It is currently Thu Aug 28, 2014 8:14 pm

All times are UTC - 8 hours [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 371 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16 ... 18  Next
Author Message
 Post subject: Re:
PostPosted: Tue Feb 17, 2009 8:30 pm 
Dr. Shades wrote:
I'm sure we can all agree that calling someone a "self-righteous prick" is far, far more offensive than the biblical metaphor "kick against the pricks."

Does the word "prick" when used as an insult (as opposed to when it's used to describe a low-tech cattle prod) rise to the level of the "c" word in the offensiveness scale? I don't know; I'm asking y'all's opinion.

Either way, will it solve this whole controversy if harmony agreed to never call anyone a "self-righteous prick" ever again?


Frankly, I don't find the word, "prick", quite as offensive, in its slang term, as the word, "c***", but I would rate it a close "second". Whether you decide to use the word censor on it or not is up to you.

Of course, I'm pretty liberal when it comes to allowing swearing in Terrestrial. If I had it my way, I wouldn't censor the word, b***s***. However, I respect your decision to do so.


Top
  
 
 Post subject: Re: Our newest member, Wayneman: Shades' missionary companion??
PostPosted: Tue Feb 17, 2009 8:40 pm 
Elder

Joined: Sun Jan 14, 2007 12:31 am
Posts: 323
Would it make any difference to our perception of this if it was antishock who had directed that term at DCP? That is a good way to examine the ins and outs of this kind of thing. Do we see it differently because it was a female poster who used it? Is it different because said poster is LDS? etc. Just wondering because I find this interesting. Again, sorry to Wayneman, whose thread we are borrowing to have such a romp down the garden path, way far away from his OP.

Re moderation - I think the more moderation there is the more subjectivity you introduce. Then modding becomes a full time job and still can't keep everybody happy.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Our newest member, Wayneman: Shades' missionary companion??
PostPosted: Tue Feb 17, 2009 9:31 pm 
Nursery

Joined: Sun Feb 08, 2009 11:42 am
Posts: 30
Location: CA
Simply put, a lack of civility has never managed to change anyone's heart or mind.

Verbal (or written) attacks only serve to further cement the offended one's position.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Our newest member, Wayneman: Shades' missionary companion??
PostPosted: Tue Feb 17, 2009 9:49 pm 
God

Joined: Thu Oct 26, 2006 6:35 pm
Posts: 18163
Location: Shady Acres Status: MODERATOR
Since obviously no one reads what I write, I'll write it again:

Quote:
harmony Post subject: Re: Our newest member, Wayneman: Shades' missionary companion??Posted: Tue Feb 17, 2009 2:45 pm

God

Joined: Thu Oct 26, 2006 6:35 pm
Posts: 7463
Location: Shady Acres Status: MODERATOR
Blog: View Blog (0) Good grief.

I promise to never use prick again. Now I'll call him a self-righteous arrogant stick with a metal point on it.

How's that? Is that too sexual for anyone?


Good grief.

_________________
(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: Tue Feb 17, 2009 9:58 pm 
Nightingale wrote:
Do we see it differently because it was a female poster who used it? Is it different because said poster is LDS? etc. Just wondering because I find this interesting.


I think the real issue here is that harmony is a moderator, and Antishock felt it unfair because he was suspended for making a similar comment, but AS8 has a rather long history of this, and not always in the context of a serious discussion. He would often "pop in" to threads just to insult DCP, with no discussion context. While I was surprised that harmony used those words, I can also understand her extreme frustration, in the context of the discussion. She felt she was being unrighteously judged. It's not as if she just "poped in" to insult DCP. So I think context is important here, and also some allowances for a real sense of frustration.

Nightingale wrote:
Re moderation - I think the more moderation there is the more subjectivity you introduce. Then modding becomes a full time job and still can't keep everybody happy.


And trying to be consistent is almost a nightmare.


