The sex thread

[Dr. Sunstoned]

No game dude. She can opt to ingore your questions. And you are judging her. I know she is LDS, just not conventional. So if she tells you to go suck eggs then she is well within here right.

by the way, bully for you in using horsepucky!! One of my favorite words. My daddy used to say it quite often.

She's not in a Temple recommend interview. I'm asking her what I would ask anyone who made the claims she does about the Church. "Do you believe" such and such. Do you support your leaders? Was Joseph Smith a Prophet? Does the old dude in the Bishops office have spiritual authority? Does he even have the right to interview you? Are the standard works of the Church the word of God? Do you believe in missionary work? Do you support anti-Mormon groups or entities hostile to the Church and its teachings? Do you sustain the Brethren as prophets, seers, and revelations? If she won't answer these questions, she has just taken he Fifth, and that's all that needs to be said.

If she will not clarity what she believes regarding the Church and its teachings, the game is up, and that's that. Ask me any question you like, and I will answer it forthrightly. She won't. She wont' because she's utterly apostate from the Church but stays in it to pull others away. She hides in sheep's clothing and plays let's pretend so she can sow her tares in the Ward and Stake. This kind of behavior is not at all without precedent among apostates from the Church.

[_Trevor]

How could the sixties begin an unmistakeable trend that has happened many times before?

Huh?

My problem with his claims is that they are grounded in contemporary readings of our very partial record of the past, and yet he places such a burden of certainty on them.

[_Trevor]

She's not in a Temple recommend interview. I'm asking her what I would ask anyone to made the claims she does about the Church. "Do you believe" such and such.

And yet you feel qualified to tell her that she shouldn't have a temple recommend. Shallow.

[_Coggins7]

And yet you feel qualified to tell her that she shouldn't have a temple recommend. Shallow.

Mr. Wizard...she doesn't believe the Church is true, its scriptures are authentic, or its leaders legitimate. She wants the Church of Harmony. She wants to steady the Arc (and what on earth makes her think she either has the right or authority to do that quite escapes me).

[_huckelberry]

Hi Roger, thanks for the thoughtful reply to my grumpy post. I find your observations much more understandable with the personal explanation.

Big wide world out there with quite variety of attitudes and actions. I agree that the oppostis to LDS teachngs are negative.. I make no claim to having avoided all negatives. I have some memory of throwing up in connection with alcohol. I learned something about limits there before throwing up ever got connected with sexual activity. Mixing those things up sounds like a real evening wrecker. There exists young men who approach romance as a game to score. It probably works a litter different in different decades but the idea is not new. I think it invites the possiblity of faking relationships and manipulating them. Bad personal relationships on a foundational level whether it helps sexuality or harms it. It would be an odd parent who does not have thoughts of protecting daughters from the possible wolves.

About that never seeing her undressed story I smell a tale tale. I do not know if the fib is in the claim someone preached such or if the fib was in the sermon.

I see the Song of Solomon as scripture, a comment which reflects my attitude toward beauty.

[_Trevor]

Mr. Wizard...she doesn't believe the Church is true, its scriptures are authentic, or its leaders legitimate. She wants the Church of Harmony. She wants to steady the Arc (and what on earth makes her think she either has the right or authority to do that quite escapes me).

It's so painfully clear that you haven't the foggiest clue what you are talking about. Now I understand how you have no problem being so horribly judgmental.

[_harmony]

She's not in a Temple recommend interview. I'm asking her what I would ask anyone who made the claims she does about the Church. "Do you believe" such and such.

No, you weren't. You were trying to sit in my bishop's (retarded bishop at that) seat and call me to some sort of repentence. And my response to that is: take a long walk off a short pier.

Do you support your leaders?

Of course. It seems prudent at this moment to point out that you are not one of my leaders. And you never will be. And you have no stewardship, no inspiration, and no discernment for me at all.

Was Joseph Smith a Prophet?

Right up until the moment he walked outside his marriage vows to Emma. Which means, right up until he took Fanny to bed. After that... he abdicated the mantle.

