Civil marriage first: A temple wedding petition.

[Polygamy-Porter]

Holy s***. Who the hell knew a simple request would bring out all the assholes on the board?

H.

That's not a very nice thing to say about your supporters, H.

Regards,
Pahoran

Pah, LDST is doing his best, until he can get out of the trap he is currently stuck.

You are such an angry Kiwi. Are all Kiwis as angry as you? Or is it just the Mormon Kiwis? or just the white male Mormon kiwis?

[LDSToronto]

Holy s***. Who the hell knew a simple request would bring out all the assholes on the board?

H.

That's not a very nice thing to say about your supporters, H.

Regards,
Pahoran

A funny thing just occurred to me, thanks to your sentence above. I don't think I ever heard a peep out of you until you saw that my faith had begun to change. It seems, at that point, rather than lending a hand of support, or advice, or even kind words, you immediately threw me under the bus, so to speak.

I'd like you to know, Pahoran, that your efforts have worked. Some of the things you've said to me have strengthened my resolve to move further away from the church. This should weigh on your conscience heavily, because in effect, your sin here is equal to murder, as Alma said:

"Yea, and I had murdered many of his children, or rather led them away unto destruction; yea, and in fine so great had been my iniquities, that the very thought of coming into the presence of my God did rack my soul with inexpressible horror."

Thanks for that, Pahoran.

H.

[Yahoo Bot]

That's weak. Blame your apostasy on an anonymous poster. Somebody you don't even know. Make sure you tell your bishop and wife all about it: "I've lost my faith because an anonymous poster hurt my feelings."

Get a spine, man. State your grounds for apostasy on meaningful bases and when you bishop asks you for them, state them instead of wringing your hands over trivial slights.

Look, you [personal attack deleted]. You want to be a successful apostate and have peace in your life?

1. Have solid and good grounds for your apostasy and state them fearlessly when asked.

2. Don't wimp out and hold Church callings in real life and come here and be an anonymous hankytwister. Be eternally consistent with your values; being a hypocrite is the vilest of offenses.

3. Be courageous with your wife. Don't hankytwist and blame Pahoran or another poster for your faithlessness.

4. Don't follow the crowd with your weak vulgarities. The King's English ought to be good enough for you to express your views.

5. Finally, unless you're an academic and willing to publish, don't waste your time with hankytwisted weak-kneed handwringing tearful posts about your former faith.

[Pahoran]

Prove that I do not know for myself.

It's not logically possible to "know with complete certainty" a negative.

Sorry.

For example, I don't "know with complete certainty" how many of the filthy captions on the Juliann pictures were not supplied by you.

To clarify for the fuzzy frenzied kiwi on the small side of this and the small side of the globe, my initial request was as simple as that. When he told me it was HIS duty to protect HIS members, I decided to bite back. Stay out of my family and I will stay out of what he supposes to be his.

Unravelling the self-centred arrogance from that: the bishop didn't think your apostasy applied to every member of your family. You got all overbearing and insisted that it did.

He, because he is an honourable[sic] man, and you, because your threat was empty anyway.

Is that all you have? by the way, please use the American English spell checker when posting here, and not the kiwi one, K?

No. The fact that British spelling offends worthless bigots just gives me another reason to persist with it.

Dear precious Brother Kiwi, why do I get your fuzzy little feathers so ruffled that you must resort to attacking me as the father of my children?

My feathers aren't ruffled; I just know a spiteful, manipulative, overbearing, possessive excuse for a parent when I see one.

I rarely drink beer, but when I do, I like to sip it from a frosted glass.

Yes, I'm sure your indulgences are important to you.

As for my children, they will pursue their dreams as shaped by their own ambitions and guided by my direction. My son's will not waste two years pushing a religion that nearly all of the world does not want.

And you wouldn't let him even if he wanted to, would you?

My daughters will not be coerced into marrying one of these returned salesman, rather they will too pursue their dreams.

I realise you know nothing at all about the Latter-day Saints, but all the LDS brides I've ever met wanted to marry their husbands.

Additionally, my children will not waste precious sleep to attend what amounts to nothing more than indoctrination and cult bonding(aka early morning seminary)

And you wouldn't let them even if they wanted to, would you?

Not that it is any of your business, but my oldest begins his pursuit of his BSCS this fall within the UC system in California.

Which seems a natural progression from all the BS he gets buried in at home.

