Jump to content

Withholding the priesthood from blacks


DanGB

Recommended Posts

I think Fitch may have a good and valid point here. Has there ever been revelation that directs policy and practice of our sacred ordinances and/or blessings that is NOT deemed doctrine?

(think dress codes for young men officiating the sacrement, facial hair policy for men working in the temple, changes to sacred temple ceremonies, etc.)

:P

;)

:crazy:

:fool:

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Link to post

We do, however, have repeated statements from the First Presidency (who are in a position to know, don't you think?) that it was NOT doctrine. It was policy.

. . .

There is considerable evidence to suggest that the ban was commanded- despite it's never having been doctrine (nice attempt at sleight of hand there, by the way). It is far more accurate to say that rhere is no conclusive proof.

The Church doesn't draw fine distinctions between doctrine and policy; I see little distinction. Rather, the Lord commanded it, or His servants did; it was the same.

I also don't buy into the notion that doctrine is permanent and policy is not. Moabites could not enter the congregation of the Lord until the 10th generation. (Deut 23:3). That was a pretty clear command of the Lord directed at a particular race of people, and He states His reasons. Yet, we read, Ruth was admitted to the congregation of the Lord and her great-grandson was David.

We also read how Jesus refused to minister (at first, at least) to a Canaanite (Matt 15:21) purely for racial reasons. Yet, we read how the Lord Himself overrode that restriction with Peter.

Is it "doctrine" or is it "policy"? The distinction was immaterial; it was the Lord's command (or His servants, as being the same). We follow the reversal; as did the congregation follow the reversal of the ban against Moabites and Caananites. We don't have to offer an explanation; that is the nature of religion.

This is an argument from silence. Lack of evidence does not mean evidence of lack.

Forgive me for picking up on this little canard. Actually, lack of evidence is indeed evidence of lack. Your phrase was coined by a Protestant minister to argue for God's existence. In reality, the law provides that the absence of something is an indicator that that something isn't there. It just isn't conclusive evidence and can be rebutted.

Which part of OD2 rebuts the idea that blacks might have been less valiant in the pre-existence?

Cinepro's argument is equally a canard, but only because he presumes to disregard Church practice. The Church is not in the business of rebutting things; a change in doctrine or policy does not require a full rebuttal or explanation. As far as I can tell, I see no reason why the Lord reversed His prohibition against Moabites.

Link to post

Mr. Finch,

Perhaps you weren't aware, but dictionaries are intended to convey common usages of words. They aren't intended to dictate specific and subjective applications of terms. In other wotds, the dictionary doesn't empower you to tell us what is our doctine or not.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

lol...and people usually accept disctionary definitions unless it does not suit them to do so.

Link to post

AtticusFinch:

The wise discuss ideas, the unwashed masses discuss people, the ignorant discuss spelling.

Since you are the only one discussing spelling, I guess you have clued me in to where you fit in that line. Therefore, I will type more slowly for you

The LDS accept the D&C as Scripture. Whether you do or not is immaterial.

Make up your mind. You guys are all over the board on this. When I have mentioned things LDS "prophets" have said, some mormons, including Diana, said it is not a revelation unless it says "thus saith the Lord". Well, that knocks out most of the D&C. Then, with this last quyote, I was told it has to say "this is doctrine". That, too, knocks out most of the D&C. So, it appears that you pick and choose which of your prophets' saying to accept based on their level of ludicracy. I can live with that. And then you pick and choose the rules when it suits you as to what was doctrine. I can live with that, too. Anything that willy nilly is not from God.

I guess it was your different Jesus when he refused to go to any but the Jews.

huh?

That is a silly argument. Policy can and does change sometimes often. Doctrine not so much.

Perhaps...but y'alls doctrine seems to change with the tides

No. The ban was never a doctrine. The doctrine is that the Lord can extend to or withdraw from the Priesthood from whomever for whatever reason he wants. He does not answer to us. We answer to him.

I truly understand your need to deny this. Sadly, though, statements from your leaders back then make it clear it WAS doctrine....a doctrine you run from now.

The policy was that for a short time the Priesthood was not to be extended to the Blacks, and that someday that policy would change. That change came in 1978.

Yes, your god changed due to public opinion. WOW

Link to post
We also read how Jesus refused to minister (at first, at least) to a Canaanite (Matt 15:21) purely for racial reasons. Yet, we read how the Lord Himself overrode that restriction with Peter.

