saemo Posted January 7, 2016 Posted January 7, 2016 1 minute ago, consiglieri said: I can't believe you actually wrote that. And I think everybody here knows exactly what seven asterisks means . . . trumpet? 1
salgare Posted January 7, 2016 Posted January 7, 2016 (edited) 3 minutes ago, consiglieri said: I can't believe you actually wrote that. And I think everybody here knows exactly what seven asterisks means . . . I'm rolling on the floor, dang out of up votes for the day Edited January 7, 2016 by salgare
The Nehor Posted January 7, 2016 Posted January 7, 2016 Just now, consiglieri said: I can't believe you actually wrote that. And I think everybody here knows exactly what seven asterisks means . . . It was the one about being born out of wedlock. I didn't know they censored it. It's scriptural!
consiglieri Posted January 7, 2016 Author Posted January 7, 2016 4 minutes ago, Zakuska said: Isn't it a woman in the case? The Nehor. Putting the "hor" in "Nehor" since 1976. 1
consiglieri Posted January 7, 2016 Author Posted January 7, 2016 1 minute ago, The Nehor said: It was the one about being born out of wedlock. I didn't know they censored it. It's scriptural! I suggest you try "bastiches" next time.
The Nehor Posted January 7, 2016 Posted January 7, 2016 Just now, consiglieri said: I suggest you try "bastiches" next time. That is trying to circumvent the censoring mechanism and violates board rules. If I get thread-banned I prefer it to be for a classier reason. 1
consiglieri Posted January 7, 2016 Author Posted January 7, 2016 2 minutes ago, The Nehor said: That is trying to circumvent the censoring mechanism and violates board rules. If I get thread-banned I prefer it to be for a classier reason. Really? I can think of other ways. Let's see. B*A*S*T* . . .
consiglieri Posted January 7, 2016 Author Posted January 7, 2016 Oh, dear Lord. Now Mystery Meat is tattling to Mommy. http://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/66741-moderation-needs-to-be-fixed/"
bluebell Posted January 7, 2016 Posted January 7, 2016 26 minutes ago, saemo said: Actively excluding, ie making plans to deliberately leave someone out from a meaningful family event or activity, in order to dominate or control the person, is abuse. Downplaying the abuse is part of the abuse itself. ETA: I suppose that a LDS temple marriage can be viewed as not being a family event or activity, but an activity for an exclusive and elite group of family members. I agree, if that's why the church does it. But it's not.
saemo Posted January 7, 2016 Posted January 7, 2016 9 minutes ago, bluebell said: I agree, if that's why the church does it. But it's not. Depends on the member, family and situation. 1
bluebell Posted January 7, 2016 Posted January 7, 2016 17 minutes ago, saemo said: Depends on the member, family and situation. It doesn't. The reason that the church doesn't let nonmembers into temples is the same for every family and situation. 1
salgare Posted January 7, 2016 Posted January 7, 2016 4 minutes ago, bluebell said: It doesn't. The reason that the church doesn't let nonmembers into temples is the same for every family and situation. They know the right thing to do, and have for a very long time. No marriage to be done in the temple, only the sealing. Simple and yet they are totally unwilling to do it, why bluebell? 1
bluebell Posted January 7, 2016 Posted January 7, 2016 3 minutes ago, salgare said: They know the right thing to do, and have for a very long time. No marriage to be done in the temple, only the sealing. Simple and yet they are totally unwilling to do it, why bluebell? I can't answer that. I'm not them.
salgare Posted January 7, 2016 Posted January 7, 2016 1 minute ago, bluebell said: I can't answer that. I'm not them. by their fruits ye shall know them 1
bluebell Posted January 7, 2016 Posted January 7, 2016 Just now, salgare said: by their fruits ye shall know them I have no idea what your point is. But, the fruits that I know the leaders of the church by are all excellent fruits. This is why I do not have to know their reasons for everything, or agree with them in every single way, to trust their decisions and support them. 2
salgare Posted January 7, 2016 Posted January 7, 2016 11 minutes ago, bluebell said: I have no idea what your point is. But, the fruits that I know the leaders of the church by are all excellent fruits. This is why I do not have to know their reasons for everything, or agree with them in every single way, to trust their decisions and support them. I just don't get how anyone could look at the example I've given and be confused. I'm saying their insisting on keeping the policy everywhere it is not illegal, and continue to torture and put at odds parent and child, family member to member is evil bad fruit. How can you not see that bluebell? 1
salgare Posted January 7, 2016 Posted January 7, 2016 (edited) 4 minutes ago, volgadon said: Torture is a little too strongly worded. agreed. Having stood there through three children's marriages, I can tell you it still hurts all these years later. I could go on with grand children baby blessing and baptisms ... these things tear at all involved. Edited January 7, 2016 by salgare
volgadon Posted January 7, 2016 Posted January 7, 2016 1 minute ago, salgare said: agreed. Having stood there through three children's marriages, I can tell you it still hurts all these years later. Of course it hurts. My two siblings that flew in from overseas were unable to attend the sealing (I'm the only active sibling), my father couldn't fly in because of health reasons, and none of my wife's family could because they did not have visas. The pain is definitely real, but torture? That is hyperbole. 2
salgare Posted January 7, 2016 Posted January 7, 2016 1 minute ago, volgadon said: Of course it hurts. My two siblings that flew in from overseas were unable to attend the sealing (I'm the only active sibling), my father couldn't fly in because of health reasons, and none of my wife's family could because they did not have visas. The pain is definitely real, but torture? That is hyperbole. I'm sorry for the hyperbole, which it was.