What are you going to do if, when they grow up, they decide they want to come back to the Church? Beat it out of them?

I know my children much better than you do Pah. I have successfully demonstrated the fallacies of not only the LDS façade to my children but of all religions. That coupled with their disdain for attending church, we are a happy family of atheists.

Perhaps, but that doesn't guarantee that they'll never outgrow your bigotry; especially when they come to see how irrational it is.

As long as my children can show me that they are fully aware, they are free to make their choices in life. As their father I am here to guide them.

Yes, but could you, given your vicious bigotry, accept that they would be "fully aware" if they told you they wanted to come back to the Lord's Church?

You are such a two faced son-of-a-bitch, Pah. Is this typical for Kiwi Mormons? Or just the white ones?

So not only are you an anti-Mormon bigot, you're a racist one as well.

That's okay, PP. Who knows; you may grow up some day, too.

Regards,
Pahoran

[Pahoran]

Since you don't know, let me explain to you how real Latter-day Saints view this issue.

Here in New Zealand, for many years we were not able to have actual temple weddings; we had to have civil marriages first and be sealed afterwards. The members lobbied the government for years to change the law so that temple weddings would be legal.

In all that time, there was not one faithful Church member who dissented.

So I guess you don't regard Kevin Barney as a "faithful" member of your church nor a "real Latter-day Saint"?

I have no opinion about Mr Barney one way or the other.

But I stand by what I said.

What would a guest blogging stint be without a little friendly ark steadying? To wit: I propose that the Church do away with its policy that requires a one-year wait between a civil marriage ceremony outside the temple and a temple sealing.

[SNIP]

If I had it to do over again, I would have preferred to have a simple civil ceremony where *all* of our family and loved ones could be present, to be folllowed immediately by a temple sealing. But even without the policy change I suggest, I think that if I had it to do over again, I would have waited to get sealed.

http://timesandseasons.org/index.php/20 ... ge-policy/

That's fine. If that is is view then as fair as I'm concerned he, and everyone else who values eternal marriage less than men-pleasing, are free to choose accordingly.

Regards,
Pahoran

[Pahoran]

A funny thing just occurred to me, thanks to your sentence above. I don't think I ever heard a peep out of you until you saw that my faith had begun to change. It seems, at that point, rather than lending a hand of support, or advice, or even kind words, you immediately threw me under the bus, so to speak.

What "change" is that? You are mistaken, H. I have no recollection of ever seeing a post from you that was supportive of the Church, its leaders and teachings.

I'd like you to know, Pahoran, that your efforts have worked. Some of the things you've said to me have strengthened my resolve to move further away from the church. This should weigh on your conscience heavily, because in effect, your sin here is equal to murder, as Alma said:

"Yea, and I had murdered many of his children, or rather led them away unto destruction; yea, and in fine so great had been my iniquities, that the very thought of coming into the presence of my God did rack my soul with inexpressible horror."

Thanks for that, Pahoran.

So the impression you're trying to give is that you can't possibly belong to a church where one member from the other side of the world, and whom you will never meet in real life, says mean things to you. Is that it?

Nice try at emotional manipulation. However, may I point out that you can't actually accuse me of driving you away; all you can do is gleefully claim that I "strengthened" your "resolve." That is, you had already formed a "resolve," i.e. a firm decision, "to move further away from the church," and my posts merely "strengthened" that.

So tell us honestly, H: how much more committed to the Church would you be today, were it not for my posts?

Inquiring minds want to know!

Regards,
Pahoran

[Pahoran]

Incidentally, I've looked at the "petition." There's a reason why nobody takes online petitions seriously; I mean, who really thinks "Truth Renaissance" is anyone's real name?

Not to mention the fact that I saw the names of two notorious internet anti-Mormons on that page, and that was without looking particularly hard.

I loved the arguments it tried to make. Paraphrased, they come down to this: "Your policy is divisive because we'll hold a grudge against our LDS relatives if they choose to have a temple wedding."

Here's a suggestion: how about getting a life?

Regards,
Pahoran

[Hoops]

Shoot! Too late!!

[harmony]

And it won't matter if you get 300 signatures or 300,000 signatures; there will be not one faithful Church member among them.

And the brethren will know that.

Regards,
Pahoran

Actually, I won't sign the petition because I don't think it 'will do any good. There's no sense in stirring up the bee's nest, if there's no chance of getting the honey.