This is such a ridiculous example. It's a perfect reason for our need of full time theologists doing the teaching! Please rcrocket, please finish the entire reading of the scripture before you begin to use it as a defense of how we treated blacks! And what's worse, it may have very well been used by our fellow members to rcrocket in his upbringing to defend our own bad practices!! Simply astonishing!

Link to post

After reading through this thread I can say I am enlightened and confused. It seems there is a disconnect because words like "doctrine" , "policy", "revelation" etc. Why is some revelation doctrine, while some later revelation is policy? Does doctrine change? I can understand policy changing with the changing culture but IMHO doctrine does not change. Does it?

Link to post

After reading through this thread I can say I am enlightened and confused. It seems there is a disconnect because words like "doctrine" , "policy", "revelation" etc. Why is some revelation doctrine, while some later revelation is policy? Does doctrine change? I can understand policy changing with the changing culture but IMHO doctrine does not change. Does it?

if you're looking at our doctrine and teachings from the outside, it is quite confusing. And as has been well demonstrated from members on this board, there remains much confusion and dissagreement amongst even the most faithful. IMHO, and as seen in the discussion of my OP here, we have great men leading the Church as Prophets but their dscussion and oratory on prophecy, which, for all intents and purposes, was from the past, seems to be few and far between w the passage of time. So many from the outside have more and more questions while discussions and explanations from our current prophets is less and less on these issues. Instead, we have more and more discussion (and consequently more confusion generated) from our apologists and others, who have no authority to do so, attempting to tell us and the outside what it all means!

We hope it gets better though!

Link to post

In the documentary called Nobody Knows: The Untold Story of Black Mormons Rev. Cecil Murray was interviewed and he said President Hinckley apologized to him for the church's role in slavery and racism in America.

We have come Full Circle...... This video costs $25, get it, watch it then pass it on...unless you just enjoy :P

In the Dialogue article discussing the history of this video, it is noted that the inclusion of the story of the apology was not without some consternation on the part of the Church PR department. But they wouldn't go on the record to say that it didn't happen, so it was still included.

Link to post

Cinepro's argument is equally a canard, but only because he presumes to disregard Church practice. The Church is not in the business of rebutting things; a change in doctrine or policy does not require a full rebuttal or explanation. As far as I can tell, I see no reason why the Lord reversed His prohibition against Moabites.

That wasn't what we were talking about.

In post #24, Selek claimed the Church had "stated quite clearly that the idea that blacks were less valiant is BUNK".

This was news to me, so I asked where the Church had stated such.

Selek didn't respond, but thesometimesaint took up the CFR and suggested BRM's "forget everything I've said that contradicted OD2" statement might fill the bill (post #41).

I then sought to point out that OD2 didn't in any way negate the theory that blacks were denied the priesthood because of pre-mortal invaliance, so that teaching of BRM and others didn't contradict it, so we can't disregard it based on BRM's statement. Had BRM just said "forget everything I've said, and others have said, on the subject.", there might be a case. But he specified what we were supposed to "forget", and the theory of invaliance doesn't meet his qualification.

I agree that "a change in doctrine or policy does not require a full rebuttal or explanation". I was investigating Selek's claim that there had been a rebuttal.

Link to post
lol...and people usually accept dictionary definitions unless it does not suit them to do so.

Yes, people typically use dictionary definitions when it makes sense to do so. It just so happens that you chose to do otherwise. And, yes, that is pretty funny.

As a supposed lawyer, surely you must be aware that there are legal definitions used in the legal community that differ somewhat from dictionary definitions,

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Link to post

if you're looking at our doctrine and teachings from the outside, it is quite confusing. And as has been well demonstrated from members on this board, there remains much confusion and dissagreement amongst even the most faithful. IMHO, and as seen in the discussion of my OP here, we have great men leading the Church as Prophets but their dscussion and oratory on prophecy, which, for all intents and purposes, was from the past, seems to be few and far between w the passage of time. So many from the outside have more and more questions while discussions and explanations from our current prophets is less and less on these issues. Instead, we have more and more discussion (and consequently more confusion generated) from our apologists and others, who have no authority to do so, attempting to tell us and the outside what it all means!

We hope it gets better though!

So true. Thank you for bringing some illuminating light to this. No wonder there is so much confusion both within and outside the LDS Church. I hope to find someone with some insight who can help clarify and give a better explanation than "We don't know", and what is and is not doctrine etc.

AMEN

Link to post

Well, I'm back from a full day of work and interested to see what kind of holes Dan's been digging for himself. Let's see...

This is precisely how I came to know the truth w respect to my conclusions on this matter. This and the documented church standards and history.

Still beating the drum that his claimed personal revelation - bolstered, of course by the non-existent Church standards (whatever that means) and history that he continually fails to reference - trumps the prophets, Church declarations on the subject, and the rest of us, who have no real business saying anything about the seemingly self-evident truths he showers upon our uncomprehending ears. No surprises there.

I don't do public TR interviews, sorry.

Neither do you answer straightforward questions - like what your real viewpoints are on things, or to requests for giving specific references or evidence to support your claims. Since you have declined - which doesn't surprise me - I'll just go ahead and assume, while leaving you the open option of correcting me, that you don't accept the 1978 declaration as revelation, that you don't believe that the true priesthood keys are held by leaders of the Church, and that you don't believe that the presidents of the Church are prophets of God. Such assumptions are not any kind of particular stretch, given your accusations of racism against leaders of the Church.

However, your confession about temple recommend interviews is also enlightening in itself.

I think Fitch may have a good and valid point here. Has there ever been revelation that directs policy and practice of our sacred ordinances and/or blessings that is NOT deemed doctrine?

Evidently, the only good and "valid" points you accept are ones that seem to drift in your direction. Accuracy, alas, is not one of the criteria for your determinations, however. Interesting that your rationale includes twisting the definitions of doctrine, policy, etc. to suit your own purposes. I think that the others on this thread have given you excellent guidance on their true meanings, so I'll let them have the pleasure of seeing you ignore / dismiss / be offended by their counter-arguments.

BTW, still demanding that the Church apologize for something? Does the Church have the true priesthood of God, or not? The answer to that particular question would have a significant impact to the validity of your little crusade.

So are you concluding the temple ceremony is not doctrine?

This one of your trademarks, and one of the reasons that I so enjoy watching you thrash around with this subject. You have a real gift for taking a random comment, and drawing an entirely irrelevant question out of it in response. Not even worth responding to, otherwise.

This is such a ridiculous example. It's a perfect reason for our need of full time theologists doing the teaching! Please rcrocket, please finish the entire reading of the scripture before you begin to use it as a defense of how we treated blacks! And what's worse, it may have very well been used by our fellow members to rcrocket in his upbringing to defend our own bad practices!! Simply astonishing!

Here we go! This is vintage Dan - no response to the actual scripture or point made, but a sniffing personal attack about the poster's inability to comprehend even the simplest concepts. Do you realize, Dan, how utterly ironic your attitude is? I've had a great deal of fun pointing out the significant inconsistencies in your logic just in this thread - and this is all the response you can muster.

I'll add your demand that the Church employ full time theologians to the rest of your absurd perspectives about the Church. After all, Dan, it must be one of your self evident truths that the pronouncements of theologians must always trump revealed truth from the prophets of God. Well, except of course for the "truth" that has been revealed to you. Pity that there's not any evidence to back it up - or did I miss the multitude of references that you've supplied on this thread as requested?

I gotta admit, this was a real gem by you. Hopefully anyone else reading this thread can see where you're really coming from, and we won't have anyone thinking that you want to have some sort of honest discussion about this.

if you're looking at our doctrine and teachings from the outside, it is quite confusing. And as has been well demonstrated from members on this board, there remains much confusion and dissagreement amongst even the most faithful. IMHO, and as seen in the discussion of my OP here, we have great men leading the Church as Prophets but their dscussion and oratory on prophecy, which, for all intents and purposes, was from the past, seems to be few and far between w the passage of time. So many from the outside have more and more questions while discussions and explanations from our current prophets is less and less on these issues. Instead, we have more and more discussion (and consequently more confusion generated) from our apologists and others, who have no authority to do so, attempting to tell us and the outside what it all means!

We hope it gets better though!

And just as I thought it couldn't get any better, you prove me wrong again. My, you have such a clear vision of what the truth really is! This pretty much cements in the answers to my questions for you; to those of us who have the Spirit, there is no confusion. I love the little touch about "no authority", while you pontificate away about how you really know what the "truth" is. Are you really that clueless about the irony in all of that?