Does the old dude in the Bishops office have spiritual authority?

My "old dude" is younger than I am. And any spiritual authority I grant him is within my own inspiration. In other words, my inspiration Trump's his spiritual authority if we don't agree. However, we have never not agreed.

Does he even have the right to interview you?

He has no rights regarding me. He asks; I grant. He does not demand. He is cognizant that his authority is something I grant, not something he demands that I recognize.

Are the standard works of the Church the word of God?

Some of them are. Some of them are the works of men that have been agreed upon as binding. Since I had no part in that agreement, I am free to accept that which is inspired according to my own inspiration, and to disregard that which is not applicable.

Do you believe in missionary work?

Completely.

Do you support anti-Mormon groups or entities hostile to the Church and its teachings?

I don't know any. I certainly don't send money. All of my contributions and support go to the LDS church.

Do you sustain the Brethren as prophets, seers, and revelations?

Uh, I think you mean revelators. And yes, I do. Unfortunately I see little in the way of phophecy or revelations from the Brethren. I'm holding out hope for the next group.

If she won't answer these questions, she has just taken he Fifth, and that's all that needs to be said.

And you are full of horse manure.

If she will not clarity what she believes regarding the Church and its teachings, the game is up, and that's that. Ask me any question you like, and I will answer it forthrightly. She won't. She wont' because she's utterly apostate from the Church but stays in it to pull others away. She hides in sheep's clothing and plays let's pretend so she can sow her tares in the Ward and Stake. This kind of behavior is not at all without precedent among apostates from the Church.

Boy, don't you hate it when you've just been proven wrong in front of all these gods and goddesses?

[_Coggins7]

It's so painfully clear that you haven't the foggiest clue what you are talking about. Now I understand how you have no problem being so horribly judgmental.

I know that I'm talking to a mentality of an intellectual capacity similar to that of a Diatom, but try to understand: Harmony does not accept most of the core, fundamental truth claims of the Church, and given half a chance, she will admit to it (as she has done already tonight). Anyone who does not accept the fundamental concepts of a belief system, and in such profusion, is not, intellectually or sympathetically, a part of that belief system. Harmony has apostatized from the Church...long ago. She is still a part of it, apparently, in name, but not in faith or acceptance of many of its central truth claims and standards.

Now Trevor, cease the sanctimonious breast beating and embrace the stark reality. You're defending her because she is against the Church and for no other reason. You don't care if she is honest or ingenuous, because in your criticisms of the Church, you are not. Birds of a feather and all that...

[_Trevor]

Do you sustain the Brethren as prophets, seers, and revelations?

Uh, I think you mean revelators. And yes, I do. Unfortunately I see little in the way of phophecy or revelations from the Brethren. I'm holding out hope for the next group.

Oh, I don't know. I found Quentin Cook quite a revelation.

[_Trevor]

I know that I'm talking to a mentality of an intellectual capacity similar to that of a Diatom, but try to understand: Harmony does not accept most of the core, fundamental truth claims of the Church, and given half a chance, she will admit to it (as she has done already tonight). Anyone who does not accept the fundamental concepts of a belief system, and in such profusion, is not, intellectually or sympathetically, a part of that belief system. Harmony has apostatized from the Church...long ago. She is still a part of it, apparently, in name, but not in faith or acceptance of many of its central truth claims and standards.

Now Trevor, cease the sanctimonious breast beating and embrace the stark reality. You're defending her because she is against the Church and for no other reason. You don't care if she is honest or ingenuous, because in your criticisms of the Church, you are not. Birds of a feather and all that...

Coggins, I know you think you are brilliant, but you can't avoid revealing your intellectual limitations. It is inevitable that you would. Your comments on this thread are a fine example of your lack of both learning and understanding.

There is no sanctimony here. I am merely stating the facts. You have only a surface understanding of the purpose of a temple recommend interview. I don't think I am the only person who gets it. Harmony appears to have gotten the point quite well. Seems to me that, whatever her other faults, she has outstripped you there.