[LDSToronto]

That's weak. Blame your apostasy on an anonymous poster. Somebody you don't even know. Make sure you tell your bishop and wife all about it: "I've lost my faith because an anonymous poster hurt my feelings."

Get a spine, man. State your grounds for apostasy on meaningful bases and when you bishop asks you for them, state them instead of wringing your hands over trivial slights.

Look, you hanky-twisting twit. You want to be a successful apostate and have peace in your life?

1. Have solid and good grounds for your apostasy and state them fearlessly when asked.

2. Don't wimp out and hold Church callings in real life and come here and be an anonymous hankytwister. Be eternally consistent with your values; being a hypocrite is the vilest of offenses.

3. Be courageous with your wife. Don't hankytwist and blame Pahoran or another poster for your faithlessness.

4. Don't follow the crowd with your weak vulgarities. The King's English ought to be good enough for you to express your views.

5. Finally, unless you're an academic and willing to publish, don't waste your time with hankytwisted weak-kneed handwringing tearful posts about your former faith.

This would be a very funny post, however, I find adult illiteracy no laughing matter. Your ability to so handily mis-read anything I've ever posted here and come to a conclusion that is farther from the truth than Kolob is from the earth says something really sad about your comprehension skills.

But, keep at it, you'll eventually get it right.

H.

[LDSToronto]

A funny thing just occurred to me, thanks to your sentence above. I don't think I ever heard a peep out of you until you saw that my faith had begun to change. It seems, at that point, rather than lending a hand of support, or advice, or even kind words, you immediately threw me under the bus, so to speak.

What "change" is that? You are mistaken, H. I have no recollection of ever seeing a post from you that was supportive of the Church, its leaders and teachings.

Conveniently, most of my early posts over at MADB are gone. I started at that board as a faithful member posting many responses in defense of the church.

So the impression you're trying to give is that you can't possibly belong to a church where one member from the other side of the world, and whom you will never meet in real life, says mean things to you. Is that it?

Well, at least you are admitting that your posts are mean-spirited, that's one step to getting back into God's good graces. And don't be so sure we'll never meet in real life - I visit your side of the world more than I care to as part of my job. Maybe we can do lunch?

So tell us honestly, H: how much more committed to the Church would you be today, were it not for my posts?

Inquiring minds want to know!

Pahoran, I view you as the worst possible thing that the church and it's teachings produce. And I don't want to be part of an organization that produces Pahoran.

H.

[Yoda]

(Moderator Note) This whole thread is so full of personal attacks, I can't even go through and edit them all. I had no choice but to move the whole thread to Telestial. If another Mod would like to go through and edit out individual personal swipes and move the thread back to Terrestrial, be my guest. I just think it is better to move the thread in its entirety, and maintain complete context.

[Shulem]

PP,

My, my, you've been a bad boy! You are so entangled in your sins that no amount of Mormon bishops or profits could bail you out now! Ha ha! You ____ sinner, you!

Oh yes, take a bow. Droopy has your back.

Heeee heeeee!

Paul O

[ludwigm]

Here in New Zealand, for many years we were not able to have actual temple weddings; we had to have civil marriages first and be sealed afterwards. The members lobbied the government for years to change the law so that temple weddings would be legal.

NZ seems to be a normal country, where the government has nothing to do with religion (even hundreds of them).
Can/may members (of any religion/sect/cult) commit marriage by their own rules? They can/may. Then, it is legal.

Is marriage a civil establishment? Yes, it is. Then the government is the only one who/which is competent to do and record it. Before or after, You can be sealed or packed or stamped seventy seven times - according to Your belief.

"for many years we were not able to have actual temple weddings"
This sentence is senseless. Syntactically (syn·tac'ti·cal·ly) correct.
Is not a temple wedding actual after the civil one?

by the way I know no country in which anybody were banned to take part in any civil marriage ceremony. This feature should be something speshul attribute of a speshul group...

[Buffalo]

I post about a religion that I know to be false with complete certainty.

We all know that isn't true. You, who really have demonstrated so little knowledge about LDS history and doctrine, suspect the Church is true but want to get your fix with other foul oppressors so that you can feel better about what you are doing.

You're obviously not a scholar, spending time publishing in the area.

You're obviously not a defender, willing to spend time defending what he loves.

No, you're a persecutor, a person willing to crucify Him anew; otherwise, you'd not waste your time.

I love how apologists equate Jesus with the Church. Classic Mormon ekklesiolotry.

