Randall wrote:That's not the sense I get of Harmony's husband based on what she has posted. She describes him on the Internet as "TBM" who would be mortified at her degree of unbelief. I think that either one or both of them are prominent in their community, so there may be some face-saving on Harmony's part going on.
My husband is TBM; he and the rest of my family know my level of belief (something you obviously don't). We are both prominent in our community. In addition, I am relatively well-known in the power circles of my state and within certain circles nationally.
Well, damn good for you. But, as I have said many times in the past, your posts lack any substance whatsoever. You rely upon your personal status in the church (a recommend holder -- how many times have I heard that from you?) as a means to bludgeon the church and humiliate the brethren. Not that you can accomplish what you do with completely non-substantive posts, but you try.
Randall wrote:That's not the sense I get of Harmony's husband based on what she has posted. She describes him on the Internet as "TBM" who would be mortified at her degree of unbelief. I think that either one or both of them are prominent in their community, so there may be some face-saving on Harmony's part going on.
My husband is TBM; he and the rest of my family know my level of belief (something you obviously don't). We are both prominent in our community. In addition, I am relatively well-known in the power circles of my state and within certain circles nationally.
Well, damn good for you. But, as I have said many times in the past, your posts lack any substance whatsoever. You rely upon your personal status in the church (a recommend holder -- how many times have I heard that from you?) as a means to bludgeon the church and humiliate the brethren. Not that you can accomplish what you do with completely non-substantive posts, but you try.
And a nonsubstantive personal attack adds exactly how much substance to the conversation?
harmony wrote:What an asinine thing to say, P. That's certainly one of your best so far.
I will tell my cousin Mitt the next time I see him. But, I will try not to deflect from the topic of your subthread.
I'm glad that I have struck a nerve. Like I say, your post is so transparent. Let's see if I can interpret what goes on in your household. Your husband has never been in the church heirarchy as you define it, and you resent it. The both of you resent it with mean-spirited comments about the brethren that your kids hear. It has been this way in your household for many years. And, you continue to resent anybody, no matter how Christian, Christlike, or gracious, who labors as a bishop or stake president -- even your dear friend.
And, I might add, you and your husband are "face-time" Mormons. Whereas you resent membership in the Church, attendance at meetings, and such, you do demand lots and lots of face time with your local leadership so you can in a backhanded way claim affiliation with the elite power structure.
Oh, the utter moronity of those who like to play sandlot politics. The Church has no place for people like you.
P
Wow. That was pretty mean spirited. Some swear and get nasty but this one was really mean. Did someone say you are an attorney? Poor Harmony's husband is not even here nor do I see her say much about him. He may be a very fine fellow and not even have any of the concerns or issues Harmony had.
Jason Bourne wrote: Wow. That was pretty mean spirited. Some swear and get nasty but this one was really mean. Did someone say you are an attorney? Poor Harmony's husband is not even here nor do I see her say much about him. He may be a very fine fellow and not even have any of the concerns or issues Harmony had.
I wonder what Wade has to say about pro-Mormon venting. :-)
Pokatator wrote:So this is why Utah leads the nation in pyramid schemes, they have such a great example!
harmony wrote:Ward bishop Stake high council Stake president Mission president Area authority General authority First Presidency
They do? How do you know?
What are the equivalent levels in AMWAY?
It is ok to dislike Amway but it is not a pyramid scheme. It is a valid business that uses a multi-level marketing approach and has been found to be a valid and legal form of doing business by various court rulings. I am not an Amway apologist but I do know about its business model.
harmony wrote:What an asinine thing to say, P. That's certainly one of your best so far.
I will tell my cousin Mitt the next time I see him. But, I will try not to deflect from the topic of your subthread.
I'm glad that I have struck a nerve. Like I say, your post is so transparent. Let's see if I can interpret what goes on in your household. Your husband has never been in the church heirarchy as you define it, and you resent it. The both of you resent it with mean-spirited comments about the brethren that your kids hear. It has been this way in your household for many years. And, you continue to resent anybody, no matter how Christian, Christlike, or gracious, who labors as a bishop or stake president -- even your dear friend.
And, I might add, you and your husband are "face-time" Mormons. Whereas you resent membership in the Church, attendance at meetings, and such, you do demand lots and lots of face time with your local leadership so you can in a backhanded way claim affiliation with the elite power structure.
Oh, the utter moronity of those who like to play sandlot politics. The Church has no place for people like you.
P
Wow. That was pretty mean spirited. Some swear and get nasty but this one was really mean. Did someone say you are an attorney? Poor Harmony's husband is not even here nor do I see her say much about him. He may be a very fine fellow and not even have any of the concerns or issues Harmony had.
I agree. Plutarch, you seem to be prone to making judgements without having all of the facts. If you do that in a courtroom, you're probably not that successful as an attorney. Something tells me you only operate that way on a personal level.
Mister Scratch wrote:As to whether the funds are "misspent," who knows? We are kept in the dark.
I see. That is evidence they are misspent, I see.
What standing have you to challenge the church's expenditures? Either you pay tithing, which directly implies that you accept church central procedure that the church stands upon its position that these are not to be disclosed, or you don't, in which case you have no more basis to condemn the Church for its expenses than you do the Salvation Army.
By the way, I asked you for a reference to your claim that J. R. Clark disagreed with his brethren and insisted that the church finances be made public. Where is that reference?
P
Why do you think the Church uses to publish financial information but stopped around 1959?
Mister Scratch wrote:As to whether the funds are "misspent," who knows? We are kept in the dark.
I see. That is evidence they are misspent, I see.
What standing have you to challenge the church's expenditures? Either you pay tithing, which directly implies that you accept church central procedure that the church stands upon its position that these are not to be disclosed, or you don't, in which case you have no more basis to condemn the Church for its expenses than you do the Salvation Army.
By the way, I asked you for a reference to your claim that J. R. Clark disagreed with his brethren and insisted that the church finances be made public. Where is that reference?
P
Why do you think the Church uses to publish financial information but stopped around 1959?
According to Quinn, there was some embarrassment that because of Moyle's overzealous building projects, there was a deficit in 1959, and the church was reluctant to declare that publicly.
Mister Scratch wrote:As to whether the funds are "misspent," who knows? We are kept in the dark.
I see. That is evidence they are misspent, I see.
What standing have you to challenge the church's expenditures? Either you pay tithing, which directly implies that you accept church central procedure that the church stands upon its position that these are not to be disclosed, or you don't, in which case you have no more basis to condemn the Church for its expenses than you do the Salvation Army.
By the way, I asked you for a reference to your claim that J. R. Clark disagreed with his brethren and insisted that the church finances be made public. Where is that reference?
P
Why do you think the Church uses to publish financial information but stopped around 1959?
According to Quinn, there was some embarrassment that because of Moyle's overzealous building projects, there was a deficit in 1959, and the church was reluctant to declare that publicly.