It is currently Sun Nov 23, 2014 3:12 pm

All times are UTC - 8 hours [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 61 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3
Author Message
 Post subject: Re: Cassius Review of Books: "The Church and the Negro"
PostPosted: Mon Jan 31, 2011 8:13 am 
God
User avatar

Joined: Mon May 10, 2010 10:07 pm
Posts: 1668
Simon Belmont wrote:

Quote:
Would you find it offensive if a Protestant minister gave a talk called "Strange Creeds of Mormonism"?


That's a weak analogy. A protestant minister would have to give a speech that is much broader than "Mormonism," say "The Strange Creeds of Restorationism." Because Richards's talk was not "The Strange Creeds of [a particular denomination]."


Why is it okay to mock the beliefs of those who believe in Christian creeds?


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Cassius Review of Books: "The Church and the Negro"
PostPosted: Mon Jan 31, 2011 8:15 am 
SB wrote:
That's a weak analogy. A protestant minister would have to give a speech that is much broader than "Mormonism," say "The Strange Creeds of Restorationism." Because Richards's talk was not "The Strange Creeds of [a particular denomination]."


DJ wrote:
And now we meet Denial's close sibling, Avoid.

You're not making things better; you're making things worse. According to you, Elder Richards is demeaning an entire religion, not just one particular branch of it. Which is a valid point, actually.

My question is very apropos, though, because Mormonism is not a particular denomination, either.


GBH disagrees with you.

GBH wrote:
There is no such thing as a “Mormon Fundamentalist.” It is a contradiction to use the two words together.


Quote:
So, again: if it is acceptable for LeGrand Richards to find fault with the strange creeds of traditional Christianity, then why is it not acceptable for a Protestant minister to demean the strange creeds of the Mormon movement?


Again, if LeGrand Richards were attacking a particular denomination, your analogy might hold up. As it stands, it is a bad argument.

Just a side note: did you actually read Richards's talk?

Quote:
Jeffrey R. Holland is pointing out how the traditional beliefs about God in Christianity make no sense. Why is it not acceptable, then, for a Protestant minister to give a sermon about how the Mormon idea of God makes no sense?


Because "Mormon" is a term commonly used to refer to The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Yes, there are others who call themselves "Mormon," but, as Hinckley says, there is only one. If Jeffery R. Holland pointed out how the beliefs about God in [a particular denomination] don't make sense, your analogy might hold up.

Quote:
No, asking loaded questions for which you have several quotes already mined to counter the predicted answer.


Quote:
Let's summarize what you just admitted:

1. Your responses are predictable.
2. LDS teachings are going to contradict your talking points.
3. You know that I will be able to demonstrate this.


What I "admitted" was that you love to search LDS.org and FAIR for quotations which support your position, then craft carefully loaded questions in an attempt to trap LDS members.


Top
  
 
 Post subject: Re: Cassius Review of Books: "The Church and the Negro"
PostPosted: Mon Jan 31, 2011 8:16 am 
cafe crema wrote:


Why is it okay to mock the beliefs of those who believe in Christian creeds?



It isn't.


Top
  
 
 Post subject: Re: Cassius Review of Books: "The Church and the Negro"
PostPosted: Mon Jan 31, 2011 9:20 am 
God

Joined: Sun May 16, 2010 4:00 pm
Posts: 3519
blemnot uses GordyB of the Big 3 as a source for 'doctrine'?

The same gordy that said polygamy is not doctrinal, lds-inc does not believe in eternal progression and he did not know Mark Hoffman. Gordy the liar? THAT hinckster?

Surly slimeone, you can do better than a jerk like that.

As for mormon fundamentalists, they do exist. They practice the lds religion closer to what joseph the coxman and brigham taught than anything lds-inc from salt lake city teaches today.

_________________
"This is how INGORNAT these fools are!" - darricktevenson

Bow your head and mutter, what in hell am I doing here?

infaymos wrote: "Peterson is the defacto king ping of the Mormon Apologetic world."


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Cassius Review of Books: "The Church and the Negro"
PostPosted: Mon Jan 31, 2011 1:49 pm 
God
User avatar

Joined: Mon May 10, 2010 10:07 pm
Posts: 1668
Simon Belmont wrote:
cafe crema wrote:


Why is it okay to mock the beliefs of those who believe in Christian creeds?



