Jump to content

stemelbow

Limited
  • Content Count

    9,779
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

4,144 Excellent

2 Followers

About stemelbow

  • Rank
    Creates Beasts Of The Earth

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male

Recent Profile Visitors

3,606 profile views
  1. To clarify section 19 was written long before the revelations that suggest a tiered heaven. To harmonize this earlier revelation with latter ones, it seems most logical to conclude that those mentioned in section 19, in the binary heavenly world, is speaking about those who pass beyond the judgment of whether they go to outer darkness or not. These are only those who will inherit a kingdom, as the latter revelations would suggest. Just to clarify. I'm not sure what you're trying to say. The 19th century theology, I believe, would suggest, those who inherit a lesser world would have to suffer for a season. Which seems like an added terrible belief system, on top of all those who would have been better to have never been born, or better to have served satan for eternity.
  2. Ok. on my take, the SP said no one would record it. Someone did. Bill said he wouldn't, apparently, and he apparently did. They are in the same category in that sense. But as I said, if I were Bill I'd think the agreement was broken as soon as I noticed the SP had lied and had allowed someone to record the events. You can make room for one and not the other, for whatever reason you like. I like trying to be consistent.
  3. You quoted me as saying many of the billions from one world. not billions from one world. oh well. I think my point stands.
  4. We're talking 100 billion per planet, which number of inhabited planets just keeps growing and growing for eternity. If say 1,000 from 100 billion planets, well, that's a big number. And it just keeps growing.
  5. Nope. you're wrong again. If he wanted to avoid, as you say of his intent, to avoid unauthorized recordings by the participants, then he should have said that. Instead he chose to say it is not appropriate for anyone, which would including himself, or any note taker, to record. It was his mistake. You keep trying to make a fuss about me. I'm just sticking to what was said and you keep assuming everyone knew, and he meant something he did not say. Thanks again, but again, smac, you are wrong. I'm happy to point that out for you, but I realize you won't accept such a notion.
  6. If what you say is true, then they should not have said anyone, as I pointed out. You keep getting after me, as if I'm doing anything but reading what was said and commenting. You keep assuming that the participators knew it didn't really mean anyone, and that expecting them to say what they mean is being "hyper-technical nitpicky". Again, not my fault, they said what they did. No amount of your effort to change what was said is working for me.
  7. I don't care what people knew or what you want to read into it. I'm just pointing out what was said and then how that was violated. Isee you want to make it about what was intended, and not what was said. But I'm no mind reader, so I'm sticking to what we have. You can continue to assume whatever you want, I suppose. As far as I'm concerned, if I were Bill, after reading what was written, I wouldn't expect anyone to record in anyway what was happening in the meeting. If I were Bill and I went in and they were recording it, I'd take it that they were not serious when they said no one should record it--that it would be inappropriate for anyone to do so. if they didn't mean "anyone", as you keep asserting they didn't, then they shouldn't have said that. I can't help their mistake. And as far as I"m concerned, depending on the note taker, it is possible to capture, and record, a more complete version of what transpired than an audio recording, unless of course the audio is able to capture everything that transpires, including non-verbal communications. It sounds to me you are getting desperate and unreasonable, including efforts to put into my view things I"ve not said at all. I'm sticking to what was said. I have not assumed what everyone knew, as you have, nor have I assumed what was meant in spite of what was said, as you have.
  8. What? The records of the Church are not either private or public? What are they? And yet it was promised that it wouldn't happen. And, yet, against their own stated wishes they had someone record the events. You have mischaracterized and misunderstood me again. I am only saying they should have done exactly what they outlined--it's inappropriate to record the meeting. I didn't say anything you seem to be hearing from my words. You are distracting from the actual discussion again. It sure does. It says no one should record it. that means they should not make record of what took place. And they did. So apparently they went against their words to Bill. You can complain about me all day, but as quoted they are the ones who said it would be inappropriate for anyone. They didn't put an exception in for themselves. I mean, I'm not saying they aren't stupid for doing it, but they did say it. I haven't seen anything from bill on this. I"m pointing out a clear problem with the Church's actions here. The Church's reps said that it would not be appropriate for anyone who attends the council (which has to include a clerk or note-taker) to record the meeting, whether for private (church use) or public (posted on the internet or to a news agency). Bill showed up and someone was recording it. Bad Form. A lack of integrity, obviously. Under such obviousness why should Bill feel that they were taking it seriously?