To sum up (and please, Dan, feel free to wade in and clarify anything): You don't believe that our prophets receive much guidance, if anything at all, from God; you reject the 1978 declaration as revelation; you claim that leaders of the Church have basically been racist over time; you reject the priesthood held by members of the Church as being from God; you reject the fact that the leaders of the Church hold the keys to the priesthood; you claim by your own authority - with no other evidence presented - to "know" that the ban was not of God; you summarily dismiss anyone who reiterates the official Church position that we just don't have the historical background concerning the ban, and so just don't know why / how it came about, as inappropriately speaking for the Church; you demand, on the flimsiest of evidence, that the Church apologize for the ban, while rejecting the fact that the priesthood came from God; you respond to clear refutation of your claims by denigrating the mental capacity of those disagreeing you; and you can't rationally argue your way out of a paper bag.

This thread is on the verge of being closed. Tone it down.

Skylla

This thread should have died long ago. I have no idea why we let Dan come here for a repeated stage for his slanders against the Church.

Link to post

So true. Thank you for bringing some illuminating light to this. No wonder there is so much confusion both within and outside the LDS Church. I hope to find someone with some insight who can help clarify and give a better explanation than "We don't know", and what is and is not doctrine etc.

AMEN

Sounds like you've found a kindred spirit in Dan, then.

Good luck with that.

Link to post
So true. Thank you for bringing some illuminating light to this. No wonder there is so much confusion both within and outside the LDS Church.

I think you and Dan may be projecting. The vast majority of the members that I have known don't seem to be confused about this issue, but then they tend not to be fixated with unimportant matter like what is or isn't doctrine, but are intent instead on striving to live the gospel. Perhaps you and Dan would do well to do likewise.

I hope to find someone with some insight who can help clarify and give a better explanation than "We don't know", and what is and is not doctrine etc.

The insight that would serve you best is to realize that the clarification you really ought to be seeking is what God wishes you to do now with your life to better yourself and to assist those around you in doing the same. How about asking God if he cares more about you nailing down whatall is doctrine or not, or more about you proclaiming the gospel, perfecting the saints, redeeming the dead, and caring for the poor and needy.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Link to post

Forgive me for picking up on this little canard. Actually, lack of evidence is indeed evidence of lack.

Perhaps in a courtroom. Not, however, in philosophy. Absence of evidence may be conclusive evidence of absence, but only when other conditions are met. Lack of evidence for the existence of extraterrestrial UFOs is conclusive, not because of any necessary logical relation between the lack of evidence and that, because of that lack, it is permissible to conclude that the phenomena in question does not exist, but because of other supporting evidence, i.e., the overwhelming improbability, based upon known laws of physics, of interstellar or intergalactic space travel of this kind (by mortal beings).

Absence of evidence of specific political, social or religious forms understood to have been current among the Nephites, or of the specific cities and landmarks mentioned in the BofM, are not conclusive, however, because the general cultural/technological milieu within which Nephite civilization is understood to have existed is, itself, well established and mundane.

Absence of evidence is only really conclusive when it is backed up by supporting evidence that lends a high degree of certainty to the conclusion.

Given the complexity and ambiguity of much historical phenomena, absence of evidence may mean evidence of inconclusive or exhaustive study.

Link to post

Yes, people typically use dictionary definitions when it makes sense to do so. It just so happens that you chose to do otherwise. And, yes, that is pretty funny.

lol...LDS amuse me. It is a doctrine, unless it is a bad one, then we run from it. It is a teaching, unless it was a bad one, then we run from it. It was a revelation, unless it turned out to be false, then we run from it. And it is a definition, unless it hurts us, then we run from it.

As a supposed lawyer,

ooooohhhhh.....nice dig. And here I was told Mormons were soooo nice. Tell you what, since you cast doubt on my claim, prove that I am not.

surely you must be aware that there are legal definitions used in the legal community that differ somewhat from dictionary definitions,

not really. There are words that are different. But usually, a definition is a definition......unless you are Clinton (remember the word "is"?) and apparently mormons.....

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Link to post
lol...LDS amuse me. It is a doctrine, unless it is a bad one, then we run from it. It is a teaching, unless it was a bad one, then we run from it. It was a revelation, unless it turned out to be false, then we run from it. And it is a definition, unless it hurts us, then we run from it.

