The Nehor Posted November 4, 2014 Posted November 4, 2014 Exactly, I never attacked Ms. Kelly's ideas, and made the simple observation that I find her a bit homely. Were I single and she the only single woman in my ward I'd probably pass. It's not at all unusual for either gender to make such judgements. As for the senior church leadership, it seems to me that most women think Pres. Uchtdorf is a silver fox. While I do generally like his message, it has nothing to do with the fact that I agree he is a good looking gentleman for his age.I disagree with your post and find you lecherous, repugnantly unattractive, gluttonously fat, and a general waste of human flesh. I want to assure you that these two observations are not connected in any way and I am merely offering the latter observation because it is usual for people of both genders to make such observations. I personally do not see the point but "When in Rome......" 2
Avatar4321 Posted November 4, 2014 Posted November 4, 2014 Seriously guys, we are going to get enough crap from ignorant critics without you giving them ammo. Besides, it's difficult to invite ms Kelly to repent if you insult her 2
Silhouette Posted November 4, 2014 Posted November 4, 2014 (edited) Exactly, I never attacked Ms. Kelly's ideas, and made the simple observation that I find her a bit homely. Were I single and she the only single woman in my ward I'd probably pass. It's not at all unusual for either gender to make such judgements.As for the senior church leadership, it seems to me that most women think Pres. Uchtdorf is a silver fox. While I do generally like his message, it has nothing to do with the fact that I agree he is a good looking gentleman for his age.Good grief, I thought it was just me that thought President Uchtdorf is uncommonly handsome and charismatic. Is it a sin to have a crush on a General Authority? If it is, I'm doomed! Edited November 4, 2014 by Silhouette
Bernard Gui Posted November 4, 2014 Author Posted November 4, 2014 Well, a fine kettle of fish this has become. The OP referred to the headline that an OW member lost her appeal. That can be taken two ways, hence, my double take.This in no way reflects on her physical appearance, but perhaps on the appealof her movement, which seems in fact to have lost its appeal. 1
Kenngo1969 Posted November 4, 2014 Posted November 4, 2014 Just goes to show, old lawyers (or, as in this case, comparatively young ones) never die; they just lose their appeal. Sorry. 1
Kenngo1969 Posted November 4, 2014 Posted November 4, 2014 Good grief, I thought it was just me that thought President Uchtdorf is uncommonly handsome and charismatic. Is it a sin to have a crush on a General Authority? If it is, I'm doomed!Lotsa men have crushes (or at least man crushes) on President Uchtdorf, my dear sister!
Silhouette Posted November 4, 2014 Posted November 4, 2014 Lotsa men have crushes (or at least man crushes) on President Uchtdorf, my dear sister!
Silhouette Posted November 4, 2014 Posted November 4, 2014 (edited) Blah, I was testing something on my phone. Deleted. Edited November 4, 2014 by Silhouette
Buckeye Posted November 4, 2014 Posted November 4, 2014 (edited) I wonder if you would say that same thing to Tom Harkin? OR does this only prove useful when you disagree with some one? Her looks aside, I find her to not be appealing or persuasive and on top of it it was said as a play on words. Too funny. I assume you're referring to his recent comment about his opponent's appearance? (I had to run a search because I was unaware of this). Assuming so, then yes, I condemn that. And thankfully Harkin has apologized for his remark. FWIW, I was banned from posting on exmormon.org after just 2 posts because I called out someone for an extreme lack of civility (also because I asked for evidence of a blatantly false statement). I'm imperfect, but I try to be even-handed. Edited November 4, 2014 by Buckeye
Buckeye Posted November 4, 2014 Posted November 4, 2014 Well, a fine kettle of fish this has become. The OP referred to the headline that an OW member lost her appeal. That can be taken two ways, hence, my double take.This in no way reflects on her physical appearance, but perhaps on the appealof her movement, which seems in fact to have lost its appeal. I should have made clear that I don't take issue with your double take. I agree the movement is losing some appeal, but I do think it is here to stay. And I think it has had a considerable impact. Just this past Sunday someone bore a testimony in my ward entirely about the OW group (surprise, they did not approve). As for the appeal of Sister Kelly's decision, I would be astounded if it were overturned. Luckily, my predictions almost always fail. 1
JLHPROF Posted November 4, 2014 Posted November 4, 2014 I'm not disagreeing with you necessarily, but what makes you so sure that the First Presidency will deny her appeal? Pres. Uchtdorf has been making subtle overtures to the disaffected and marginalized for several conferences now. What better way to say, "We really do want all kinds of members," then by embracing the symbol of the Mormon left? As an eternal skeptic, I suspect that Team Apostate has hooked its wagon to the wrong star, but if Pres Uchtdorf is our Neo (i.e., "The One"), then this would be the perfect time for him to put on the sun glasses and the cape. Besides, it would help A LOT with our current narrative of "we're just like the rest of you Christians, only we live longer." Since practically no one else is excommunicating lay members, it might help our claim to normalcy if we stopped doing so too (at least, in cases that make the front page of the New York Times). What makes me so sure?The condition for overturning an excommunication is either that it was done wrongly or the excommunicant repented and changed their ways. Kate Kelly has not changed her mind, repented (that we know of) of her behavior, or promised to cease the behavior that led to her excommunication. That's what makes me so sure. As for the other option - I would be flabbergasted if the original trial was found to be without merit or in error. This isn't a court of law. Technicalities don't invalidate decisions. So am I sure? I am sure if nothing has changed in her situation that nothing will change in the verdict. If she has changed, well, then I'll be glad to be wrong. 1
thesometimesaint Posted November 4, 2014 Posted November 4, 2014 Really?What's an uggo, and who are you calling fat?You do know what the word "wouldn't" means, don't you?As in, "Ms Kelly's ideas wouldn't be any more appealing if she looked like Claudia Schiffer?"Regards,Pahoran Uggo means very ugly, or absolute ugliness.
Recommended Posts