It isn't.

Then Mr. Hollands conference talk was inappropriate.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Cassius Review of Books: "The Church and the Negro"
PostPosted: Mon Jan 31, 2011 2:01 pm 
God
User avatar

Joined: Tue Mar 03, 2009 4:38 pm
Posts: 3481
Simon Belmont wrote:
cafe crema wrote:


It isn't.

Then Mr. Hollands conference talk was inappropriate.


I think it is acceptable for Mormons and their leaders to criticize other religious groups. They've been doing it since the 1820s, why should they stop now? They just need to grow thicker skin and realize that just as they are free to criticize others, others are free to criticize them. Mormonism should not get special protection.

_________________
"The truth is not uplifting; it destroys." - Boyd K. Packer

"Evil will always triumph, because good is dumb." - Dark Helmet


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Cassius Review of Books: "The Church and the Negro"
PostPosted: Mon Jan 31, 2011 2:20 pm 
Dark Lord of the Sith
User avatar

Joined: Wed May 12, 2010 5:16 pm
Posts: 12563
Location: A castellated abbey
Simon Belmont wrote:
Darth J wrote:
That's a weak analogy. A protestant minister would have to give a speech that is much broader than "Mormonism," say "The Strange Creeds of Restorationism." Because Richards's talk was not "The Strange Creeds of [a particular denomination]."


And now we meet Denial's close sibling, Avoid.

You're not making things better; you're making things worse. According to you, Elder Richards is demeaning an entire religion, not just one particular branch of it. Which is a valid point, actually.

My question is very apropos, though, because Mormonism is not a particular denomination, either.


Simon Belmont wrote:
GBH disagrees with you.

GBH wrote:
There is no such thing as a “Mormon Fundamentalist.” It is a contradiction to use the two words together.


You mean the Gordon B. Hinckley who didn't know why black men couldn't be ordained to the priesthood, who didn't know that we teach or emphasize exaltation, and who admitted that "Mormon = more good" is completely made up, but thinks it's a good motto anyway?

Are you being serious that your response to a post where I explained that Gordon B. Hinckley was wrong on this specific point about "Mormonism" is to reiterate that Gordon B. Hinckley said something that I already demonstrated to be wrong?

Quote:
Quote:
So, again: if it is acceptable for LeGrand Richards to find fault with the strange creeds of traditional Christianity, then why is it not acceptable for a Protestant minister to demean the strange creeds of the Mormon movement?


Again, if LeGrand Richards were attacking a particular denomination, your analogy might hold up. As it stands, it is a bad argument.

Just a side note: did you actually read Richards's talk?


I'm sorry, Simon, but at this point I must conclude that your consistent avoidance of the issue shows that you do have a double standard about criticizing someone's cherished beliefs.

And yes, unlike internet defenders of the faith, I do read what the Church and its leaders teaches. That's how going to apologists---formal or informal---for answers on my questions about the Church led what was left of my faith to collapse under its own weight. Defending the Church by ignoring and/or contradicting its teachings does not make a compelling case for, "The Church is true!"

Since your calling this a bad analogy decidedly ignores that when Elder Richards criticizes traditional Christian creeds, he is necessarily criticizing denominations that believe in those creeds, this is merely further proof of how "the moral voice of the board" believes that morality regarding criticism of someone's cherished beliefs is a one-way street.

Quote:
Quote:
Jeffrey R. Holland is pointing out how the traditional beliefs about God in Christianity make no sense. Why is it not acceptable, then, for a Protestant minister to give a sermon about how the Mormon idea of God makes no sense?


Because "Mormon" is a term commonly used to refer to The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Yes, there are others who call themselves "Mormon," but, as Hinckley says, there is only one. If Jeffery R. Holland pointed out how the beliefs about God in [a particular denomination] don't make sense, your analogy might hold up.


The unsupported assertion of a lifetime professional cheerleader for the Church (Hinckley) is incorrect. I have shown that to be the case, and you are simply relying on one of the only three things that you have to offer: argument by repetition (the other being argument by assertion and parroting on whatever FAIR says).

