Jump to content

Raingirl

Members
  • Posts

    703
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Raingirl

  1. I participated on another forum where a woman claimed that she had prayed about whether or not she should have sex with her boyfriend. Her story was that they were living together platonically because he wasn’t interested in marriage. But he didn’t want it to be platonic. She said that she prayed about it and God had told her it was okay to go ahead and have sex, since he was never going to marry her, and this would be her “only chance” to ever have sex. Color me skeptical.
  2. The pushback I got from some people when I shared that the “rules” they were given were not actually a requirement of the church was disturbing. They wouldn’t accept the possibility that something they were told was actually someone’s personal interpretation. No doubt a few think I’m going straight to hell.
  3. I don’t like the attitude that if a member isn’t over-the-top engaged, that they should then be ignored. There’s a multitude of reasons that a member might be less engaged or not engaged. One of the first people that reached out to me when I was an investigator was a woman who had been inactive for thirty years. She returned to the church when a new bishop reached out to her. He was the very first person who had ever done so in those thirty years. When she had stopped attending, not a single person had even bothered to ask if she was okay.
  4. I’m a convert. Prior to receiving my endowment, I heard all sorts of “rules” about how women were to wear their garments. So I asked specific questions while in the temple on the day of my endowment, just prior to putting on the garments for the first time. I am very grateful to the sister who answered my questions, and didn’t embellish with personal preferences or antiquated “rules”. I think that contributed to my never having an issue with wearing garments.
  5. I am struck by the phrase that they all traveled together to the other side of the veil. That got me seriously choked up.
  6. You have clearly not understood what the missionaries said about temple recommends, as you have also clearly misunderstood other things about the church. As previously stated, ordinances in the church are the same the world over. A full temple recommend cannot be obtained until you have been a member for at least a year. Even then, it is not guaranteed. There are things you must learn, requirements you must meet, and interviews you must go through. Youth and new members may receive a limited recommend to do baptisms only. That is at the discretion of the bishop. You can find this and much other information on the church website. Or will you refuse to believe what’s written there as well? What I “understand” is that I will not further engage with you, as I find your condescension off-putting.
  7. And what “story” would that be? Ordinances are the same the world over.
  8. It’s not a “stupid” temple recommend. And you need to be a member for at least a year before you can be considered for a temple recommend. Prior to that, you may be allowed a limited temporary recommend for the purpose of participating in baptisms only.
  9. This isn’t the first time Stanford has done something like this. In 2004, the halftime show during a game against BYU was a skit about polygamy. Makes me wonder if they mock other religions, or just us.
  10. It was November 21. I don’t recall if the things you are asking about were brought up in the trial. I’m re- watching from the beginning, so I will try to pay attention to that. I know they’ve been walking a fine line with prior acts of anyone involved in the trial. I do not believe- and I feel the trial shows this - that this was a racially motivated attack on white people. This attack came directly after this killer was involved in a domestic altercation with the mother of one of his children. He was enraged with her. He drove directly from that altercation to the parade and deliberately ran over people. Given that he approached his victims from behind, and that they were bundled up for winter weather, I very much doubt that he could even tell the race of any of his victims. Again, the majority of people in Waukesha are white, so the odds are high that most, if not all, of his victims would be white. I don’t know the race of all of his previous victims, but the ones I do know about - Erika Patterson, various family members, etc. - are all people of color. Does he hate white people? Absolutely. Does he hate Jews? Absolutely. But he abuses and harms everyone who crosses his path, regardless of color.
  11. Did you watch the trial? It doesn’t appear so. This murderer is a narcissist who enjoys hurting anyone and everyone. Including POC. Including family members. He definitely hates white people, it’s abundantly clear in his past social media posts, and in his behavior over past years. But he mowed down people at the parade because he was pissed off at the mother of one of his children, and made a deliberate decision to use his vehicle as a weapon to kill people. He didn’t give a damn what color they were. You yourself stated that Waukesha is only 3% black, so the skin color of his victims was dictated by that.
  12. I think Judge Dorow did an outstanding job of explaining that any supposed mental illness that this murderer may have had (He was found competent by several professionals), had absolutely nothing to do with his actions. She also did an outstanding job of explaining why she believes these were the evil actions of an evil person. This murderer is a very clear example of a narcissist. I could go on (I’ve watched the majority of the trial), but this murderer doesn’t deserve any more attention.
  13. I’m so sorry, Papa. May your brother’s memory be for a blessing.
  14. Thank you for doing this. I’m terrible at note-taking, so having such clear notes really helps.
  15. Your ignorance and lack of compassion is shameful and could end up doing serious harm.
  16. You seem to be proud of yourself for unrighteously passing judgment on people in their profound grief and pain. And obviously have no qualms about exploiting someone else’s tragedy for your own self-righteous (imaginary) gain.
  17. How in the world do you “demonstrate” avoiding pornography? 🤦‍♀️
  18. This is Jerry’s MO. Making assertions without backing them up. He’s previously been temp-banned for this behavior.
  19. I’ve been wanting to see this movie, but haven’t yet had the opportunity. I love period pieces, and I love Irish movies.
  20. Dealing with you is a waste of time. You offer nothing but lies and obsfucation.
  21. What I do or don’t believe has nothing to do with the subject at hand, which is your refusal to abide by the rules of the board.
  22. If you can’t provide documentation, how do you know these so-called gun rooms exist? Where does your information come from? Once again, if you cannot provide a verifiable source, you must retract your claim about “gun rooms”.
  23. You either have serious reading comprehension issues, or you are being deliberately obtuse in an effort to avoid responding to a valid CFR. As I previously stated, no one is asking for the specific location of the “gun room” in the temple, we are asking for documentation that it actually exists. You are required by the rules of the board to provide the documentation or retract your claim. If you are telling the truth, you should have no trouble providing documentation.
×
×
  • Create New...