It is currently Thu Aug 21, 2014 1:14 am

All times are UTC - 8 hours [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 371 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18  Next
Author Message
 Post subject: Re: Our newest member, Wayneman: Shades' missionary companion??
PostPosted: Thu Feb 19, 2009 12:43 pm 
God

Joined: Thu Oct 26, 2006 6:35 pm
Posts: 18160
Location: Shady Acres Status: MODERATOR
marg wrote:
Well Harmony, I'm a heck of a lot more rational. You come up with the most ridiculous and irrational stuff, it's really quite unbelievable. You actually think hashing out "nuances of the gospel" or the Book of Mormon is important in the scheme of things of life.


Well, since no one has ever accused me of being overly rational, I'll leave that to you, marg. Not my style, not my bag, certainly not the way I'd ever want to live. I have to believe in something; it's just the way I am.

And uh... in case you haven't noticed, and obviously you haven't noticed... many many people on this board and hundreds of others like it think the gospel, the Book of Mormon, religion in general, Christianity in general, and all sorts of related stuff is vitally important in the scheme of things of life. We're just funny that way. You, of course, don't fit that pattern... which is why it was so funny to see you quoting scripture.

Carry on, marg. Do it again! I need more amusement in my days.




.

_________________
(Nevo, Jan 23) And the Melchizedek Priesthood may not have been restored until the summer of 1830, several months after the organization of the Church.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Our newest member, Wayneman: Shades' missionary companion??
PostPosted: Thu Feb 19, 2009 3:41 pm 
Seething Cauldron of Hate
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jul 05, 2007 11:56 am
Posts: 7173
Mister Scratch wrote:
If the Brethren were trustworthy in the sense you're suggesting, then DCP and Bill Hamblin would not have been able to strong-arm them into accepting the Two Cumorahs theory.

We're two extraordinarily powerful guys, it seems.

Of course, nothing even remotely like this has ever happened.

But then, it's Scratch. You maybe expected factual truth or something?

Mister Scratch wrote:
DCP suggested once on the MADboard that Heavenly Father's chief consideration in picking his servants is whether or not they will make good corporate officers.)

It scarcely needs saying that I never said this, and that I don't believe it.

Scratch is no ordinary fantasist. He's quite creative, really, in his malevolent and obsessive way.

The question is, Does he himself really believe the nonsense he peddles?

Mister Scratch wrote:
now the Chairmen of the Board actively request that the Church's well-compensated apologists formulate silly theories and revenge strategies in order to bolster the Church's increasingly shaky spiritual foundations.

What a surprise. More Scratchite fiction.

_________________

http://mormonscholarstestify.org
http://mormonscholarstestify.org/category/testimonies

I quote dead people.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Our newest member, Wayneman: Shades' missionary companion??
PostPosted: Thu Feb 19, 2009 4:13 pm 
harmony wrote:
I have to believe in something; it's just the way I am.


And it's quite pathetic actually. You are "kicking against the pricks", but it's by your choice. You don't have to subject yourself or have your family be subjected to rules and judgement you don't appreciate. And this is because you have to believe in something. Good for you.


Top
  
 
 Post subject: Re: Our newest member, Wayneman: Shades' missionary companion??
PostPosted: Thu Feb 19, 2009 4:18 pm 
God

Joined: Thu Oct 26, 2006 6:35 pm
Posts: 18160
Location: Shady Acres Status: MODERATOR
marg wrote:
harmony wrote:
I have to believe in something; it's just the way I am.


And it's quite pathetic actually.


I'm quite comfortable with you saying I'm pathetic. Coming from you, that's a compliment. I'm far more comfortable with God than without him. I'd find your way to be pitiful, shallow, sad, and depressing. Just my opinion, though.

_________________
(Nevo, Jan 23) And the Melchizedek Priesthood may not have been restored until the summer of 1830, several months after the organization of the Church.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Our newest member, Wayneman: Shades' missionary companion??
PostPosted: Thu Feb 19, 2009 4:24 pm 
God
User avatar

Joined: Sat Jan 26, 2008 7:02 pm
Posts: 2425
What is it with Mormonism? It produces FAT, MISERABLE, assholes... And we're supposed to think it's great?

f*** that.

Seriously.

f*** that.

_________________
You can’t trust adults to tell you the truth.

Scream the lie, whisper the retraction.- The Left


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Our newest member, Wayneman: Shades' missionary companion??
PostPosted: Thu Feb 19, 2009 7:14 pm 
harmony wrote:

I'm far more comfortable with God than without him. I'd find your way to be pitiful, shallow, sad, and depressing. Just my opinion, though.


You are comfortable in a belief in a God which endorses, works with, communes with the LDS Church. So you wear garments which are ugly and uncomfortable, you bring up your children in it only to have them critically judged in ways you don't agree with by some men given the title of Bishops. And btw, if Ray can be a Bishop, Ray who admits to using prostitutes, who admits to drinking beer while he posts on the Net for his main entertainment in life, the same Ray who isn't the sharpest tool in the shed then it is apparent that anyone , strike that, any man with questionable morals and mental reasoning ability can be a Bishop. And women in the church look up to these guys? Your boys now go to other wards than the one they live within. You know the church was started by a con artist, you know the sort of person J. Smith was, you know the church is run by men who think of women as second class citizens. But although you complain you still buy into it and accept the rules and culture you complain about.

So this doesn't boil down to having a belief in a wonderful supreme entity, if one should exist. Heck I've got nothing against that. It boils down to you being stuck in a culture you don't like, complaining ..yet all the while no one is forcing you to stay or accept any of it. IMO anyone with high integrity once they know the history of the church, once they appreciate it was man created and fraudulent with tales of angels no one has observed except by con artists, golden plates no one observed except by con artists, reformed egyptian which never existed, history which is a complete lie, a strong liklihood that a dead man's manuscript was the key catalyst to the man written Book of Mormon pawned off as scripture... should do something about it by not subjecting themselves to or being supportive. But then again you may not be able to see your way out, or you may not have the high personal integrity it would take to walk away.


Top
  
 
 Post subject: Re: Our newest member, Wayneman: Shades' missionary companion??
PostPosted: Thu Feb 19, 2009 7:20 pm 
God
User avatar

Joined: Mon May 12, 2008 9:06 am
Posts: 9663
Location: Kershaw, SC
Quote:
So, that about sums it up. BTW, do I HAVE to call you Dr. Shades? Because I only know you by your real name.


He's also known as "Slim Shady" around these parts.

It works for me.

_________________
Nothing is going to startle us more when we pass through the veil to the other side than to realize how well we know our Father [in Heaven] and how familiar his face is to us

- President Ezra Taft Benson


I am so old that I can remember when most of the people promoting race hate were white.

- Thomas Sowell


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Our newest member, Wayneman: Shades' missionary companion??
PostPosted: Thu Feb 19, 2009 8:36 pm 
Elder

Joined: Sun Jan 14, 2007 12:31 am
Posts: 323
marg wrote:
...if Ray can be a Bishop, Ray who admits to using prostitutes, who admits to drinking beer while he posts on the Net for his main entertainment in life, the same Ray who isn't the sharpest tool in the shed then it is apparent that anyone , strike that, any man with questionable morals and mental reasoning ability can be a Bishop. And women in the church look up to these guys?


Whoa. I think there is a very high likelihood that any activities such as you describe were done after Ray left the Mormon Church or at least after he was no longer an LDS bishop. I also think that it is not SOP for "any man with questionable morals" to be selected to act as a Mormon bishop. It should go without saying that "women in the church" would not en masse "look up to" men with questionable morals, whatever one determines that to be.

marg wrote:
...although you complain you still buy into it and accept the rules and culture you complain about.


Just to give some perspective on this, most humans likely buy into and accept the culture into which they are born and will even complain about things within it. My heritage lies in a country with a long history of harsh imperialism. While I don't appreciate that history I don't renounce the culture of my birth. While I do think that origins are important, especially of organizations, to me it's more important to assess the current situation and the planned future direction, in most instances.

The nevermos in the crowd often stand out as they're the ones who casually toss off the notion that Mormons should "just leave" their heritage and culture. If one turns that around and applies it to their own environment, heritage, culture, it is easily seen to not be the first impulse most people have. Would you renounce your US citizenship if you didn't like the current president? Would you leave your country if you didn't agree with its foreign policy? Leaving a faith that is also a heritage/culture is no small feat, especially when there are negative family ramifications on top of all the other losses. While it wasn't right for me, who wasn't Mormon by birth, to stay in Mormonism once I had no belief or hope left within it, I can't expect all people born into it to leave it altogether when they have questions or portions of it with which they may disagree or just not like too much.

marg wrote:
It boils down to you being stuck in a culture you don't like, complaining ..yet all the while no one is forcing you to stay or accept any of it.