Quote:
Quote:
Let's summarize what you just admitted:

1. Your responses are predictable.
2. LDS teachings are going to contradict your talking points.
3. You know that I will be able to demonstrate this.


What I "admitted" was that you love to search LDS.org and FAIR for quotations which support your position, then craft carefully loaded questions in an attempt to trap LDS members.


In other words,

1. Your responses are predictable.
2. LDS teachings are going to contradict your talking points.
3. You know that I will be able to demonstrate this.

_________________
And the life of the ebony clock went out with that of the last of the gay. And the flames of the tripods expired. And Darkness and Decay and the Red Death held illimitable dominion over all.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Cassius Review of Books: "The Church and the Negro"
PostPosted: Tue Feb 01, 2011 7:33 am 
cafe crema wrote:
Then Mr. Hollands conference talk was inappropriate.


No, it wasn't. He did not mock anything.


Top
  
 
 Post subject: Re: Cassius Review of Books: "The Church and the Negro"
PostPosted: Tue Feb 01, 2011 7:50 am 
Darth J wrote:
You mean the Gordon B. Hinckley who didn't know why black men couldn't be ordained to the priesthood, who didn't know that we teach or emphasize exaltation, and who admitted that "Mormon = more good" is completely made up, but thinks it's a good motto anyway?


I mean the Hinckley who is among the same group of leaders of the Church that you continually quote from when they support your position. It is amusing that, when they do not support your position, you write them off as "oh, he was a liar because he said something that wasn't entirely true on 60 minutes."

Quote:
I'm sorry, Simon, but at this point I must conclude that your consistent avoidance of the issue shows that you do have a double standard about criticizing someone's cherished beliefs.


Not true... Jeffery R. Holland's talk, for example, was more about defending our beliefs than criticizing traditional Christianity. I was there for that particular talk, and I remember it well. There was not a tone of mocking or belittling, but one of more clearly defining where we stand and where our critics are incorrect.

Quote:
And yes, unlike internet defenders of the faith, I do read what the Church and its leaders teaches.


Why, Darth J? Why do you read what the leaders of a Church you have forsaken say?

Quote:
Since your calling this a bad analogy decidedly ignores that when Elder Richards criticizes traditional Christian creeds, he is necessarily criticizing denominations that believe in those creeds, this is merely further proof of how "the moral voice of the board" believes that morality regarding criticism of someone's cherished beliefs is a one-way street.


Richards's talk was not mean spirited or mocking, either. It is your cynicism that makes it so.

Quote:
The unsupported assertion of a lifetime professional cheerleader for the Church (Hinckley) is incorrect.


Except when it supports your position, right?

Quote:
In other words,

1. Your responses are predictable.
2. LDS teachings are going to contradict your talking points.
3. You know that I will be able to demonstrate this.



No. In other words:

Your "gotcha" game is predictable.
LDS teachings, although you would like them to remain static, are continually revealed.


Top
  
 
 Post subject: Re: Cassius Review of Books: "The Church and the Negro"
PostPosted: Tue Feb 01, 2011 8:26 am 
\m/ \m/
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jul 23, 2010 7:52 am
Posts: 12340
Location: at the point
Simon Belmont wrote:
Not true... Jeffery R. Holland's talk, for example, was more about defending our beliefs than criticizing traditional Christianity. I was there for that particular talk, and I remember it well. There was not a tone of mocking or belittling, but one of more clearly defining where we stand and where our critics are incorrect.

Turn around, Simon, 180 degrees. Then you'll see.

Your statement above is doubly true by the critics here at MDB. We're defending the rational, not criticizing those Mormons that continue to eschew it. The tone here by critics is one more clearly defining our WYSIWYG and where Mormons are incorrect.

_________________
Remember kids, God created you and loves you so much. He also created hell incase you don't love him back. Ricky Gervais

And the truth shall set you free, but first it will piss you off!!! UtahMike re the Kirtland and Nauvoo plural marriage essay, co-opting Gloria Steinem


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Cassius Review of Books: "The Church and the Negro"
PostPosted: Tue Feb 01, 2011 9:37 am 
sock puppet wrote:
The tone here by critics is one more clearly defining our WYSIWYG and where Mormons are incorrect.


Your eyes can deceive you, don't trust them.