Top
  
 
 Post subject: Re: Our newest member, Wayneman: Shades' missionary companion??
PostPosted: Tue Feb 17, 2009 10:13 pm 
God

Joined: Thu Oct 26, 2006 6:35 pm
Posts: 18163
Location: Shady Acres Status: MODERATOR
Ray A wrote:
I think the real issue here is that harmony is a moderator, and Antishock felt it unfair because he was suspended for making a similar comment, but AS8 has a rather long history of this, and not always in the context of a serious discussion. He would often "pop in" to threads just to insult DCP, with no discussion context.


I'm not exactly the world's greatest moderator. Liz is the one who really carries the weight of that here. I mostly just hang around and wait for someone to tell me they need coffee.

Quote:
While I was surprised that harmony used those words, I can also understand her extreme frustration, in the context of the discussion. She felt she was being unrighteously judged. It's not as if she just "poped in" to insult DCP. So I think context is important here, and also some allowances for a real sense of frustration.


The whole thing goes back about 10 years, Ray. And in all those 10 years, Daniel never said he thought I was making a sexually charged vulgar comment. I guess I was totally clueless about what it was that he was offended by. I'm still somewhat bemused by all the flak. All this time, I'd thought he was PO'ed (I'll probably get hammered for saying "pissed off", so I'll use PO'ed instead, in case I have marg nagging at me again for making a comment that might refer to a physical substance) about the self-righteous and arrogant part. It never occured to me that he was upset about the .. *ahem*... stick with a sharp metal point on it, used to goad cattle.

So now I've promised to never use it again...here. Although I'm not saying I won't use it elsewhere, since I now have this wonderful new meaning to explore. :cool:

_________________
(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: Tue Feb 17, 2009 10:26 pm 
harmony wrote:
All this time, I'd thought he was PO'ed (I'll probably get hammered for saying "pissed off", so I'll use PO'ed instead, in case I have marg nagging at me again for making a comment that might refer to a physical substance) about the self-righteous and arrogant part.


Well we all know what marg really thinks of many MDB posters, post-marg-moderation, that they are "morons". At least you don't put on a "face".


Top
  
 
 Post subject: Re: Our newest member, Wayneman: Shades' missionary companion??
PostPosted: Tue Feb 17, 2009 11:43 pm 
Elder

Joined: Sun Jan 14, 2007 12:31 am
Posts: 323
Ah. OK, I missed all that about antishock, DCP, etc. And I forgot (or didn't realize) that harmony is a mod. But all that underscores my other point, way back when, that perception is crucial, in so many ways. Maybe mods have to refrain from participating on certain threads (I think they do that, by and large) or, even more difficult, not get into anything personal with other posters at all? IOW, totally objective and detached mods would prevent any negative perceptions about favouritism or abuse of mod power. The trick is just to find such creatures!

Too, see how things can look so different when you're not personally involved. That might not help a current discussion about certain issues but sometimes it helps to put things into perspective.

I do often forget too that all the elements that go into making a good debate or discussion are not necessarily important to some posters, depending on the issues. I mean, it's not the universal and constant goal to always have a polite discussion. I understand that but need to remember it more readily when I'm reading some of the posts.

I am reminded of charity when harmony keeps saying "good grief"! Is that an LDS thing I wonder? It comes across to me as meaning something like what a big fuss you are making over nothing. But you have to see that it is noteworthy to at least some non-LDS people that an LDS woman would use a vulgar term against an LDS man, especially on a board that is inhabited by "apostates" and "critics" and is described by many LDS as being a stinking swamp (or whatever). One of my points was that it's not non-LDS who are talking to each other this way. That is mildly noteworthy to me. I'm not saying that DCP doesn't make rude comments too, although I'm not aware of the history of other boards, especially in the past. He might be rude sometimes, as well as other things that some posters don't like, but he has not been vulgar, as far as I know. Unless you want to say that "ass" is vulgar whereas "prick" is not.