Same comments as above really, in that just by accident of birth it is highly likely that one will continue to embrace the culture into which they are born and raised. Not all members, even those with doubts or questions or disagreements, see things the way other members do, or ex-members or never-members. Our reality is not their reality. While it seems to make sense to outsiders to "just leave" that misses the point of a faith and a culture being intertwined. Also, there is the point that people born-in view things differently than do converts (who tend to focus on doctrine perhaps much more than BICs do). Thus, what may really bother a convert or a nevermo may not even blip on the radar screen of the BIC. It's just the way it works. To say that I don't like this and that and therefore all members know those issues and should feel the same and react as I do about them is quite a one-dimensional view.

marg wrote:
IMO anyone with high integrity once they know the history of the church, once they appreciate it was man created and fraudulent with tales of angels no one has observed except by con artists, golden plates no one observed except by con artists, reformed egyptian which never existed, history which is a complete lie, a strong liklihood that a dead man's manuscript was the key catalyst to the man written Book of Mormon pawned off as scripture... should do something about it by not subjecting themselves to or being supportive. But then again you may not be able to see your way out, or you may not have the high personal integrity it would take to walk away.


I'm not sure I've seen harmony make any or all of these statements, if that is what your point is here. (Once again my disclaimer is that I don't read every single post here so I could be wrong about some of my conclusions based on that). Even so, again with the nevermo take on it (which is understandable but not definitive). It's not really up to non-members to say what members "should" do (as in leave because of doctrinal issues with which we or even the member may disagree).

Regarding "personal integrity", again, is it our call to state categorically what that is for every church member? In theory, I would hope that people would live what they believe. As far as personal integrity goes, I generally focus on what that looks like for me. I think we can certainly opine about integrity in general and what that looks like to us but criticizing another person's level of integrity, especially when we don't know them personally, seems a bit presumptuous to me.

I think there is a lot that never-members of various faiths do not and will never understand and that should go some way towards restraining our expectations of what other people should or should not do. (Exceptions are cases of egregious breaches of basic human values, etc, in my view).


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Our newest member, Wayneman: Shades' missionary companion??
PostPosted: Thu Feb 19, 2009 9:31 pm 
God
User avatar

Joined: Sun Apr 29, 2007 7:05 pm
Posts: 11828
harmony wrote:

I know I'm on the right track, if you're siding against me, Nehor. Thanks for the confirmation!


No problem, I'll consider reinforcing your mental delusions my messing with someone's mind for the day. I do admit that it seems to me though that there is some moral ambiguity about doing it to someone in as messed up a mental place as you sometimes seem to be. Then I see something shiny and forget about all that.

_________________
"Surely he knows that DCP, The Nehor, Lamanite, and other key apologists..." -Scratch clarifying my status in apologetics
"I admit it; I'm a petty, petty man." -Some Schmo


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Our newest member, Wayneman: Shades' missionary companion??
PostPosted: Thu Feb 19, 2009 10:28 pm 
Nightingale wrote:
Whoa. I think there is a very high likelihood that any activities such as you describe were done after Ray left the Mormon Church or at least after he was no longer an LDS bishop. I also think that it is not SOP for "any man with questionable morals" to be selected to act as a Mormon bishop. It should go without saying that "women in the church" would not en masse "look up to" men with questionable morals, whatever one determines that to be.


This actually has quite a bit of "history". Yes, I revealed on ZLMB that a prostitute lived with me for two weeks in 2001. But, as I said then, and will say again, I considered her more than "a prostitute" (or a "crackwhore"). And if you really must know the awful truth, we had sex ONCE during that two weeks. I did then, and still do now, consider her a friend. What really concerns me now is that I have not seen her in public for over two years, don't know where she lives, and I seriously fear she may have died from a drug overdose. I actually tried to get her out of prostitution, because as I said then, and will say again, we both believed that we were "soulmates". We had an extraordinary "spiritual connection". Unfortunately, she became schizophrenic, from taking too much marijuana and other hard drugs. If I could have taken away from that, maybe the "impossible dream" might have materialised, in spite of our age difference. When I first met her, we both asked, "have we met before?" It was almost uncanny.

Marg, unfortunately, is now resorting to innuendo and character assassination, revealing things I told her by private email, part of which was that I have long ceased this "past-time" (which she didn't mention). She completely ignored that, because she is desperate to score points. I live alone, am happy with my life - and avoid women altogether. I could also tell you something about marg's private life, but I'll refrain. That would be going down to her gutter level. She really is cutting a pathetic and desperate figure here now.

And to answer your point, Nightingale, no, as a bishop and member of the Church I never participated in any of these "activities".

(Moderator Note) Your reference to Moniker's situation has been edited based on situations which happened in PM and chat, and were handled as privately as possible by me, personally, as the chief moderator handling that particular issue. If you have any questions concerning that particular issue, please PM me. Liz

In any case, I am not ashamed of my association with women I admired as human beings, and didn't just use them for their bodies. I would not disown any of them in public, and would be happy to say they are a friend of mine. I love them as human beings, and for their intellect and intelligence. I've really only been involved intimately with two, absolutely gorgeous women, either of whom I could have spent the rest of my life with, if they were willing. But it was not to be.

