• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

LDS

Status
Not open for further replies.
jsfisher said:
Seriously? You have never heard of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints? That's just weird.
Click to expand...

Now, now, you caught her up with an acronym she didn't understand. Her default seems to be to label anything she doesn't recognize right away as "Anti-Mormon" or "non-Mormon," like the Brigham Young University web site.
 
Janadele said:
Before reading post 8166 I had never heard of CJCLDS, on checking I see it is a not an official LDS web site.
Click to expand...

I would be interesting where you think I said, or even implied, or suggested in any way that CJCLDS was a "website"...

Follow: "The LDS" ("The Latter Day Saints") seems, to me, when referring to the hierarchy of the church, desperately ungrammatical, as it looks as if I am presuming to refer to some fictitious monoblock. I thought it was you (prehaps it was syrider44) who said, or implied, that "Mormon" was not the preferred appelation. Therefore I took the liberty of using the initials: CJCLDS (Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints). I you find that offensive, I apologize, and ask you to suggest what address you would prefer for me to use.

OTH, if "CJCLDS" were a website, it would be CJCLDS.com, or CJCLDS.org, or CJCLDS.ut.gov, or even (since 2013) CJCLDS.church. However, if CJCLDS.whatever were, in fact, an "official LDS website", unless it were substantially more scholarly, more accurate, more impartial, less given to flights of superstiton-fueled fancy than, for instance, http://www.fairlds.org, I would be unlikely to quote it as a source.

None of which means that I did not notice that you avoided my questions:
originally posted by Slowvehicle:
...suppose you address the idea that the "rules" you posted the link to apply to "members"? How does that give the CJCLDS license to impose their "rules" on non-members?

Why is what goes on among consenting adults in my demesne any more your business that what goes on among members in the fastness of your temples any of my business?

What is it about your "rules" that makes it so important to you to try and make sure that everyone must play by them, even when they are not playing with you, nor in your ambit?

Again I ask the question you have never answered: How can anything that happens among consenting adults in the privacy of my home affect you, in any way at all?
Click to expand...

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=9546262#post9546262
 
Last edited:
Janadele said:
that is incorrect. It is best to not presume to know that which you do not.
Click to expand...

Do you, in fact, live in Massachusetts?

Have you, in fact, ever lived in Massachusetts?

(I confess I had the impression you lived in Australia.)

Why is it that you do not consider the vilification of Romney by MassResistance as "anti-LDS propaganda"?
 
Empress said:
That's nice.

So BY said it in General Conference, when he was prophet, but...hey wait! That's wrong! He died before he could make an even bigger ass out of himself, so we'll just hand-wave that one away.

I get that your church wants to deny past oopsies. Perfectly reasonable. What's not so reasonable is that the members let them get away with it.
Click to expand...

I believe that "deny past oopsies" must be incorporated forthwith into the official terminology of critical exegesis, "indogesis", and homiletics.
 
Janadele said:
that is incorrect. It is best to not presume to know that which you do not.
Click to expand...

Well then, when were you in Massachusetts?

How long were you here?

Did you have any personal experience with Romneycare or the consequences of marriage equality?

Do you have ANY actual BASIS for making your claims, or are you just lying about having been to the state I've lived in full time since 1998?
 
Janadele said:
:)
http://www.cjclds.com/
Click to expand...

Oh, my. If only I had thought to say,

Slowvehicle said:
OTH, if "CJCLDS" were a website, it would be CJCLDS.com, or CJCLDS.org, or CJCLDS.ut.gov, or even (since 2013) CJCLDS.church. However, if CJCLDS.whatever were, in fact, an "official LDS website", unless it were substantially more scholarly, more accurate, more impartial, less given to flights of superstiton-fueled fancy than, for instance, http://www.fairlds.org, I would be unlikely to quote it as a source.
Click to expand...

And, of course, you have continued to avoid my (most recent) set of questions:

patiently reposted by Slowvehicle:
...suppose you address the idea that the "rules" you posted the link to apply to "members"? How does that give the CJCLDS license to impose their "rules" on non-members?

Why is what goes on among consenting adults in my demesne any more your business that what goes on among members in the fastness of your temples any of my business?

What is it about your "rules" that makes it so important to you to try and make sure that everyone must play by them, even when they are not playing with you, nor in your ambit?

Again I ask the question you have never answered: How can anything that happens among consenting adults in the privacy of my home affect you, in any way at all?
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Craig4 said:
So, did young say those things?
Click to expand...
This is just one of the matters still being questioned which has been extensively answered earlier in this thread.

As far as I am aware I have answered all legitimate questions raised.

A sincere enquirer should then ponder and further research from official LDS content... NOT anti sites.

Seeking to expand on and understand the answers given will lead to greater knowledge... ignoring and ridiculing the answers and then repeatedly asking the same questions will not change the facts.
To check on my past posts for answers to sincere legitimate questions ( including those in AAH ) go to profile, all posts / threads.
 
Janadele said:
No, it is not an official LDS website... as is clearly stated.
Click to expand...

Lame attempt at derail.

Since slowvehicle wasn't referring to that website, but the Mormon Church itself, why won't you answer the question which you have not answered prior to this?

What gives the Mormon Church the right to try and impose their rules on non-members?

It's a simple question. Surely you can handle it?
 
Those who openly support the immorality of homosexual ACTIVITY, increasingly threaten and demand that all others do likewise OR ELSE take the consequences of being obscenely attacked verbally, physically, financially and through the increasingly perverted "justice" system. In their blind hate and intolerance they confuse the issues and drag many with them on their descent to damnation... whilst failing to realise that Eternal Law will never ever change to accommodate evil immoral activities.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom