flood of anti-Mormon sentiment

[Wrigley]

Wrigley

Are you actually telling me that the WOW are not enforced?

Enforce is the wrong word. Read the thread.

Are they looked at as quaint little recommendations not to be taken seriously?

They are opportunities for self evaluation, they are very serious and very voluntary. Read the thread.

Are you actually telling me that if you do not follow the WOW you would still get a temple recommend?

No. Read the thread.

grace has shown that one of the questions that the bishop asks is if you are keeping the WOW.

Did I disagree with Miss Grace on this point? Wrigley, I assure you I did not. Read the thread.

Are you supposed to get 100% right to get your recommend? Or will a score of 80% get you the piece of paper?

100%.

C'mon Wrigley. Read the thread.

I've read the thread.

You've been very inconsistant. Maybe you can't see it, but you have been.

The WOW are enforced. You just told me that 100% is required to get the recommend. If that's not enforcement of the WOW, I don't know what is.

What's your issue with the word enforce? Or enforced?

 

[arizona_sunshine]

You've been very inconsistant. Maybe you can't see it, but you have been.
...
What's your issue with the word enforce? Or enforced?

Wrigley, I have been over and over my commentary in this thread and you are absolutely correct, I do not see the inconsistancies.

Are you truly seeking to understand what I have said? Because if that is not your goal, you will not understand.

I explained that I have a problem with the word 'enforce' twice. Once, when I provided the definition for the word, which included strong terminlogy like compel and force. Again, when I referenced the 'enforcement' of the law in the United States, and compared the difference between a 'right' and a 'priviledge'. I have been quite clear in regards to 'why is dislike the use of the term'.

 

[Breetai]

I did not say I did not pray to Jesus. As you pointed out I did not answer directly. I do pray to Jesus. I address the Heavenly Father in the name of Jesus Christ, but since I do believe in a Trinity very similar to Protestant Plantinga’s Trinity I would be praying to Jesus through his indwelling and uniting with the Father.

You gave fair answers. You're right, I was looking for more direct answers. I'll PM you later if that's OK with you.

 

[Wrigley]

Wrigley, I have been over and over my commentary in this thread and you are absolutely correct, I do not see the inconsistancies.

Read this again and then tell me you haven't been inconsistant.

So, are you agreeing with me that you have been inconsistant?

 

[Wrigley]

I explained that I have a problem with the word 'enforce' twice. Once, when I provided the definition for the word, which included strong terminlogy like compel and force. Again, when I referenced the 'enforcement' of the law in the United States, and compared the difference between a 'right' and a 'priviledge'. I have been quite clear in regards to 'why is dislike the use of the term'.

Do you have the same problem with the word "enforce" with all the other items on the temple recommend question list?

Enforce is a proper word to use.

Its looking to me that you have a problem with authority.

 

[spike]

I wasn't aware that this was a heated discussion. I'm calm.

You are, and refreshingly so! I'm just referencing to others in the thread..

If you do not think that Jesus was speaking of grapes when he spoke of the fruit of the vine, then what do you think that he meant?

I honestly do believe that grape-wine was consumed during the Supper. However, it is because this was the tradition of the Passover Celebration. I don't see that Jesus chose wine as a vehicle to remember him by. I suspect that if apple cider were the drink of tradition, we'd have seen this be referenced to.

I suspect that alcoholics chose to only partake of the bread if wine is served. A tablespoon or so of juice is a sugar bomb? Please tell me that you are joking! My kids have done fine with this.

I am..

So, why do LDS use water instead of grape juice? I understand the avoidance of alcohol. What does the water symbolize for you?

Simply because it is symbolic. It need not be actual wine.. the substance is not the important issue, rather, the reason why we drink in memory of Him is what is important. At least it is this way for me.

(Excuse my late entrance to the party.. I don't get many chances to check back in!)

Have a great day,

-spike-

 

[arizona_sunshine]

Maybe you can't see it, but you have been.

I absolutely agree. I cannot see where I have been inconsistant.

Can you not recognize references to your own statements?

 

[arizona_sunshine]

Wrigley:

Enforce is a proper word to use.

According to you. However, a few of us have disagreed. And since I am the one currently subjected to said 'enforcement,' I will stand by all of my commentary.

Its looking to me that you have a problem with authority.



How do you gather?

 

[arizona_sunshine]

Do you have the same problem with the word "enforce" with all the other items on the temple recommend question list?