Where I'm coming from on this is that in my Christian experience, as well as in my work, language is a big deal. Even mild cussing is definitely frowned on and just not heard, whether in church or in anything we write, even on message boards. I have to say it surprises me to see (not only here) some of the words that some LDS use. I realize that this is a minority position but it's where I'm at and have been. I am trying to loosen it up a little now but still am a long way from uttering or writing the more profane terms. I realize that's my issue. Words only have the power you give them, which makes it interesting to see the differences from culture to culture.

Anyway, next time harmony starts wielding her cattle prod at Daniel Peterson, maybe we can discuss her propensity for violence. {jk} Just to change the tune a bit. :)


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Our newest member, Wayneman: Shades' missionary companion??
PostPosted: Wed Feb 18, 2009 12:09 am 
Nightingale wrote:
Ah. OK, I missed all that about antishock, DCP, etc. And I forgot (or didn't realize) that harmony is a mod. But all that underscores my other point, way back when, that perception is crucial, in so many ways. Maybe mods have to refrain from participating on certain threads (I think they do that, by and large) or, even more difficult, not get into anything personal with other posters at all?


I tend to agree. And this, I think, is the problem with the Mormon Discussions "upgrade". Harmony has always been a straight shooter, always saying what she thinks, and a poster I have a high opinion of. I think "mod duties" might curtail that in some ways, but as we have seen, not totally. I can't imagine Shades calling DCP a "self-righteous prick". LOL.



Nightingale wrote:
IOW, totally objective and detached mods would prevent any negative perceptions about favouritism or abuse of mod power. The trick is just to find such creatures!


I think we may also, one day, find a Tasmanian tiger.


Nightingale wrote:
I am reminded of charity when harmony keeps saying "good grief"! Is that an LDS thing I wonder? It comes across to me as meaning something like what a big fuss you are making over nothing. But you have to see that it is noteworthy to at least some non-LDS people that an LDS woman would use a vulgar term against an LDS man, especially on a board that is inhabited by "apostates" and "critics" and is described by many LDS as being a stinking swamp (or whatever). One of my points was that it's not non-LDS who are talking to each other this way. That is mildly noteworthy to me. I'm not saying that DCP doesn't make rude comments too, although I'm not aware of the history of other boards, especially in the past. He might be rude sometimes, as well as other things that some posters don't like, but he has not been vulgar, as far as I know. Unless you want to say that "ass" is vulgar whereas "prick" is not.


DCP doesn't need to be vulgar. In reality, he wins or dominates most anti-DCP conversations here by being annoyingly cool, witty, or even nonchalant. I'll be frank, his posts here are a huge drawcard for me. I've been observing this wit for 19 years now. And even if I don't believe anything about "Book of Mormon historicity", his debating skill is something to behold.

Nightingale wrote:
Where I'm coming from on this is that in my Christian experience, as well as in my work, language is a big deal. Even mild cussing is definitely frowned on and just not heard, whether in church or in anything we write, even on message boards. I have to say it surprises me to see (not only here) some of the words that some LDS use. I realize that this is a minority position but it's where I'm at and have been. I am trying to loosen it up a little now but still am a long way from uttering or writing the more profane terms. I realize that's my issue. Words only have the power you give them, which makes it interesting to see the differences from culture to culture.


Well you haven't changed much, and I think that's a good thing. There's probably more Christianity in you than there is in many Mormons.


Top
  
 
 Post subject: Re: Our newest member, Wayneman: Shades' missionary companion??
PostPosted: Wed Feb 18, 2009 6:17 am 
Ray wrote:
I tend to agree. And this, I think, is the problem with the Mormon Discussions "upgrade". Harmony has always been a straight shooter, always saying what she thinks, and a poster I have a high opinion of. I think "mod duties" might curtail that in some ways, but as we have seen, not totally. I can't imagine Shades calling DCP a "self-righteous prick". LOL.