Tomorrow I will attend my son's 30th birthday, and my work, and my children, is where my life is now centred. Bonking isn't the be all and end all, and at 54 morning glory is more like afternoon glory. Better to rise late, than not at all.

And lastly, I find it strange, since I've never broken up a marriage, and have a strict policy of never "coming on" to married women, even when such women have made advances to me in the past, that I would in any way be inferior to a man who stole other men's wives and deliberately broke up marriages, "in the name of God". That's the man Gazelam worships. Yet he calls his own sister a "crackwhore".


Top
  
 
 Post subject: Re: Our newest member, Wayneman: Shades' missionary companion??
PostPosted: Thu Feb 19, 2009 10:40 pm 
Ray wrote:
Marg, unfortunately, is now resorting to innuendo and character assassination, revealing things I told her by private email, part of which was that I have long ceased this "past-time" (which she didn't mention).


I've revealed nothing about private emails. I wouldn't do that. Your comments about prostitution were made on this board. Your comments about beer drinking and posting, for entertainment purposes have been made on this board.


Top
  
 
 Post subject: Re: Our newest member, Wayneman: Shades' missionary companion??
PostPosted: Thu Feb 19, 2009 10:53 pm 
marg wrote:
I've revealed nothing about private emails. I wouldn't do that. Your comments about prostitution were made on this board. Your comments about beer drinking and posting, for entertainment purposes have been made on this board.


Your post suggest that I still "use prostitutes". That isn't true. And if it was, I would not deny it. Any more than I'd deny beer drinking. I still drink lots of beer, and enjoy it. I'll even admit to PUI (posting under the influence). In fact, I'm now on my seventh beer. So what? Do you never get drunk and post? (Think here, now)

And really, I am here largely here for entertainment, but intellectual stimulation here is getting very, very rare, which is why I've been posting elsewhere. Not that I'd condone censorship or anything, but the level of interesting discourse here seems to have dropped considerably. That's something no rules or moderation can control.


Top
  
 
 Post subject: Re: Our newest member, Wayneman: Shades' missionary companion??
PostPosted: Fri Feb 20, 2009 11:46 am 
"Ray wrote:
I could also tell you something about marg's private life, but I'll refrain. That would be going down to her gutter level. She really is cutting a pathetic and desperate figure here now.


Talk about using inuendo's in an attempt to smear someone. You have talked about using prostitutes and your attitude about that on this board, I didn't use any innuendos from some email.

My comments are about you decision making skills, your reasoning ability. You simply are not someone who I think should be in a position of giving advice to groups of people you are in charge to do so in that official capacity by an organization. Because of you poor reasoning ability you lack good judgement at times.

Now what is it I said in email that you'd like to share. My husband's disinterest in and low sex drive from the time we married? That was an acknowledgement not a complaint, and we now have worked things out,which I pointed out. I"ve mentioned this on this board a number of times, I've mentioned it on 2 think. It's one of the reasons I can understand from a male's perspective what it's like, if they are in that situation. So what exactly do you wish to share? Go ahead.

That's the sort of person you are like Ray. I remember you doing something like that on Shades first board. You threatened on the board to post a pm we had and you did but only a portion. I had the whole pm, and I either posted it or explained the context of the whole pm. You are an underhanded slime bucket Ray. Really you are.

So go ahead, I'm not the least bit concerned that anything I said to you is gutter worthy.


Top
  
 
 Post subject: Re: Our newest member, Wayneman: Shades' missionary companion??
PostPosted: Fri Feb 20, 2009 2:45 pm 
marg wrote:
That's the sort of person you are like Ray. I remember you doing something like that on Shades first board. You threatened on the board to post a pm we had and you did but only a portion. I had the whole pm, and I either posted it or explained the context of the whole pm. You are an underhanded slime bucket Ray. Really you are.


Thankfully, I don't need your assessments to determine the sort of person I am. Lots of people in real life can assess my character far better, including my children, who know my real life situation 100 times better than you.

None of this came through your emails, in fact quite the contrary, so I will guess that it's your dumping as a moderator that has your knickers in a knot.


Top
  
 
 Post subject: Re: Our newest member, Wayneman: Shades' missionary companion??
PostPosted: Fri Feb 20, 2009 2:50 pm 
God
User avatar

Joined: Thu Feb 08, 2007 9:47 am
Posts: 1554
Location: Washington DC
Will somebody please lock this stupid ass thread down.. sheesh!