Oh, and I answered this question in post #243:

I still think 'enforce' is the wrong word for the attitude of the church toward any standard, but that is my opinion.

Copied & Pasted, Wrigley.

You said you did read the thread, right?

 

[skylark1]

Simply because it is symbolic. It need not be actual wine.. the substance is not the important issue, rather, the reason why we drink in memory of Him is what is important. At least it is this way for me.

Spike,

Thanks for your response. I agree that it is symbolic, and that the reason why we drink in memory of Him is what is important. I don't believe that if something is used besides wine or grape juice that it nullifies communion. But I am still curious, if anyone knows, why LDS use water rather than grape juice.

 

[Wrigley]

Oh, and I answered this question in post #243:

I still think 'enforce' is the wrong word for the attitude of the church toward any standard, but that is my opinion.

Copied & Pasted, Wrigley.

You said you did read the thread, right?

Trying to see if you remain consistant.

 

[arizona_sunshine]

Trying to see if you remain consistant.

Go for it, and Wrigley, please let me know if I can clarify any inconsistancies you may find.

 

[spike]

Wow.. what an exhausting thread.. it takes a half hour and three separate computers just to catch up with it..

A thought for Grace -

Grace, I still see that you are 'taking someone else's inventory'. I'm not sure where you grew up, or if shorts are foreign to you (you say that you wear them), but to beat the dead horse of Arizona Sunshine's attire and the supposed transgression that they represent to you is just a red herring at best, and rude otherwise. To wit; if we were to treat you similarly, we would request that a picture of yourself be posted, then we could attack it and find fault with it for various reasons. Perhaps we can invite some fundamentalist Muslims to post that you were in need of being enrobed within a burka, else we can cast stones at you (literally)..

Now, we have you mentioning cleavage. I don't see that the avatar in question displays an immodest amount of it. Grace, you have a cleavage, do you not?

"Oh, but I'm not showing it", you'll be tempted to answer..

Well, then - I hope that you wrap yourself up real good each day in gauze and duct tape to flatten that offending cleavage down, so as to avoid offending anyone that you might run across in public. And yet, even if you did, passersby will still know that it is there. And, it would be a lot more obvious to the folks around you than what is visible to yourself within a one inch-by-one inch avatar.

Of course, it's just a cleavage. Nothing to be ashamed or afraid of. Last I checked, God was the architect of this unholy 'cleavage'.

Will you be attacking the poster to these boards that features a butt-slapping Pokeman character as his avatar next as inappropriate? Personally, I think that it's actually quite hilarious.

Grace, You attempt to hold others to standards that you reject yourself. You attack them with ad hominem arguments. And you are cleavageaphobic. Too bad, really, since you seem to have some good knowledge trapped under this obsession with the appearance of others.

I'll keep my eye out for a good outpatient treatment program for you so that you can move beyond your cleavage and hemline issues...

Gotta go now.. (shields eyes to avoid glancing at cleavages.. or is it cleavii?)

-spike-

 

[twhite982]

Spike,

Thanks for your response. I agree that it is symbolic, and that the reason why we drink in memory of Him is what is important. I don't believe that if something is used besides wine or grape juice that it nullifies communion. But I am still curious, if anyone knows, why LDS use water rather than grape juice.

Because the Lord says it in the Doctrine and Covenants. D&C 27.

TW

 

[arizona_sunshine]

http://scriptures.lds.org/dc/27

thanks, Twhite

 

[twhite982]

http://scriptures.lds.org/dc/27

thanks, Twhite

Not a problem, that's why they keep me on the payroll.

TW

 

[happyinhisgrace]

Wow.. what an exhausting thread.. it takes a half hour and three separate computers just to catch up with it..

A thought for Grace -

Grace, I still see that you are 'taking someone else's inventory'. I'm not sure where you grew up, or if shorts are foreign to you (you say that you wear them), but to beat the dead horse of Arizona Sunshine's attire and the supposed transgression that they represent to you is just a red herring at best, and rude otherwise. To wit; if we were to treat you similarly, we would request that a picture of yourself be posted, then we could attack it and find fault with it for various reasons. Perhaps we can invite some fundamentalist Muslims to post that you were in need of being enrobed within a burka, else we can cast stones at you (literally)..

Now, we have you mentioning cleavage. I don't see that the avatar in question displays an immodest amount of it. Grace, you have a cleavage, do you not?