What is unique about the moderating situation at MDB, and, frankly, I think it's a good thing....is that everyone knows who the Mods are. We aren't hiding in some kind of faux anonymity, like on MAD. We can reply on a thread as a poster, or as Shades refers to the process, "speaking as a man". When we are in normal poster mode, or "speaking as a man", we can pretty much say what we want...or what we would normally say in the guise of any other poster. I have been known to refer to both BC and Bob Crockett as an "ass" on more than one occasion while "speaking as a man". :wink:

Since Harmony was not in Moderator mode(i.e. she was "speaking as a man"), I don't really see a problem with her using the offending phrase to DCP from a Moderator standpoint. Now, if she had called DCP that phrase as she was moderating one of his posts, that would be an issue. When we are in "Mod-mode", we are supposed to be completely emotionless and "clones of Shades". :mrgreen:

It isn't going to be a perfect balancing act all the time, but I do like the fact that our moderating is out in the open, and if a poster disagrees with our moderating style, they can disagree openly about it.


Top
  
 
 Post subject: Re: Our newest member, Wayneman: Shades' missionary companion??
PostPosted: Wed Feb 18, 2009 9:58 am 
Nightingale wrote:
Anyway, next time harmony starts wielding her cattle prod at Daniel Peterson, maybe we can discuss her propensity for violence. {jk} Just to change the tune a bit. :)



ROTFL! :lol:

I think I may have found my new signature quote!


Top
  
 
 Post subject: Re: Our newest member, Wayneman: Shades' missionary companion??
PostPosted: Wed Feb 18, 2009 10:56 am 
To add my 2 cents, if Harmony wants to call anyone "a stick with a metal point" that's fine it's not vulgar. It entirely misses the point of the metaphor "to kick against the "prick" but Harmony wasn't using it correctly anyhow. In the context of the metaphor "kicking against DCP/prick" would be like saying it's foolish to argue or go against DCP's authority because it will only end up resulting in hurt and pain. And I doubt very much that's what she ever wanted to say.

I personally find "c***" equally offensive as "prick" when used as a put down. If you are going to allow one, then you should allow the other. As far as history goes for posters it's rather irrelevant because vulgar language is vulgar language, it reflects poorly on the one expressing it and degrades the board.

And Ray I don't think everyone is a moron just some people. Obviously in any population of people there is a range of intelligence. We aren't all equal in personal integrity, and mental reasoning ability.

And one other thing, Scratch, it wasn't DCP who complained, I did.


Top
  
 
 Post subject: Re: Our newest member, Wayneman: Shades' missionary companion??
PostPosted: Wed Feb 18, 2009 6:34 pm 
God

Joined: Thu Oct 26, 2006 6:35 pm
Posts: 18163
Location: Shady Acres Status: MODERATOR
marg wrote:
To add my 2 cents...


And Lord knows, there never was a time when you didn't want to add you 2 cents.

_________________
(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: Wed Feb 18, 2009 9:09 pm 
harmony wrote:
marg wrote:
To add my 2 cents...


And Lord knows, there never was a time when you didn't want to add you 2 cents.


Well let's see...you have 7,472 posts with an average of 8.83 per day. I have 1,922 posts with an average of 2.31 per day. It looks like you are the one adding their 2 cents in.. the most. You have a problem Harmony with admitting when you are wrong. I acknowledged at the beginning how you could understandably have been mistaken in your interpretation of the phrase, but not once from what I have read have you admitted that you could have been wrong.


Top
  
 
 Post subject: Re: Our newest member, Wayneman: Shades' missionary companion??
PostPosted: Wed Feb 18, 2009 9:33 pm 
God

Joined: Thu Oct 26, 2006 6:35 pm
Posts: 18163
Location: Shady Acres Status: MODERATOR
marg wrote:
Well let's see...you have 7,472 posts with an average of 8.83 per day. I have 1,922 posts with an average of 2.31 per day. It looks like you are the one adding their 2 cents in.. the most.


I've been here since the beginning, marg. You're a fairly late comer. Give it time though. You'll catch up!