bluebell Posted January 7, 2016 Posted January 7, 2016 35 minutes ago, salgare said: I just don't get how anyone could look at the example I've given and be confused. I'm saying their insisting on keeping the policy everywhere it is not illegal, and continue to torture and put at odds parent and child, family member to member is evil bad fruit. How can you not see that bluebell? I'm sorry it's hard for you to comprehend that someone might see things differently than you, but sometimes it happens.
salgare Posted January 7, 2016 Posted January 7, 2016 It really is amazing how obvious it is to both of us, and yes it often happens. But it's just you and me and we just disagree right? I hope so bluebell, especially after putting my foot in it in the feminist thread
Thinking Posted January 7, 2016 Posted January 7, 2016 2 hours ago, Jeanne said: But I DO wish that they would let families have the funerals be more about the deceased and not an opportunity to preach the gospel. 2 hours ago, The Nehor said: Never understood this. If you knew them why do you need to have talks about them? If you didn't know them then it is a little late to get interested in their life now. My maternal grandmother passed away several years ago. She was LDS but not active. At her funeral the local bishop presided and as is customary was the last speaker at the funeral. When he stepped up to the podium I prepared myself to hear the standard plan of salvation funeral talk, but something magical happened. The bishop felt like he should relate a humorous incident that involved my grandmother and some members of the ward. He may have said something about the plan of salvation after that, but what he gave us with that story was much more important. We learned something about her that we didn't previously know and he told it in such a way that we felt like we were there. We now have one more fond memory of her. To this day that bishop's story is one of our favorite stories about her that we tell when we are reminiscing. 2
Guest Posted January 7, 2016 Posted January 7, 2016 10 hours ago, consiglieri said: It appears some on this board believe there are no valid reasons to leave the LDS Church. I am starting this thread so they can explain their reasoning. And to give others the chance to say what they would consider a valid reason. To start the ball rolling, I personally believe there are valid reasons to leave the LDS Church. And one of those would be when the LDS Church becomes a hindrance to one's spiritual progression. All the Best! --Consiglieri Yea their are valid reasons, but it is something to be entered into lightly. My belief is that it should be done as it should with all who convert...through trembling fear (great respect and love for God), prayer and fasting. But if one no longer believes, nor desire the fellowship of the members and those in open rebellion who take to every revenue to recruit others to the same open rebellion. Also those who carry signs on the streets during conference or disrupt conference while trying to shout down the Prophet, or during sustaining votes...they should leave as God judges those who proclaim membership, while seeking the demise of the faith. Just like many whose open rebellion or those who hide it, while attending the Temple and recording Temple ceremonies...and I have seen many recordings by members who wish to thumb their noses to those they hate. Not sure if you are old enough to remember the song, "Smiling Faces"...which will make my point. So in short (if it is not to late)...yes there are many reasons to leave. Only the individual can decide, and only after prayer and fasting...if it God they no longer believe in, then without any thought they should leave.
Jeanne Posted January 7, 2016 Posted January 7, 2016 18 minutes ago, Thinking said: My maternal grandmother passed away several years ago. She was LDS but not active. At her funeral the local bishop presided and as is customary was the last speaker at the funeral. When he stepped up to the podium I prepared myself to hear the standard plan of salvation funeral talk, but something magical happened. The bishop felt like he should relate a humorous incident that involved my grandmother and some members of the ward. He may have said something about the plan of salvation after that, but what he gave us with that story was much more important. We learned something about her that we didn't previously know and he told it in such a way that we felt like we were there. We now have one more fond memory of her. To this day that bishop's story is one of our favorite stories about her that we tell when we are reminiscing. That is wonderful!! This is as it should be. 1
Recommended Posts