Not only is this a transparent attempt at evasiding my point, but you have inanely resorted to stereotypes, and constructed those stereotypes out of straw. Bravo! I can't wait to see your next argumentational trick.

As a supposed lawyer,

ooooohhhhh.....nice dig. And here I was told Mormons were soooo nice. Tell you what, since you cast doubt on my claim, prove that I am not.

Let's see, you are posting anonymously and under a fictitious name on the internet, where it is not uncommon for people to misrepresent themselves, particularly when posting anonymously, and somehow you assume it insulting for me to reasonably and benignly express reservations that you are what you clams to be. And, if that wasn't enough, you then expect me to prove otherwise? Now that some magical thinking for ya.

surely you must be aware that there are legal definitions used in the legal community that differ somewhat from dictionary definitions,

Not really. There are words that are different. But usually, a definition is a definition......unless you are Clinton (remember the word "is"?) and apparently mormons.....

As a test to see if you know what you are talking about, and if you really are a lawyer as you claim, let's see if dictionary definitions for certain words are the same as the legal definitions. Let's start with the "A"'s:

Webster's defines "abet" as:

1 : to actively second and encourage (as an activity or plan)

2 : to assist or support in the achievement of a purpose.

Whereas, the Law Dictionary defines it as:

"to help someone commit a crime, including helping them escape from police or plan the crime."

With your crack legal mind, were you able to detect even the slightest difference?

No? Well how about the definition for "Abayence":

Webster's defines it as:

1 : a lapse in succession during which there is no person in whom a title is vested

2 : temporary inactivity: suspension

The Law Dictionary defines it as:

1) n. when the owner- ship of property has not been determined. Examples include title to real property in the estate of a person who has died and there is no obvious party to receive title or there appears to be no legal owner of the property, a shipwreck while it is being determined who has the right to salvage the ship and its cargo, or a bankrupt person's property before the bankruptcy court has decided what property is available to creditors or alleged heirs. 2) legal jargon for "undetermined."

Need I go on? Did you sleep through law school? Were you not able to afford Black's Law Dictionary? May I suggest that when you are allegedly preparing briefs (look that word up in the dictionary to see if means the same as it does in the law) or preparing cases for court, that you use the legal definitions rather than the dictionary definitions. It may help prevent a truncated legal career (assuming that is your profession). :P

Now, if you would like, I can run through a variety of other professions that utilize their own industry-specific definitions (i.e. idioms or jargon), but in doing so I am going to have to start charging you for this education. ;)

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Link to post

In the Dialogue article discussing the history of this video, it is noted that the inclusion of the story of the apology was not without some consternation on the part of the Church PR department. But they wouldn't go on the record to say that it didn't happen, so it was still included.

To avoid future consternation the Church ought to collaborate with these good brothers (Perkins and Gray) and Sis. Young and come up with something official. I doubt it would satisfy the critics but it might help get rid of the speculations/misinformation from within the membership. Some/too many members won't even watch Blacks in the Scriptures or Nobody Knows because they aren't put out by the Church.

Link to post

So true. Thank you for bringing some illuminating light to this. No wonder there is so much confusion both within and outside the LDS Church. I hope to find someone with some insight who can help clarify and give a better explanation than "We don't know", and what is and is not doctrine etc.

AMEN

Amen,

Dont let this board be your entire barometer of LDS culture. IMHO I think this board will give you, at best, a flavor of the apologetic culture driven from Provo or Utah in general. I have spent my entire lfe, for the most part outside of Utah and the "Mormon Corridor" (Utah, Idaho and Arizona) and there are many who are not afraid to think outside of the group think you may see here.

There are great people in our Church who are accepting reaching their own conclusions of our history, even though they will often reach conclusions and a concensus that most here would vehemently object to and oppose. Even reaching the level of questioning their loyalty, church knowledge and even spirituality. But as I see it, that's just part of a church growing up so I don't see it as the offensive problem many here do.

Anyway, just another perspective for you to ponder about this place!

Link to post

Not only is this a transparent attempt at evasiding my point, but you have inanely resorted to stereotypes, and constructed those stereotypes out of straw. Bravo! I can't wait to see your next argumentational trick.

nice try. But it does not fool me. What I posted was not stereotypes but facts. Whether it is Adam-God, Blacks, men on the moon, etc. you run away from whatever you can;t explain or find to be silly.