Quote:
You have a problem Harmony with admitting when you are wrong. I acknowledged at the beginning how you could understandably have been mistaken in your interpretation of the phrase, but not once from what I have read have you admitted that you could have been wrong.


It was worth the price of admission to see you quote scripture, marg.

And I wasn't wrong. Pres Hunter agreed with me, as does the dictionary. That I didn't pick up on Daniel's issue was not well done of me... but then, all these years, I thought he was offended because of the self righteous comment and the arrogant comment; it never occurred to me that he thought I was being sexually vulgar. Once he cleared that up, I apologized and agreed to not use the term in connection with him or this board again. Repentence is mine, sayeth harmony. You might want to read through the thread again... I repeated myself a couple of times.

I may use it again, though (but not at Daniel)... just to see you quote scripture (when I'm needing a laugh break). Dang, that was funny! :lol:

_________________
(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 1:13 am 
harmony wrote:
marg wrote:
Well let's see...you have 7,472 posts with an average of 8.83 per day. I have 1,922 posts with an average of 2.31 per day. It looks like you are the one adding their 2 cents in.. the most.


I've been here since the beginning, marg. You're a fairly late comer. Give it time though. You'll catch up!


Wrong again Harmony, actually I've probably been involved with Shades's board longer than you. Although I joined this board about a week or so after you, I was posting on Shades initial board and I don't remember you there. But even if I joined a year after you, when one talks averages you beat me by posting on average at least 6 more posts per day than I do or 3.8 times as many posts per day to what I post.

And if I tried to catch up to you by the end of the year, then I'd have to post about 26 posts per day every day. Or if you quit posting from this day forward it would take me about 2,403 days at the rate I post to equal the total number of posts you currently have or about 6.6 years. Of course if I picked up my pace to your rate it would take about 628 days to catch up to you as long as you stopped posting or about 1.7 years to reach the total number of posts you currently have.


Quote:
Quote:
You have a problem Harmony with admitting when you are wrong.



And I wasn't wrong.


Like I said you have a problem admitting when you are wrong.

Quote:
Once he cleared that up, I apologized and agreed to not use the term in connection with him or this board again.


Not before you again after having apologized got mad at him, in this thread and threatened to continue using it.

Quote:
I may use it again, though (but not at Daniel)..


I'm sure you might.

Quote:
just to see you quote scripture (when I'm needing a laugh break). Dang, that was funny! :lol:


That's what this issue is about ...interpretation of scripture. So basically what has been happening is you've been misunderstanding a particular phrase within both the Bible and Book of Mormon. Though frankly I doubt you truly misunderstood it, I think it more likely that you enjoyed using vulgar language under the guise you didn't know. The thing is you are the one who complained about vulgar language and wanted to clean up the board.


Top
  
 
 Post subject: Re: Our newest member, Wayneman: Shades' missionary companion??
PostPosted: Thu Feb 19, 2009 4:03 am 
tired, less active investigator
User avatar

Joined: Thu Oct 18, 2007 1:07 am
Posts: 6817
Location: Hungary
antishock8 wrote:
...
A big, pulsating, hairy, veiny, dick.
...

At long last, one sentence which has an one-to-one translation to hungarian.
We call these mirror translation.

_________________
- Whenever a poet or preacher, chief or wizard spouts gibberish, the human race spends centuries deciphering the message. - Umberto Eco
- To assert that the earth revolves around the sun is as erroneous as to claim that Jesus was not born of a virgin. - Cardinal Bellarmine at the trial of Galilei


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Our newest member, Wayneman: Shades' missionary companion??
PostPosted: Thu Feb 19, 2009 8:51 am 
God

Joined: Thu Oct 26, 2006 6:35 pm
Posts: 18163
Location: Shady Acres Status: MODERATOR
marg wrote:
harmony wrote:
I've been here since the beginning, marg. You're a fairly late comer. Give it time though. You'll catch up!


Wrong again Harmony, actually I've probably been involved with Shades's board longer than you. Although I joined this board about a week or so after you, I was posting on Shades initial board and I don't remember you there.