_________________
God has the right to create and to destroy, to make like and to kill. He can delegate this authority if he wishes to. I know that can be scary. Deal with it.
Nehor.. Nov 08, 2010


_________________


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Our newest member, Wayneman: Shades' missionary companion??
PostPosted: Fri Feb 20, 2009 2:53 pm 
TAK wrote:
Will somebody please lock this stupid ass thread down.. sheesh!


I totally agree. I really think the discussions I've been having elsewhere are far more profitable. I tried to drop this ages ago.


Top
  
 
 Post subject: Re: Our newest member, Wayneman: Shades' missionary companion??
PostPosted: Fri Feb 20, 2009 4:20 pm 
Ray A wrote:


None of this came through your emails, in fact quite the contrary, so I will guess that it's your dumping as a moderator that has your knickers in a knot.


To think that a church puts people like you in positions of authority over others, is telling of the flaws and weakness in the system. What standard of care did they use in choosing you?


Top
  
 
 Post subject: Re: Our newest member, Wayneman: Shades' missionary companion??
PostPosted: Fri Feb 20, 2009 4:33 pm 
marg wrote:
To think that a church puts people like you in positions of authority over others, is telling of the flaws and weakness in the system. What standard of care did they use in choosing you?


Well, it goes something like this. A person serves a mission, has a temple recommend, pays tithing, etc., serves in callings, is usually raising a young family, and the stake president feels impressed that he should be the next bishop, but makes no move until he confides with his counselors, then they pray for confirmation.

It's not something you'd understand. But that's the way it works in the Church.

If you'd like to register formal complaints about my time as a bishop, or you have any specific charges to make against me then do so, but as far as I am aware, none have been made. Not by any member who was under my jurisdiction. You, of course, are well placed to judge that, I am sure, on the Internet, 26 years after I was released.


Top
  
 
 Post subject: Re: Our newest member, Wayneman: Shades' missionary companion??
PostPosted: Fri Feb 20, 2009 8:22 pm 
The point is people like Harmony are obeying rules of a cult, listening to the advice of Bishops who are chosen based on loyalty to the organization more than anything else. Her loyalty is not about having to believe in a God it's about obedience to a organization which has created their own rules and practices. So she wears garments she doesn't want to because to not do so would bother her husband a loyal obedient member. Her wearing of garments when she doesn't want is an indication which gives me reason to think she lacks high personal integrity to follow through on what's best for her, what makes sense, what's right and wrong. She obviously is quite obedient in appearance in real life, but on here likes to complain.


Top
  
 
 Post subject: Re: Our newest member, Wayneman: Shades' missionary companion??
PostPosted: Fri Feb 20, 2009 8:27 pm 
God

Joined: Thu Oct 26, 2006 6:35 pm
Posts: 18160
Location: Shady Acres Status: MODERATOR
marg wrote:
The point is people like Harmony are obeying rules of a cult, listening to the advice of Bishops who are chosen based on loyalty to the organization more than anything else. Her loyalty is not about having to believe in a God it's about obedience to a organization which has created their own rules and practices. So she wears garments she doesn't want to because to not do so would bother her husband a loyal obedient member. Her wearing of garments when she doesn't want is an indication which gives me reason to think she lacks high personal integrity to follow through on what's best for her, what makes sense, what's right and wrong. She obviously is quite obedient in appearance in real life, but on here likes to complain.


Never make the mistake of thinking you actually know something, marg. You'd just be... wrong.

_________________
(Nevo, Jan 23) And the Melchizedek Priesthood may not have been restored until the summer of 1830, several months after the organization of the Church.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Our newest member, Wayneman: Shades' missionary companion??
PostPosted: Fri Feb 20, 2009 8:35 pm 
Seething Cauldron of Hate
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jul 05, 2007 11:56 am
Posts: 7173
marg wrote:
The point is people like Harmony are obeying rules of a cult, listening to the advice of Bishops who are chosen based on loyalty to the organization more than anything else.

We're back to the status quo ante: I disagree with marg.

She doesn't know what she's talking about. And, in the past at least, she's been entirely content with that.

_________________

http://mormonscholarstestify.org
http://mormonscholarstestify.org/category/testimonies

I quote dead people.


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 371 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18  Next

All times are UTC - 8 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot], Doctor CamNC4Me, Google [Bot], neworder, Yahoo [Bot] and 20 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Jump to:  
Revival Theme By Brandon Designs By B.Design-Studio © 2007-2008 Brandon
Revival Theme Based off SubLite By Echo © 2007-2008 Echo
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group