Let's see, you are posting anonymously and under a fictitious name on the internet, where it is not uncommon for people to misrepresent themselves, particularly when posting anonymously, and somehow you assume it insulting for me to reasonably and benignly express reservations that you are what you clams to be. And, if that wasn't enough, you then expect me to prove otherwise? Now that some magical thinking for ya.

My profile has my real name. So I am not posting "anonymously". You made a veiled doubting of my profession, man up and prove I am not an attorney or apologize. Stop making excuses and dodges and do one or the other. I heard how nice this was, and yet I see it is no different than the other board. Mormons are not better. You made a claim, or a veiled one...now back it up.

As a test to see if you know what you are talking about, and if you really are a lawyer as you claim, let's see if dictionary definitions for certain words are the same as the legal definitions. Let's start with the "A"'s:

Webster's defines "abet" as:

1 : to actively second and encourage (as an activity or plan)

2 : to assist or support in the achievement of a purpose.

Whereas, the Law Dictionary defines it as:

"to help someone commit a crime, including helping them escape from police or plan the crime."

With your crack legal mind, were you able to detect even the slightest difference?

wow...more insults? And no, the definitions are not really different. I am surprised you could not see that. True, since one deals with legal aspects, one mentions crime, but those definitions are the same...both mean to help or assist. Nice try.

No? Well how about the definition for "Abayence":

Webster's defines it as:

1 : a lapse in succession during which there is no person in whom a title is vested

2 : temporary inactivity: suspension

The Law Dictionary defines it as:

1) n. when the owner- ship of property has not been determined. Examples include title to real property in the estate of a person who has died and there is no obvious party to receive title or there appears to be no legal owner of the property, a shipwreck while it is being determined who has the right to salvage the ship and its cargo, or a bankrupt person's property before the bankruptcy court has decided what property is available to creditors or alleged heirs. 2) legal jargon for "undetermined."

Need I go on?

Another nice try. Both essentially mean the same thing. You can;t see that? The legal definition uses more words...that is what anything legal does. But they both mean the same thing.

Did you sleep through law school? Were you not able to afford Black's Law Dictionary?

lol.....more insults? Is this the nicer mormons people bragged about and compared the Catholic board to? I can;t tell you how much I appreciate your insults...it proves what I said all along, that mormons were no better than anyone else and that they were not nearly as "charitable" as a few mormkns bragged. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. But, as to your comments, your post only proved what I said.

The sad thing is, you feel the need to be dishonest and misrepresent. I did not say all definitions were exactly the same, as you are hinting....I said "not really. There are words that are different. But usually, a definition is a definition" Now, are there words that are different here? Hmmm? Are there? Let me help you.....yes, there are words that are different. Did I say that words were ALWAYS the same? Hmmmm? No, I siad "usually". So you have proven NOTHING except either your inability to read, or your need to be dishonest in an effort to belittle others. Not sure yet which it is. Bottom line, I was right. You were wrong. Again. Thank you.

May I suggest that when you are allegedly preparing briefs (look that word up in the dictionary to see if means the same as it does in the law) or preparing cases for court, that you use the legal definitions rather than the dictionary definitions. It may help prevent a truncated legal career (assuming that is your profession). :P

May I suggest that you do less belittling and more reading......and Again, prove I am not what I said, or consider yourself to be a liar who bears false witness. If you have the cajones to actually back up your claims, do it. If not, I expect an apology.

Now, if you would like, I can run through a variety of other professions that utilize their own industry-specific definitions (i.e. idioms or jargon), but in doing so I am going to have to start charging you for this education. ;)

Find the dictionary for "false prophets" and let's see what Joseph said and how it matches. In the mea ntime, you have been proven wrong...you have been to be dishonest, and the black thing was doctrine, despite your need to run from it screaming.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Link to post

So, Mr. Finch, as an alleged lawyer you evidently can't tell the difference between common definitions and legal definitions. That should strike confidence in the heart of your supposed clients.

But, be that as it may, I looked through your profile and couldn't find your real name. Would you be so kind as to direct my attention to where in your profile it supposedly is displayed? I can see where you didn't list an email address and witheld your gender.

And, don't you think it more than a little hypocritical to remark on my supposed lack of niceness for thinking you may be a false lawyer after you denegrate my faith by calling Joseph Smith a false prophet?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Link to post

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...