Guest Posted March 31, 2008 Posted March 31, 2008 In article <cWUHj.1050$s27.865@trnddc02>, "Diana" <dianaiad@noyoudont.com> wrote: > ".R. L. Measures" <2@vc.net> wrote in message > news:2-3003081545320001@10.0.1.198... > > In article <kNTHj.9661$oE1.8988@trndny09>, "Diana" > > <dianaiad@noyoudont.com> wrote: > > > >> ".R. L. Measures" <2@vc.net> wrote in message > >> news:2-3003081353480001@10.0.1.198... > >> > In article <6MmdnT4U0Oz4b3LanZ2dnUVZ_oCvnZ2d@giganews.com>, John > >> > Manning > >> > <jrobertm@terra.com.br> wrote: > >> <snip to> > >> >> > >> >> In my eyes there's nothing 'true' or 'godly' about racism. The fact > >> >> that > >> >> other people of that era were racists as well is no excuse. It only > >> >> further shows that the LDS Church, weird as it is and was, was just as > >> >> evil as other racists of the time. > >> > > >> Rich, since you agreed with this, would you kindly tell me why you aren't > >> over on, say...alt.religion.christian.baptist yelling at THEM? > > > > Two of my cousins are Baptist preachers. > > Ah. You are caving into pressure. I get it. Baptist seminaries used to teach a course in lynching. > > > > > >> I mean, > >> Babtists used to own slaves and were far more racist in the south than > >> Mormons ever were. Yet I think that one could say that most of them have > >> changed-- > > > > This happened over a century before the LdS church saw the light. > > No, dear. They were forced to give up their SLAVES at gun point, This is not about giving up slaves, it is about giving up on the teaching of J. S. Jr. and Brigham Young regarding skin color. but the > Baptists in the south kept up their racist policies for a very long time > indeed. the remnants are still there. > > > But you lost. Get over it and get on to another topic. We still need to talk about what Brigham said in regard to flat noses and dark skin. -- R.L. Measures. 805-386-3734, http://www.somis.org Quote
Guest Posted March 31, 2008 Posted March 31, 2008 In article <Xns9A71AD3A443B4brickwall@69.28.186.121>, "Guy R. Briggs" <netzach@GeoCities.com> wrote: > 2@vc.net ( Quote
Guest Posted March 31, 2008 Posted March 31, 2008 In article <b5b5f145-b81d-4ca2-af0d-4b13563612ff@c26g2000prf.googlegroups.com>, "<<<~[A John 3:16 Whosoever]~>>>" <kaseybeck61@gmail.com> wrote: > On Mar 30, 2:40=A0pm, "Diana" <diana...@noyoudont.com> wrote: > > > Rich, since you agreed with this, would you kindly tell me why you aren't > > over on, say...alt.religion.christian.baptist yelling at THEM? I mean, > > Babtists used to own slaves and were far more racist in the south than > > Mormons ever were. Yet I think that one could say that most of them have > > changed--and even they will admit that they did so because of far more > > pressure, political and moral, than has ever been leveled at the LDS churc= > h. > > Are you really sure they will "admit" such a thing? How would you > know? Have you asked Baptists if they changed their feelings about > racism in the Baptist church because of "political and moral > [pressure]"? > > > Yet---all is praise for everybody who has changed their policies. All hail= > > > the racists who no longer are! =A0How wonderful! Repentance is glorious, > > Forgiveness is universal... > > > > Unless of course one is a Mormon. Then of course no forgiveness is possibl= > e, > > and no matter what he or she does, it's evil. Should they extend the > > priesthood to all male members? Why, THEY CHANGED BECAUSE OF PRESSURE! and= > > > are evil. Should they NOT do so? WHY, the evil RACISTS! > > And once again we see a demonstration of Diana's "Mormons as martyra > syndrome" at play. How many times are you going to play that card, > Diana? chortle -- R.L. Measures. 805-386-3734, http://www.somis.org Quote