  9. The letter he received does say "It would not be appropriate, for example, for anyone who attends the council to make a recording of it, whether for private or public use". This clearly tells Bill one thing. No one, not he nor anyone, should make record of it. Taking notes is of course making a record of what took place--depending on the note taker the notes taken could very well be more complete than an audio recording. And whether it's public or private it should not have been done, according to the letter that was sent him. So if I were sent what Bill was sent I'd not expect anyone there to take notes. Because it was said no one should record it. Once I saw that, I'd figure the promises made regarding that requirement/request were null and void.
  10. The problem I still forsee then is weeping for them is eternal. There will always be nothing but spirits whimpering in outerdarkness and there'll be nothing but more joining them. The saved sadness and weeping only grows for eternity. Thus weeping is eternal. It'd be hard to find peace and comfort in those who make it when there remains so many who don't. Sitting on a beach while kabillions are organized into neat little packaged hellish eternities, would suck. Sitting around miserable for eternity because so many are lost would suck too. I don't know if I'd choose any. I'd probably be happiest in outerdarkness, because it all sucks anyways. That's a fine assumption for many I suppose. for me it just means we're all pretty selfish. I think I'd rather take the place of an eternal sufferer. Ok. if you say so.
  11. Are you saying the non-disclosure then wasn't signed by everyone? I thought the SP said it would have to be. The agreement that was sent to Bill suggested everyone would sign it. And if someone was there taking notes, then it appears the agreement would be broken.
  12. I'm going from memory here. I do believe the SP said to Bill that he had to sign the non-disclosure or else he couldn't attend, and added that everyone there would also sign. Yet, as it turns out, someone came to take notes, which is recording the events. I'm sure Bill wouldn't know what's on the notes, so if I were him and I went to the proceedings and saw someone taking notes after having been told I couldn't record, I'd think they broke the agreement themselves. I might say, "oh someone's recording this? You had assured me that no one would be doing so. I suppose that means I can record it now too?" I also agree, essentially, with flameburns when he said:
  13. Whenever I thought about these old teachings that seem to mostly be questioned, ignored, or rejected now I got frustrated. So we're here to become like God who is God over many worlds, and galaxies with countless inhabited planets. If we do attain godhood then we too can do as he has done--kabillions of worlds each filled with many billions of people most of whom will not become gods but will inhabit some form of hell (because it used to be described that if you don't inherit all then you have been consigned to some kind of hell wherein you can't progress any longer). And, on top of that many of the billions from one world will be sent to outerdarkness for eternity. And we do this, only to repeat the cycle over and over for forever. It all makes it sound as unappealing and pointless as sitting around peeling potatoes for eternity to me. Why create when most of those created inherit hell? I suppose we can counter that and say well most will inherit a kingdom of glory. ok. but some will be sent to the eternal abyss of nothingness and pain. And if many of the billions never reach their potential of godhood, is there not sadness to that? Is there not disappointment?
  14. I have had friends and family members divulge private information, stuff I've asked them to not divulge. I'm easy to forgive I guess, because I do so without problem in most cases--although sometimes it has hurt. And I never consider anyone to be without integrity at all. I do agree with flameburns on a couple of his points--the Church really is acting just as unethical as Bill Reel in recording the events. If I were in a disciplinary event and they asked me not to record, or rather demanded I not and then went ahead and recorded it via a note taker, I'd gladly leave and realize they simply have little integrity and are being unfair and foolish and aren't taking me seriously. Of course I see no reason whatsoever to accuse them of having zero integrity because that is just as unfair and foolish. I would figure if my eternity was at stake then I'd at least have the right to tell people what happened, and to back up whatever it is I tell through some source of a recording--whether notes or audio/video. the Church tends to want things to go good for them no matter what and has set things up that way. Their insistence that no one record their disciplinary courts shows to me they are far more about protecting the Church then about helping the subject. One who doesn't want it recorded before that one is embarrassed and ashamed of their sins is one thing, but one who feels like the Church is being self-interested and thus unfair, well that's another.
×