "Diana"
>>> > <dianaiad@noyoudont.com>
>>> > wrote:
>>> >
>>> >> ".R. L. Measures" <2@vc.net> wrote in message
>>> >> news:2-2903082007020001@10.0.1.198...
>>> >> > In article <HgCHj.247$zb3.77@trnddc01>, "Diana"
>>> >> > <dianaiad@noyoudont.com>
>>> >> > wrote:
>>> >> >
>>> >> >> ".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?
>>> >> >
>>> >> > from prohibiting persons with African blood from holding the
>>> >> > LdS
>>> >> > high
>>> >> > priesthood.
>>> >> >>
>>> >>
>>> >> (grin) twisty, Rich. And here I thought you were claiming that the
>>> >> church
>>> >> was backing down from the IRS threat.
>>> >>
>>> >
>>> > Not just the $6-billion tax exemption, the planned boycott of
>>> > BYU's
>>> > football team. Another factor was bad press.
>>>
>>> Rich.
>>> The church has stood up to being shot at, being thrown out of states and
>>> the
>>> nation, having an ARMY sent after it---and you think we were going to be
>>> afraid of 'bad press?'
>>
>> The prospect of press coverage of victim testimony during well over
>> 1000 individual trials was the reason why another God's one true decided
>> to pay $2,000,000,000 to its butt-rammed altar-boys.
>
> Rich, THAT was the result of some very real lawsuits. Something the LDS
> church wasn't ever threatened with. Not to mention that the situations
> weren't even remotely similar.
>>>
>>> Not to mention that the tax exemption, however large it might have been,
>>> was
>>> in no danger--a fact that I have proven and you have ignored.
>>
>> I was not convinced that any church can bar blacks and retain its tax
>> exemption.
>
> I don't care whether YOU were convinced. The Supreme Court and the IRS
> was. Besides which, Rich, we didn't 'bar blacks' from the church, from
> membership, or from any ultimate blessings. Certain men were restricted
> from holding the priesthood, something that every church of every
> denomination has the absolute right to do--to choose who will be members
> of their priesthood.
>
>>> Ad to a boycott of BYU's football team---the church has stood up to
>>> being
>>> shot at, etc., and you think we were going to be afraid of a FOOTBALL
>>> BOYCOTT???
>>
>> BYU has never faced a team whose players walked off.
>
> No, they never did. And they never would have, either.
>
>>> >> >> >> >> 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.
>>> >> >>
>>> >
>>> > Correction: It was LdS "prophet/seer/revelator" Spencer Kimball
>>> > who
>>> > supposedly got a divine revelation that God's curse of dark skin
>>> > against
>>> > the decendants of Cain had been called off -- not
>>> > "prophet/seer/revelator"
>>> > Wilford Woodruff (March 1, 1807

 

[\john p\]

On Mar 31, 9:37 pm, 2...@vc.net ( R. L. Measures) wrote:
> In article <gJhIj.9458$Eq.6102@trnddc05>, "Diana" <diana...@noyoudont.com>
> wrote:
>
>
>
> > ".R. L. Measures" <2...@vc.net> wrote in message
> >news:2-3103080315410001@10.0.1.198...
> > > In article <dUUHj.1049$s27.210@trnddc02>, "Diana" <diana...@noyoudont.com>
> > > wrote:
> > ><snip>
> > >> Then why are you talking about lawsuits? Because, Rich, it was the
> > >> lawsuits,
> > >> not the 'bad press,' that caused all those settlements.
>
> > >> Rich, give it up. YOu lost.
>
> > > The RCC settled in en masse to avoid going through c. 1000 individual
> > > trials and having the downtown pukesville testimony of sodomized
> > > altar-boys published in newspapers over a period of probably several years
> > > as the cases slowly made their way to trial.
>
> > That's what I said. Lawsuits. Real ones.
>
> > I note, however, your complete absence of any sense of proportion here.
>
> The hingepin was unfavourable publicity that would cast doubt on the
> church's claim to be divinely authorized to teach the world about ethics
> and morals. .
>
> --
> R.L. Measures. 805-386-3734,www.somis.org

Bingo

 

