Do you qualify to be a defender of LDS Inc?

[_Polygamy Porter]

Over the few years that I have read Fair, Z, and here, I have realized that many(if not the majority) of the Mormon defenders are not commited members.

in my opinion, for one to be a true defender, your actions speak louder than the keystrokes of your lonely keyboard.

in my opinion the following defines a true defender:
-RM(unless there are extenuating circumstances)
-Married before age 23 for males, 20 for females
-Temple recommend holder
-Garment wearer 24/7/365 and wears compliant clothing
-No more than one set of earrings on women
-No plastic surgery
-No boob jobs on women
-Children within one year of marriage, at least 3, if not 4+ children
-Sterile? Adopted kids then
-Older male children preparing for, on missions, or RMs
-Daughters married before age 20
-Regimented weekly attendance to all applicable meetings as well as extra meetings(stake/gen conference)
-hold callings,
-splits with the missionaries on a regular basis
-Regular temple attendance
-Teen children doing necro baptisms regularly
-Full tithe payer since your were a teen
-100% home/visit teaching before the third sunday
-Bears testimoany at every fast sunday
-
-

Others?

So with that, there are many on this board which, in my opinion, do not qualify as true defenders.
You non qualified defenders are wasting your time here. Perhaps had you devoted all of your message board time to following the counsel of the brethren you would be qualified to defend LDS Inc.

[_Bond...James Bond]

I can just imagine the list they're cooking up in order to be a qualified critic of Mormonism:

1) You must have at least a Ph. D.....preferably 7 or 8. And don't throw that qualification crap in our face when it comes to apologetics....all we need is a testimony and an Internet connection.....qualification? We don't need no stinking qualifications!
2) You must be a Christian....you atheists or secular critics don't count. You have to believe in God and Jesus and fuzzy bunnies so that we have pretty much common ground and only argue about trivial stuff like the wording of "Jesus wept" and the nature of God's dog Pongo.
3) You must be able to speak and read Egyptian fluently better than Ramses in order to enter the Book of Abraham debate.
4) You must give your full identity, ssn, address, and your cat's name. If you don't you're just an anonymous poster. You must also submit to a cavity search to make sure that you're not hiding any apostacy anywhere.
5) You must bend over backwards to be nice to the apologists, even if they call you a shuttlecock or a popinjay.
6) You must give Mormons the benefit of the doubt when it comes to their emotional epiphanies....hey it could happen and you can't prove they didn't meet God and play shuffleboard with him!
7) You must admit that Satan drove you to leave the Mormon church.....and that now you worship the Devil, sacrifice virgins and lambs, and drink V8 juice right outta the bottle......that's the only way we'll take you exmormons seriously.

[_Polygamy Porter]

Damnit Jimmy you derailed my train!

[_The Nehor]

Hmmmm.....guess I better throw in the towel. I'm a horrible hypocrite and a failure in the eyes of God and man.

However I would argue that to attack the LDS faith we should as Bond suggested have a requirement for the attackers as well. I propose the following:

1. Can never have been LDS. If you think you've been wrong before, why should we trust you now?

2. Must have worn only Temple Garments and protested in a public place where it is not expected (General Conference and Temple Open Houses don't count). Ideal locations would be in front of your home, in front of Wal-Mart, or in a meeting with your CEO.

That should do it.

[_Polygamy Porter]

Hmmmm.....guess I better throw in the towel. I'm a horrible hypocrite and a failure in the eyes of God and man.

However I would argue that to attack the LDS faith we should as Bond suggested have a requirement for the attackers as well. I propose the following:

1. Can never have been LDS. If you think you've been wrong before, why should we trust you now?

2. Must have worn only Temple Garments and protested in a public place where it is not expected (General Conference and Temple Open Houses don't count). Ideal locations would be in front of your home, in front of Wal-Mart, or in a meeting with your CEO.

That should do it.

At least you have admitted to your fault. Now go do something about it before you end up as old as Wade and still wifeless.

[_The Nehor]

At least you have admitted to your fault. Now go do something about it before you end up as old as Wade and still wifeless.

Working on it, do you know how hard it is to find the kind of quirky girls I like to date in the LDS Church........We're a dying breed.

[_moksha]

Working on it, do you know how hard it is to find the kind of quirky girls I like to date in the LDS Church........

That dang Stepford process takes all the quirk out of them....

[_The Nehor]

Working on it, do you know how hard it is to find the kind of quirky girls I like to date in the LDS Church........

That dang Stepford process takes all the quirk out of them....

Wasn't seeing it in the YSA Twister game on Monday....not a Stepford among them.

Not enough classic geek girls who are borderline-insane.

[_Jason Bourne]

Over the few years that I have read Fair, Z, and here, I have realized that many(if not the majority) of the Mormon defenders are not commited members.

in my opinion, for one to be a true defender, your actions speak louder than the keystrokes of your lonely keyboard.

in my opinion the following defines a true defender:
-RM(unless there are extenuating circumstances)
-Married before age 23 for males, 20 for females
-Temple recommend holder
-Garment wearer 24/7/365 and wears compliant clothing
-No more than one set of earrings on women
-No plastic surgery
-No boob jobs on women
-Children within one year of marriage, at least 3, if not 4+ children
-Sterile? Adopted kids then
-Older male children preparing for, on missions, or RMs
-Daughters married before age 20
-Regimented weekly attendance to all applicable meetings as well as extra meetings(stake/gen conference)
-hold callings,
-splits with the missionaries on a regular basis
-Regular temple attendance
-Teen children doing necro baptisms regularly
-Full tithe payer since your were a teen
-100% home/visit teaching before the third sunday
-Bears testimoany at every fast sunday
-
-

Others?

So with that, there are many on this board which, in my opinion, do not qualify as true defenders.
You non qualified defenders are wasting your time here. Perhaps had you devoted all of your message board time to following the counsel of the brethren you would be qualified to defend LDS Inc.

Further demonstration of the silliness that becomes you PP. You are one strange dude.

[_Hoops]

Over the few years that I have read Fair, Z, and here, I have realized that many(if not the majority) of the Mormon defenders are not commited members.

in my opinion, for one to be a true defender, your actions speak louder than the keystrokes of your lonely keyboard.

in my opinion the following defines a true defender:
-RM(unless there are extenuating circumstances)
-Married before age 23 for males, 20 for females
-Temple recommend holder
-Garment wearer 24/7/365 and wears compliant clothing
-No more than one set of earrings on women
-No plastic surgery
-No boob jobs on women
-Children within one year of marriage, at least 3, if not 4+ children
-Sterile? Adopted kids then
-Older male children preparing for, on missions, or RMs
-Daughters married before age 20
-Regimented weekly attendance to all applicable meetings as well as extra meetings(stake/gen conference)
-hold callings,
-splits with the missionaries on a regular basis
-Regular temple attendance
-Teen children doing necro baptisms regularly
-Full tithe payer since your were a teen
-100% home/visit teaching before the third sunday
-Bears testimoany at every fast sunday
-
-

Others?

So with that, there are many on this board which, in my opinion, do not qualify as true defenders.
You non qualified defenders are wasting your time here. Perhaps had you devoted all of your message board time to following the counsel of the brethren you would be qualified to defend LDS Inc.

Strangely, PP, this is pretty good! Well done!