Top
  
 
 Post subject: Re: Cassius Review of Books: "The Church and the Negro"
PostPosted: Tue Feb 01, 2011 10:48 am 
\m/ \m/
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jul 23, 2010 7:52 am
Posts: 12340
Location: at the point
Simon Belmont wrote:
sock puppet wrote:
The tone here by critics is one more clearly defining our WYSIWYG and where Mormons are incorrect.


Your eyes can deceive you, don't trust them.

Much more reliable than ascribing self-induced emotions as confirmation from god of a bias

_________________
Remember kids, God created you and loves you so much. He also created hell incase you don't love him back. Ricky Gervais

And the truth shall set you free, but first it will piss you off!!! UtahMike re the Kirtland and Nauvoo plural marriage essay, co-opting Gloria Steinem


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Cassius Review of Books: "The Church and the Negro"
PostPosted: Tue Feb 01, 2011 11:14 am 
God
User avatar

Joined: Tue Nov 09, 2010 3:33 pm
Posts: 12064
Location: Kli-flos-is-es
Who are you going to believe, me or your lying eyes?

_________________
Parley P. Pratt wrote:
We must lie to support brother Joseph, it is our duty to do so.

B.R. McConkie, © Intellectual Reserve wrote:
There are those who say that revealed religion and organic evolution can be harmonized. This is both false and devilish.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Cassius Review of Books: "The Church and the Negro"
PostPosted: Tue Feb 01, 2011 5:24 pm 
Dark Lord of the Sith
User avatar

Joined: Wed May 12, 2010 5:16 pm
Posts: 12563
Location: A castellated abbey
Simon Belmont wrote:
Darth J wrote:
You mean the Gordon B. Hinckley who didn't know why black men couldn't be ordained to the priesthood, who didn't know that we teach or emphasize exaltation, and who admitted that "Mormon = more good" is completely made up, but thinks it's a good motto anyway?


I mean the Hinckley who is among the same group of leaders of the Church that you continually quote from when they support your position. It is amusing that, when they do not support your position, you write them off as "oh, he was a liar because he said something that wasn't entirely true on 60 minutes."


I quote from LDS leaders to show what they are teaching. That does not mean that I agree with what is being taught, nor would that inference be made by a a person at or above the intellectual functioning of reading books without sounding out the words.

Simon, perhaps there's another LDS discussion board somewhere where it's mostly junior high kids who are posting. They might be impressed with what you pass off as reasoning.

Might.

P.S. "oh, he was a liar because he said something that wasn't entirely true on 60 minutes."

Chapter 31: Honesty," Gospel Principles

When we speak untruths, we are guilty of lying. We can also intentionally deceive others by a gesture or a look, by silence, or by telling only part of the truth. Whenever we lead people in any way to believe something that is not true, we are not being honest.


But I don't know that we teach that. I don't know that we emphasize that.

Quote:
Quote:
I'm sorry, Simon, but at this point I must conclude that your consistent avoidance of the issue shows that you do have a double standard about criticizing someone's cherished beliefs.


Not true... Jeffery R. Holland's talk, for example, was more about defending our beliefs than criticizing traditional Christianity. I was there for that particular talk, and I remember it well. There was not a tone of mocking or belittling, but one of more clearly defining where we stand and where our critics are incorrect.


Dr. James White's essay, which can be found at the following link:

http://vintage.aomin.org/ldstheology.html

is more about defending traditional Christian beliefs than criticizing Mormonism. There is not a tone of mocking or belittling, but one of more clearly defining where traditional Christians stand and where Mormons are incorrect.

I am glad that Simon Belmont has no problem with a person of another faith defending his beliefs by contrasting those beliefs with false ones, and by summarizing the historical evolution of a religion's theology to show why it is heretical.

Quote:
Quote:
And yes, unlike internet defenders of the faith, I do read what the Church and its leaders teaches.


Why, Darth J? Why do you read what the leaders of a Church you have forsaken say?


You have said before that you sometimes enjoy going to mass in the Roman Catholic Church. Why? Why do you participate in a church that arose from the Great Apostasy teaching the philosophies of men, mingled with scripture?