In article
<657b5465-046b-45c7-a606-a84b8100fc40@e10g2000prf.googlegroups.com>,
"\"john p\"" <john.phile@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Mar 31, 9:37 pm, 2...@vc.net ( R. L. Measures) wrote:
> > In article <gJhIj.9458$Eq.6102@trnddc05>, "Diana" <diana...@noyoudont.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > > ".R. L. Measures" <2...@vc.net> wrote in message
> > >news:2-3103080315410001@10.0.1.198...
> > > > In article <dUUHj.1049$s27.210@trnddc02>, "Diana"
<diana...@noyoudont.com>
> > > > wrote:
> > > ><snip>
> > > >> Then why are you talking about lawsuits? Because, Rich, it was the
> > > >> lawsuits,
> > > >> not the 'bad press,' that caused all those settlements.
> >
> > > >> Rich, give it up. YOu lost.
> >
> > > > The RCC settled in en masse to avoid going through c. 1000
individual
> > > > trials and having the downtown pukesville testimony of sodomized
> > > > altar-boys published in newspapers over a period of probably
several years
> > > > as the cases slowly made their way to trial.
> >
> > > That's what I said. Lawsuits. Real ones.
> >
> > > I note, however, your complete absence of any sense of proportion here.
> >
> > The hingepin was unfavourable publicity that would cast doubt on the
> > church's claim to be divinely authorized to teach the world about ethics
> > and morals. .
> >
> > --
> > R.L. Measures. 805-386-3734,www.somis.org
>
> Bingo

I'm wondering what the Holy Family thinks about the Catholic Church
hiding priests who played hide the sausage with altar-boys?

--
R.L. Measures. 805-386-3734, www.somis.org

 

[Duwaynea Anderson]

On Mar 31, 7:04

 

[Duwaynea Anderson]

On Mar 31, 7:27 pm, 2...@vc.net ( R. L. Measures) wrote:
> In article
> <a6975751-c0ad-4b54-bf9f-f4d80790a...@i7g2000prf.googlegroups.com>,
>
> Duwaynea Anderson <DuwayneAnder...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Mar 30, 2:40 pm, "Guy R. Briggs" <netz...@GeoCities.com> wrote:
>
> > <snip>
> > > > As I understand it, according to the Book of Mormon,
> > > > polygamy is a sin.
>
> > > Non sequitur, but correct. A sin /except/ when it's commanded by God,
> > > through a living prophet, for a specific purpose.
>
> > Okay.....what specific and verifiable action would you refuse to do,
> > even if commanded by the prophet of the Church of Jesus Christ of
> > Latter-day Saints?
>
> Let the hair pull begin.

Don't forget their gnashing of teeth.

There is nothing as hated among Mormon apologist as questions designed
to expose the cult no matter how they answer or ignore them. Try
these two questions on your Mormon friends:

Question 1: "What specific and verifiable action would you refuse to
do, even if commanded by the prophet of the Church of Jesus Christ of
Latter-day Saints?"

Question 2: "What specific and verifiable action, if done by the
prophet of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (LDS or
Mormon), would deprive him of your sustaining vote?"

Duwayne Anderson
Author of "Farewell to Eden: Coming to terms with Mormonism and
science"
American Quarter Horse: The ultimate all-terrain vehicle

 

In article
<21f5e39d-1a6a-4f42-a52c-6cdddf7afdf2@c19g2000prf.googlegroups.com>,
Duwaynea Anderson <DuwayneAnderson@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Mar 31, 7:27 pm, 2...@vc.net ( R. L. Measures) wrote:
> > In article
> > <a6975751-c0ad-4b54-bf9f-f4d80790a...@i7g2000prf.googlegroups.com>,
> >
> > Duwaynea Anderson <DuwayneAnder...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > On Mar 30, 2:40 pm, "Guy R. Briggs" <netz...@GeoCities.com> wrote:
> >
> > > <snip>
> > > > > As I understand it, according to the Book of Mormon,
> > > > > polygamy is a sin.
> >
> > > > Non sequitur, but correct. A sin /except/ when it's commanded by God,
> > > > through a living prophet, for a specific purpose.
> >
> > > Okay.....what specific and verifiable action would you refuse to do,
> > > even if commanded by the prophet of the Church of Jesus Christ of
> > > Latter-day Saints?
> >
> > Let the hair pull begin.
>
> Don't forget their gnashing of teeth.

and the standard set of LdS ad hominems.
>
> There is nothing as hated among Mormon apologist as questions designed
> to expose the cult no matter how they answer or ignore them. Try
> these two questions on your Mormon friends:
>
> Question 1: "What specific and verifiable action would you refuse to
> do, even if commanded by the prophet of the Church of Jesus Christ of
> Latter-day Saints?"

Ummmmm. How about the prophet is in the next stall in the men's room
and he taps your foot with one of his feet?
>
> Question 2: "What specific and verifiable action, if done by the
> prophet of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (LDS or
> Mormon), would deprive him of your sustaining vote?"
>
> Duwayne Anderson
> Author of "Farewell to Eden: Coming to terms with Mormonism and
> science"
> American Quarter Horse: The ultimate all-terrain vehicle

--
R.L. Measures. 805-386-3734, www.somis.org

 

[Duwaynea Anderson]

On Mar 27, 6:32