And because you don't remember, it just wasn't so? Right, marg. You really need to work on those delusions of grandeur. The rest of us will like you (or not) even if you aren't queen of the world.

It seems like I was the 3rd person on Shades' original board. I was late, because I didn't get his email until I'd finished work for the day. Shades created the board for people like me... I'd just gotten banned from FAIR/MAD, after royally pissing Juliann off. And since he and I have been friends for a long long time, he emailed me as soon as it was up.

Obviously I have more to talk about than you, since I'm a member of the LDS church and you don't even have a basic understanding of what that means, let alone any nuances of the gospel or the Book of Mormon.

The rest of your post is just rehashing that which has already been discussed ad nauseum, so I'll pass.

_________________
(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 11:01 am 
harmony wrote:
marg wrote:
Wrong again Harmony, actually I've probably been involved with Shades's board longer than you. Although I joined this board about a week or so after you, I was posting on Shades initial board and I don't remember you there.


And because you don't remember, it just wasn't so? Right, marg. You really need to work on those delusions of grandeur. The rest of us will like you (or not) even if you aren't queen of the world.


Boy you've managed to shift discussion.

Let's see you accuse me of putting in my 2 cents in too often. I point out how much more you post than me and even though I mention rate per day you respond that the only reason your posts are more is because you started before me.

I then point out that as far as those mathematical figures go how long on here is irrelevant as I started vitually the same day. I add just as an interest because it has nothing to do with the figures that I probably started before you. Then you come back with me having "delusions of grandeur". Wow, you think how long someone has been posting on a message board is something to brag about? Believe me I don't look upon it as an accomplishment. Notice however I said probably I've posted longer. Yes, btw, Shades emailed me about his board when he first started it up, so I very well may have been posting longer than you. If you posted it was not very memorable.

So let's see you were wrong about interpreting the phrase "kicking at the pricks".

You are wrong about me started much differently on here and therefore that being a reason you have over 3 times per day the number of posts than I.

So you are mathematically inept and don't understand scripture.



Quote:
It seems like I was the 3rd person on Shades' original board. I was late, because I didn't get his email until I'd finished work for the day. Shades created the board for people like me... I'd just gotten banned from FAIR/MAD, after royally pissing Juliann off. And since he and I have been friends for a long long time, he emailed me as soon as it was up.


Wow, talk about "delusions of grandeur". He set it up for you did he? So this board is really essentially for you? So let's see, are you counting now seconds, hours, days before I started.

Quote:
Obviously I have more to talk about than you, since I'm a member of the LDS church and you don't even have a basic understanding of what that means, let alone any nuances of the gospel or the Book of Mormon.


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.

Quote:
The rest of your post is just rehashing that which has already been discussed ad nauseum, so I'll pass.


I don't think you know how to pass, remember you are up to over 8 posts per day.


Top
  
 
 Post subject: Re: Our newest member, Wayneman: Shades' missionary companion??
PostPosted: Thu Feb 19, 2009 11:58 am 
God
User avatar

Joined: Sun Apr 29, 2007 7:05 pm
Posts: 11830
harmony wrote:
Obviously I have more to talk about than you, since I'm a member of the LDS church and you don't even have a basic understanding of what that means, let alone any nuances of the gospel or the Book of Mormon.


I'm not sure you have that basic understanding either.

_________________
"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 12:38 pm 
God

Joined: Thu Oct 26, 2006 6:35 pm
Posts: 18163
Location: Shady Acres Status: MODERATOR
The Nehor wrote:
harmony wrote:
Obviously I have more to talk about than you, since I'm a member of the LDS church and you don't even have a basic understanding of what that means, let alone any nuances of the gospel or the Book of Mormon.


I'm not sure you have that basic understanding either.


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

_________________
(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  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 371 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16 ... 18  Next

All times are UTC - 8 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot], Juggler Vain, Mayan Elephant, mormonstories, Spanner, sunstoned, Tchild and 33 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