Quote:
Quote:
Since your calling this a bad analogy decidedly ignores that when Elder Richards criticizes traditional Christian creeds, he is necessarily criticizing denominations that believe in those creeds, this is merely further proof of how "the moral voice of the board" believes that morality regarding criticism of someone's cherished beliefs is a one-way street.


Richards's talk was not mean spirited or mocking, either. It is your cynicism that makes it so.


Let's test that. I'm going to take a passage from LeGrand Richard's talk, then turn it around on LDS beliefs. I am sure you will then agree that it would be perfectly fine for a Protestant minister to say it.

Elder Richards:

I would like to mention one other thing that I think is a creed that is “an abomination in the sight of God,” and I shall mention it but briefly. At the time that Joseph Smith had that marvelous vision and saw that glorified Christ, he saw the same Jesus that came out of the tomb. He was the same one who appeared unto his apostles and had them feel the prints in his hands and the wound in his side. He was the same one who ascended into heaven in the presence of five hundred of the brethren at that time. This same Jesus appeared to the Prophet Joseph Smith when the whole Christian world was worshiping an essence.

There is not time to go into a lot of detail, but their catechism says that their god has “no body; he has no parts; he has no passions.” That means that he has no eyes; he cannot see. He has no ears; he cannot hear your prayers. He has no voice; he cannot speak a word to the prophets. Some of them even say “he sits on the top of a topless throne.” How absurd! To me it seems that their description of the god that they believe in is about the best description of nothing that can be written.


Hypothetical Protestant minister:

"I would like to mention one other thing that I think is a creed that is “an abomination in the sight of God,” and I shall mention it but briefly. At the time that Joseph Smith claimed that he saw God and Jesus--when he finally decided on what his official story about this experience would be--he told people that God has a physical body. That means that God is not above all things. He is not above space and time, he is subject to them because he is limited to the physical universe. Such a god is not omnipotent. While the Christian world was teaching belief in an omnipotent God, Joseph Smith taught his followers to believe in a created, limited god who is not Deity in any real Christian sense.

There is not time to go into a lot of detail, but their Doctrine and Covenants says that their god has a physical body like a man's, but perfected. That means he has a digestive system; does he need to eat? He a lymphatic system; does he get sick? He has a brain; can he fit omniscience into a human brain? Some of them even say lives on a planet orbiting a star called Kolob. How absurd! To me it seems that their description of the god that they believe in is about the best description of a pagan god that can be written."

This is not hate speech. At least, that's the response I would expect from the fair-minded and intellectually honest Simon Belmont.

Quote:
Quote:
The unsupported assertion of a lifetime professional cheerleader for the Church (Hinckley) is incorrect.


Except when it supports your position, right?


Let's learn how to address questions of fact, the Simon Belmont Way!

And just for fun, we're going to flagrantly disregard Godwin's law showing how you, too, can learn how to argue facts just like Simon!

1. Let's say you're on a message board discussing, I don't know, different systems of government.
2. Simon Belmont gets on and makes numerous sweeping assertions about what National Socialism was all about during the Third Reich.
3. Another poster disputes Simon Belmont's assertions about the policies and philosophy of the Nazi regime. In order to show that Simon Belmont is mistaken, this poster refers to actual statements by Hitler, Himmler, and other leaders in the Third Reich.
4. Simon Belmont accuses that person of quote mining.
5. The poster points out that "quote mining" means taking things out of context to misrepresent what someone said.
6. Simon Belmont again accuses that person of quote mining.
7. Simon Belmont then provides a statement from Nazi leadership explaining the basis for the Final Solution.
8. The poster whom Simon is addressing explains why the assumptions and beliefs about race and ethnicity underlying the Final Solution are incorrect.
9. Simon Belmont retorts, "Oh, so you only like Nazis when they support your position!"

Quote:
Quote:
In other words,

1. Your responses are predictable.
2. LDS teachings are going to contradict your talking points.
3. You know that I will be able to demonstrate this.


No. In other words:

Your "gotcha" game is predictable.
LDS teachings, although you would like them to remain static, are continually revealed.