[Buffalo]

They have to sit at home watching you guzzle beer instead.

I can't imagine what on earth mopologists have against beer guzzling. If it's good enough for Joseph Smith, it's good enough for everyone!

[Buffalo]

That's fine. If that is is view then as fair as I'm concerned he, and everyone else who values eternal marriage less than men-pleasing, are free to choose accordingly.

Regards,
Pahoran

False dilemma. Why not have both? Why hurt non-member families? What is gained by that?

[Morley]

False dilemma. Why not have both? Why hurt non-member families? What is gained by that?

Exclusionary self-righteousness under the guise of "God's commandment."

[Buffalo]

False dilemma. Why not have both? Why hurt non-member families? What is gained by that?

Exclusionary self-righteousness under the guise of "God's commandment."

Ah.

[Jason Bourne]

That's fine. If that is is view then as fair as I'm concerned he, and everyone else who values eternal marriage less than men-pleasing, are free to choose accordingly.

Regards,
Pahoran

False dilemma. Why not have both? Why hurt non-member families? What is gained by that?

Buffalo makes a good point.

And I wonder why this issue so often puts so many defenders into an apoplectic fit. Really, is it devaluing the temple sealing because someone is married civilly first especially if they are doing it for non member family? Why not avoid the pain and have the best of both worlds? Why the scornful remarks that cast Kevin Barney as less than faithful because he thinks differently about this?

I have related this before but will again. My wife was not a member a year when we got married. We could have waited two more months and been sealed in the temple first. But her entire family is not LDS. I took the opportunity to be married outside the temple then go be sealed two months later even though our SP threatened to make us wait the year until a visiting GA told him he could not do that.

It was great to have her family and non LDS friends participate. It avoided so much potential heart ache and hassles for us and them. Our bishop married us and it was a great day. Then two months later we made what was then for us the 350 mile trek to our temple and were sealed. And that was a lovely day as well. We have some very close friends with us and a few members of our ward that wanted to come as well. We did not feel that the temple experience was less because of our civil ceremony. We loved and cherished and felt approved of God as well. Nor did we feel that we were "men pleasing: as Pahoran scornfully stated above.

I often wonder if people like Pahoran can think things through really. If the Church changed this tomorrow would he call the Church leader men pleasers as well? Is it really any policy the Church puts forth is right come hell or high water and anyone who thinks some policy-and this is a policy- may be better a different way is some evil weak kneed on the high road to apostasy degenerate? Seems to me these monolithic thinkers are of that opinion.

[Pahoran]

Here in New Zealand, for many years we were not able to have actual temple weddings; we had to have civil marriages first and be sealed afterwards. The members lobbied the government for years to change the law so that temple weddings would be legal.

NZ seems to be a normal country, where the government has nothing to do with religion (even hundreds of them).
Can/may members (of any religion/sect/cult) commit marriage by their own rules? They can/may. Then, it is legal.

Is marriage a civil establishment? Yes, it is. Then the government is the only one who/which is competent to do and record it. Before or after, You can be sealed or packed or stamped seventy seven times - according to Your belief.

"for many years we were not able to have actual temple weddings"
This sentence is senseless. Syntactically (syn·tac'ti·cal·ly) correct.
Is not a temple wedding actual after the civil one?

Ludwig, I am prepared to make all sorts of allowances for the fact that English is not your first language. Right up until you arrogantly presume to school me in proper English usage and get it rather comprehensively wrong.

I suggest you pay attention. You might learn something, for a change.

An "actual temple wedding" is an event where two single people enter the temple and leave it as a married couple.

By contrast, the event where a couple who, having previously been married in a civil ceremony, subsequently enter the temple to be sealed is not an actual temple wedding. It is called a "sealing after civil marriage," or just "sealing" for short.

Until a few years ago, New Zealand marriage law required that a wedding take place "with open doors." That meant that nobody could have an actual temple wedding, but had to have a civil ceremony first.

More recently, the law has been changed, so that the requirement for a civil ceremony no longer obtains. Couples are now married in the temple, and their actual temple wedding needs no additional "open doors" ceremony to be legal.

Do you understand now, or would you like me to find an interpreter for you?

by the way I know no country in which anybody were banned to take part in any civil marriage ceremony. This feature should be something speshul attribute of a speshul group...

Ah, mockery.

What a pity you'd already embarrassed yourself. Your mockery merely draws attention to that fact.

Regards,
Pahoran