"Oh, but I'm not showing it", you'll be tempted to answer..

Well, then - I hope that you wrap yourself up real good each day in gauze and duct tape to flatten that offending cleavage down, so as to avoid offending anyone that you might run across in public. And yet, even if you did, passersby will still know that it is there. And, it would be a lot more obvious to the folks around you than what is visible to yourself within a one inch-by-one inch avatar.

Of course, it's just a cleavage. Nothing to be ashamed or afraid of. Last I checked, God was the architect of this unholy 'cleavage'.

Will you be attacking the poster to these boards that features a butt-slapping Pokeman character as his avatar next as inappropriate? Personally, I think that it's actually quite hilarious.

Grace, You attempt to hold others to standards that you reject yourself. You attack them with ad hominem arguments. And you are cleavageaphobic. Too bad, really, since you seem to have some good knowledge trapped under this obsession with the appearance of others.

I'll keep my eye out for a good outpatient treatment program for you so that you can move beyond your cleavage and hemline issues...

Gotta go now.. (shields eyes to avoid glancing at cleavages.. or is it cleavii?)

-spike-

grow up

 

[MormonFriend]

So I will tell you a little about what I understand in the interim, but as Bishop Stendahl says, you must learn about a religion from its adherents because those who reject it are liable to bear false witness. I will attempt to not do this.

Well, that doesn't exactly make me excited to read his work, the above is a rediculous statement to say the least. Just because one a particular belief, does not mean they will lie about it....that is just flat out stupidity in thought.

Sister Grace, I am dumbfounded.) You are consistent in changing the context of a statement to ease the burdon of your responsability to admit you are wrong. Or do you perhaps derive a conclusion before thinking about what was really said? (And now I am wondering how you will misconstrue this post. :scratch


Read again what Stendahl said: "...you must learn about a religion from its adherents because those who reject it are liable to bear false witness."

And now how you changed its context.

"...Just because one doesn't embrace a particular belief, does not mean they will lie about it...."

Notice that you are substituting "liable" with "will."

Liable means: "Likely. Often used with reference to an unfavorable outcome: In a depression banks are liable to fail."

"Will" means nothing can stop it from occuring.

And you also substituted the word "reject" with "doesn't embrace."

If you followed this pattern when you were LDS, it is no wonder you couldn't comprehend our teachings. You try to make things say what you want them to say.

 

[gort]

I prefer Mountain Dew myself
Colas or (soft drinks with caffeine) are not banned by the LDS church though their usage have been advised against by church leaders, because of their addictive qualities. There is a lot of confusion by LDS members who think that the reason coffee was banned was because of the caffeine and so everything that has caffeine in it must also be banned, as I understand it this is not true. However if one goes by the spirit of the Word of Wisdom too many Big Macs would be breaking the comandment.

We can wear shorts (we are not supposed to wear short shorts though). We are allowed coca-cola, pepsi, but are asked to avoid anything that can become addicting, like caffeine. the First Presidency has asked that we do this, because we are not to subject our bodies to anything that can possibly remove it from our control.

Thanx for the clarification. THough I was'nt interested in the "shorts".

My dad (LDS) had told me Coke and Pepsi were not allowed, but this was some time ago.

But I could be mistaken.

Thanx again.

<><

 

[Rescued One]

Sister Grace, you are "_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _. " (I don't think a word has been created yet, and since I cannot name your motives, I am dumbfounded.) You are consistent in changing the context of a statement to ease the burdon of your responsability to admit you are wrong. Or do you really have a reading problem where you perhaps derive a conclusion before thinking about what was really said? (And now I am wondering how you will misconstrue this post. )

Read again what Stendahl said: "...you must learn about a religion from its adherents because those who reject it are liable to bear false witness."

And now how you changed its context.

"...Just because one doesn't embrace a particular belief, does not mean they will lie about it...."

Notice that you are substituting "liable" with "will."

Liable means: "Likely. Often used with reference to an unfavorable outcome: In a depression banks are liable to fail."

"Will" means nothing can stop it from occuring.

And you also substituted the word "reject" with "doesn't embrace."

If you followed this pattern when you were LDS, it is no wonder you couldn't comprehend our teachings. You try to make things say what you want them to say.

I don't know whether to say "shame on you" or "get some help."

This is an icredibly rude post for someone who by his username implies he is a friend.