Here you go! Show everyone what I've misrepresented!

viewtopic.php?f=1&t=15581&start=0

_________________
And the life of the ebony clock went out with that of the last of the gay. And the flames of the tripods expired. And Darkness and Decay and the Red Death held illimitable dominion over all.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Cassius Review of Books: "The Church and the Negro"
PostPosted: Tue Feb 01, 2011 5:27 pm 
God

Joined: Sun May 16, 2010 4:00 pm
Posts: 3519
Mr. Hollands conference talk was inappropriate.
**************************

Mr. Hollands Opus was pretty good though.

_________________
"This is how INGORNAT these fools are!" - darricktevenson

Bow your head and mutter, what in hell am I doing here?

infaymos wrote: "Peterson is the defacto king ping of the Mormon Apologetic world."


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Cassius Review of Books: "The Church and the Negro"
PostPosted: Tue Feb 01, 2011 5:31 pm 
God

Joined: Sun May 16, 2010 4:00 pm
Posts: 3519
simone wrote: "Your eyes can deceive you, don't trust them."
******************************************

Isn't this a quote from Joseph Smith to Emma when she caught him screwing Fannie Alger?

_________________
"This is how INGORNAT these fools are!" - darricktevenson

Bow your head and mutter, what in hell am I doing here?

infaymos wrote: "Peterson is the defacto king ping of the Mormon Apologetic world."


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Cassius Review of Books: "The Church and the Negro"
PostPosted: Wed Mar 02, 2011 3:41 pm 
God

Joined: Wed Oct 25, 2006 1:12 am
Posts: 4388
Location: Arizona
Quote:
Brother Lund's source for this information? The records in the Church Historian's office. Brother Lund also explains that the idea that the Church knowingly ordained a black man to the priesthood is mistaken, because Elijah Abel "was 'one-eighth Negro and light of color.' Nevertheless, he did have Negro blood and was therefore not eligible for the Priesthood."



There is Not really any evidence to support the assertion that Elijah Abel was just 'one-eighth' of African descent. There is Not anything on his Wikipedia Web Page that indicates that he was just 'one-eighth' of African descent. And there is Not anyhing on this Web Site Page that indicates that Elijah Abel was just 'one-eighth' of African descent. I do Not believe that Elijah Abel was just 'one-eighth' of African descent.

_________________
'O be wise; what can I say more?'
- Jacob 6:12


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Cassius Review of Books: "The Church and the Negro"
PostPosted: Wed Mar 02, 2011 3:59 pm 
God

Joined: Sun May 16, 2010 4:00 pm
Posts: 3519
bumnits wrote: "but, as Hinckley says, there is only one."
*************************************

Hinckley also said Polygamy is not doctrinal.
Hinckley also said that lds do not believe in eternal progression.

You really believe a liar like that?

_________________
"This is how INGORNAT these fools are!" - darricktevenson

Bow your head and mutter, what in hell am I doing here?

infaymos wrote: "Peterson is the defacto king ping of the Mormon Apologetic world."


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Cassius Review of Books: "The Church and the Negro"
PostPosted: Wed Mar 02, 2011 5:39 pm 
Dark Lord of the Sith
User avatar

Joined: Wed May 12, 2010 5:16 pm
Posts: 12563
Location: A castellated abbey
Brackite wrote:
Quote:
Brother Lund's source for this information? The records in the Church Historian's office. Brother Lund also explains that the idea that the Church knowingly ordained a black man to the priesthood is mistaken, because Elijah Abel "was 'one-eighth Negro and light of color.' Nevertheless, he did have Negro blood and was therefore not eligible for the Priesthood."



There is Not really any evidence to support the assertion that Elijah Abel was just 'one-eighth' of African descent. There is Not anything on his Wikipedia Web Page that indicates that he was just 'one-eighth' of African descent. And there is Not anyhing on this Web Site Page that indicates that Elijah Abel was just 'one-eighth' of African descent. I do Not believe that Elijah Abel was just 'one-eighth' of African descent.


Tell it to Lund and other defenders of the Church from that time. I'm not asserting this to be a fact; I am just relating the arguments used to justify the priesthood ban that revisionist Mormons have decided nobody ever said.

_________________
And the life of the ebony clock went out with that of the last of the gay. And the flames of the tripods expired. And Darkness and Decay and the Red Death held illimitable dominion over all.


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 61 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3

All times are UTC - 8 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Arrakis, Fence Sitter, Gunnar, huckelberry, Uther, Yahoo [Bot] and 38 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