Themis wrote:You are dishonest Subby...or you are very stupid and cannot understand what people are actually saying.
Hard to call....
Themis wrote:You are dishonest Subby...or you are very stupid and cannot understand what people are actually saying.
Themis wrote:You are dishonest Subby. You make up what people say all the time. Either that or you are very stupid and cannot understand what people are actually saying.
If people cannot agree then is it really clear to the vision or understanding?
Bazooka wrote:Themis wrote:You are dishonest Subby...or you are very stupid and cannot understand what people are actually saying.
Hard to call....
subgenius wrote:I like how when a person repeats back to you exactly what you said you claim they just "don't understand".
Themis wrote:subgenius wrote:I like how when a person repeats back to you exactly what you said you claim they just "don't understand".
It looks like you are just stupid. You certainty either lie or totally miss interpret what people say, even though others seem to understand what they said and did not say just fine.
You made up things I never said about the DOI. This is a common lie you do in order to try and get some advantage over others. Problem is you are not subtle enough to get away with it.
subgenius wrote:now you just look pathetic.
you posted:
"It's not self-evident if people cannot agree." viewtopic.php?p=788640#p788640
i posted that self-evident means:
"clear to the sight or mind; clear to the vision or understanding - without proof or reasoning"
you posted:
"I do agree with the links to the definition though. My posts never disagreed with them." viewtopic.php?p=788991#p788991
Given the above and using simple logic, i posted the conclusion of your ineptitude:
"It's not self-evident if people cannot agree"
becomes
"It's not clear to the sight or mind; clear to the vision or understanding - without proof or reasoning if people cannot agree"
at which case the DoI makes claims that it classifies as being "self-evident"...yet clearly people cannot agree with those claims....
...so
according to you
I am making things up about you
sorry
no one, myself included, can make you any more inadequate than you have made yourself.
thanks for playing
so....since entire populations disagree with the premise put forth in the DoI you now consider those premises to not be truths at all...got it!
RockSlider wrote:Hey Jay and sub … I used to explain my personal revelation something like this. Some idea is presented to me, typically by other normal human beings. I immediately find fault in these ideas, sometimes finding them almost offensive. Then comes the serious study, ponder and pray and then the ah-ha … taught by the spirit moment, when it’s as if one pokes their head above the veil and the forgetfulness of the veil is removed from one’s eyes, and it now becomes as if the truth of that idea has always been known, that you cannot remember a time that it was not true.
If you have experienced what I have tried to explain above, please then share with me one of these truths that has been revealed to you in this manner.
If you share one, I will share one with you which I received.
I think I can predict your answer to this inquiry, and it will be a total cop-out.
Jay wrote:Actually there are a number of them. I will give them in question and short answer form. There are many more with much more detailed answers, but this forum with the underlying attitudes is not the place for them.
1. When will Zion be restored?
a. It is here now.
2. Is it being run by the Church?
a. No
3. Where do I find it?
a. Independence
4. Should I be there?
a. yes
5. Do I leave the LDS Church to be there?
a. yes
Because of these directions, my life has changed.
If that is looking for an echo chamber, then so be it.