Guest Posted March 31, 2008 Posted March 31, 2008 In article <cda883d1-a306-42ed-95d6-16cbd81d9a1e@e6g2000prf.googlegroups.com>, "\"john p\"" <john.phile@gmail.com> wrote: > On Mar 30, 1:02 pm, John <ews...@gmail.com> wrote: > > On Mar 30, 1:39 pm, 2...@vc.net ( R. L. Measures) wrote: > > > > > In article > > > > > > There is no mention of any curse being lifted, or any skin colors > > > > being changed, in the revelation given to President Kimball. Why do > > > > you keep repeating this lie? > > > > > it was de facto lifted because after Kimball's revelation blacks can > > > hold the high LdS priesthood. > > > > The revelation never says anything specific about blacks. > > > > > > > > > > Its not in there, you can't find it, so don't keep saying it like its > > > > a fact. THere is nothing in that revelation about a curse being taken > > > > off, or implying that anyone's skin was going to change color. > > > > > So the Curse of Cain is still on? > > > > If it makes you happy, and gives you reason to live, and despise the > > church, so be it. The problem is not mine to deal with. As far as I > > know, all worthy males are entitled to hold the Priesthood. > > > > Come join us here in the present. The past, is just that, and I can't > > do anything about it, neither can you. Maybe you can organize some > > sort of attack on the Mainstream Christian churches, since the Lord > > withheld His priesthood from a number of groups of people throughout > > history. The reasons are His. > > > > JohnB > > We should learn from the past. IME, TBMs are quick to deny their ugly past. -- R.L. Measures. 805-386-3734, http://www.somis.org Quote
Guest Duwaynea Anderson Posted April 1, 2008 Posted April 1, 2008 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 Quote
Guest \john p\ Posted April 1, 2008 Posted April 1, 2008 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. Quote
Guest Posted April 1, 2008 Posted April 1, 2008 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, http://www.somis.org Quote
Guest Diana Posted April 1, 2008 Posted April 1, 2008 ".R. L. Measures" <2@vc.net> wrote in message news:2-3103080315410001@10.0.1.198... > In article <dUUHj.1049$s27.210@trnddc02>, "Diana" <dianaiad@noyoudont.com> > wrote: ><snip> >> Then why are you talking about lawsuits? Because, Rich, it was the >> lawsuits, >> not the 'bad press,' that caused all those settlements. >> >> Rich, give it up. YOu lost. > > The RCC settled in en masse to avoid going through c. 1000 individual > trials and having the downtown pukesville testimony of sodomized > altar-boys published in newspapers over a period of probably several years > as the cases slowly made their way to trial. That's what I said. Lawsuits. Real ones. I note, however, your complete absence of any sense of proportion here. Quote
Guest Posted April 1, 2008 Posted April 1, 2008 In article <gJhIj.9458$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, http://www.somis.org Quote
Guest Gerry Ford Posted April 1, 2008 Posted April 1, 2008 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 fuck 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 Quote
Guest \john p\ Posted April 1, 2008 Posted April 1, 2008 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$s27.210@trnddc02>, "Diana" <diana...@noyoudont.com> > > > wrote: > > ><snip> > > >> Then why are you talking about lawsuits? Because, Rich, it was the > > >> lawsuits, > > >> not the 'bad press,' that caused all those settlements. > > > >> Rich, give it up. YOu lost. > > > > The RCC settled in en masse to avoid going through c. 1000 individual > > > trials and having the downtown pukesville testimony of sodomized > > > altar-boys published in newspapers over a period of probably several years > > > as the cases slowly made their way to trial. > > > That's what I said. Lawsuits. Real ones. > > > I note, however, your complete absence of any sense of proportion here. > > The hingepin was unfavourable publicity that would cast doubt on the > church's claim to be divinely authorized to teach the world about ethics > and morals. . > > -- > R.L. Measures. 805-386-3734,http://www.somis.org Bingo Quote
Guest Posted April 1, 2008 Posted April 1, 2008 In article <657b5465-046b-45c7-a606-a84b8100fc40@e10g2000prf.googlegroups.com>, "\"john p\"" <john.phile@gmail.com> wrote: > On Mar 31, 9:37 pm, 2...@vc.net ( R. L. Measures) wrote: > > In article <gJhIj.9458$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,http://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, http://www.somis.org Quote
Guest Duwaynea Anderson Posted April 1, 2008 Posted April 1, 2008 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 Quote
Guest Posted April 1, 2008 Posted April 1, 2008 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, http://www.somis.org Quote
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.