The rigors of the mission field

The catch-all forum for general topics and debates. Minimal moderation. Rated PG to PG-13.
_Mister Scratch
_Emeritus
Posts: 5604
Joined: Sun Oct 29, 2006 8:13 pm

Post by _Mister Scratch »

LifeOnaPlate wrote:
Mister Scratch wrote:
LifeOnaPlate wrote:
Coca Cola wrote:If you get someone pregnant you can't go. There is a boy here in stake and they told him he was too fat. I felt bad for him - he is not really all that fat.

Actually this reminds me: I am aware of at least 3 people who could not serve missions for various reasons. So much for the "they let them all go anyway" thing. Even 3 contradicts that assertion.


Fair enough, but what does it do to demonstrate that the Brethren were telling the truth about "raising the bar"?


That they did.


Oh, they did? And your evidence for this is what? Your three "pals"? What were the new "standards" demarcated by the "bar"?
_LifeOnaPlate
_Emeritus
Posts: 2799
Joined: Fri Aug 31, 2007 4:50 pm

Post by _LifeOnaPlate »

Mister Scratch wrote:Oh, they did? And your evidence for this is what? Your three "pals"? What were the new "standards" demarcated by the "bar"?


Health and morality issues.
One moment in annihilation's waste,
one moment, of the well of life to taste-
The stars are setting and the caravan
starts for the dawn of nothing; Oh, make haste!

-Omar Khayaam

*Be on the lookout for the forthcoming album from Jiminy Finn and the Moneydiggers.*
_Mister Scratch
_Emeritus
Posts: 5604
Joined: Sun Oct 29, 2006 8:13 pm

Post by _Mister Scratch »

LifeOnaPlate wrote:
Mister Scratch wrote:Oh, they did? And your evidence for this is what? Your three "pals"? What were the new "standards" demarcated by the "bar"?


Health and morality issues.


And this was different from previous standards how?
Post Reply