Top Ten Reasons to be Excited . . .

[Sky]

I

[krose]

You see, it's okay to say whatever you want about "pseudo-members."

I suppose the detection kit for identifying a pseudo-member must be another one of those items I lost years ago... another HG function.

[semlogo]

Maybe I can help you out with this one, krose.

I think BOMT was responding to your chastisement about making such a comment publicly about a "fellow member," justifying her postition by classifying me as not a "fellow member," but a "pseudo-member."

You see, it's okay to say whatever you want about "pseudo-members."

It's the "fellow member" who must be protected.

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

No one expects the Spanish inquisition!

[consiglieri]

No one expects the Spanish inquisition!

Just when you thought it was safe to come out of the closet . . .

[mfbukowski]

Why are you worried about You Know Who, when you should be worrying about U-No-Poo? It's the constipation sensation that's sweeping the nation!

What a classy guy you are!

[semlogo]

What a classy guy you are!

Hatin' on Harry Potter will win you no friends, M.

[kev_stevens67]

My family is ready with Donuts for breakfast and Pizza for dinner. I always love and get a lot out of watching GC.

[consiglieri]

Hatin' on Harry Potter will win you no friends, M.

Mischief managed.

[semlogo]

Mischief managed.

[bookofmormontruth]

Well, truth be told, no Mormon, pseudo or otherwise, actually made that accusation anywhere.

Just for the record . . .

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

Then do tell us what makes you so "uncomfortable" and "still does"? I am sure the "lotion" comment wasn't related either right?

[BookofMormonLuvr]

And what an audience it is!

The Great and Spacious Trailer Park--where no faithful Mormon man is immune to allegations of incestuous pedophilia, the apostate's favorite gambit (just ask Hugh Nibley).

<sigh>

Actually, the most disturbing aspect of this most recent display of apostate degeneracy is that it reveals an underlying discomfort with appropriate expressions of familial love. If you ask me, that's tragic, and reveals the extent to which our overly sexualized society has all but destroyed our capacity to view physical contact in anything other than a sexualized context.

When my oldest daughter was 18 months old, she contracted viral meningitis, the effects of which produced a protracted fever of 106 degrees, which caused her to go into uncontrolled seizures. My wife and I stood at the doorway of a room in the E/R of the old Primary Children's Hospital and watched her little body convulse as a team of doctors and nurses attempted to bring down the fever and stop the seizures. Moments later, a social worker from the hospital took us into a private room and began a conversation designed to prepare us for the imminent death of our child. The fever and seizures were eventually controlled, but the doctors told us that there it was all but certain that she had suffered severe brain damage, and would probably never speak or walk again.

Well, to make a long story short, our little girl lay in a coma for several days, during which time my wife and I would take turns stroking her hair, massaging her little head, and hoping against hope that all would be well. Finally, her eyes opened and she asked for a cookie. She is now 26 years old, with no apparent ill-effects of this trauma of her infancy.

Throughout her childhood (and, subsequently, that of her siblings) we returned to this soothing practice of gently massaging our children's heads. On many occasions I was able to console (and quickly put to sleep) a colicky child through this simple practice. Consequently, head massages (and eventually foot massages, which are equally comforting) became our children's most desired comfort measures. Somehow, these things developed into a tradition during general conference sessions, as I described in my post above.

Suffice it to say that nothing could be more pure and wholesome and loving than watching my wife wash her children's feet and then gently massage away their tension and cares. How unfortunate that such appropriate touching (which studies have proven to be extraordinarily therapeutic) should be viewed with suspicion and met with innuendo of sexual perversion.

It's a messed up world in which we live. I am grateful for things like the Temple and General Conference, where one can, at least temporarily, find a save haven from the storms of depravity that rage around us.

Alas, this latest episode underscores the reasons for which I have resolved to stay away from these message boards. There is nothing one can say that cannot be twisted, misrepresented, or distorted in some way; no good that cannot be characterized as evil; no caricature so grotesque that it cannot be hailed as realistic portraiture.

I am confident that truth and the righteousness of the Saints will ultimately prevail over falsehood and the wickedness of our enemies. In the meantime I will count myself blessed to have my own furrowed brow soothed by the words, music, and spirit of our semi-annual general conferences.

I contracted viral meningitis when I was 2 1/2, almost didn't make it. 33 years later and except for what some here may term my mental disorder- "apostasy- I have been as healthy as a horse ever since. Praise be to God.

[bookofmormontruth]

As impressive as it is that you have magically divined my motivations for not addressing a different post, I'm sorry to have to inform you that I don't know what you are talking about.

My shameful admission is that I didn't read Will's post, because I could see at a glance that it was a long one that waxed rhapsodic about the MoCon, the sort of thing that doesn't interest me (in fact, it looks a lot like one he posted last year about conference). Sorry, Will. As a result, I also ignored the posts that referred to it, so I missed whatever accusation to which you refer. So whatever is was, since two wrongs make a right, you are perfectly right. Right?

So according to you, Will's post "looks" like the same one last year, but you "didn't read" his post this year? Hmmm wonder how you came to that conclusion without reading it. Talk about "magically divined"!

And heaven forbid if I ask someone if they sustain their current leadership. What a shameful and "wrong" thing to ask. Or does that also prick the heart a little bit?

[bookofmormontruth]

Maybe I can help you out with this one, krose.

I think BOMT was responding to your chastisement about making such a comment publicly about a "fellow member," justifying her postition by classifying me as not a "fellow member," but a "pseudo-member."

You see, it's okay to say whatever you want about "pseudo-members."

How horrible it was of me to ask if you sustained the current leadership.

It's the "fellow member" who must be protected.

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

What exactly do you need to be protected from?

[cinepro]

While I generally enjoy General Conference, I would have to say my only reason for being "excited" is the remote possibility of a 2-hour meeting schedule being announced.

[semlogo]

So according to you, Will's post "looks" like the same one last year, but you "didn't read" his post this year? Hmmm wonder how you came to that conclusion without reading it. Talk about "magically divined"!

And heaven forbid if I ask someone if they sustain their current leadership. What a shameful and "wrong" thing to ask. Or does that also prick the heart a little bit?

That's above your pay grade.

[Nemesis]

Automatic generated message

This topic has been closed by a moderator.

Reason: This topic has gone down the drain all of a sudden.

Thank you,

Mormon Dialogue & Discussion Board Staff