Mayan Elephant wrote:even as an active member, i never understood the secrecy of the chi. i got my first copy as a missionary when i was a secretary for three districts. the mission president asked me to highlight the changes in his new/old copies so we could prepare some sort of conference with the district and stake presidents.
the whole thing seems so tame. there really was nothing in there that is damning or interesting. it is not surprising that an organization would have instructions for volunteers. and nothing in there ever struck me as outrageous to a believer.
There you go again! You just can't leave it alone, can you? Every single thread here about the CHIs being leaked back to 1899 you have had to comment on. Obsessed much?
"The Church is authoritarian, tribal, provincial, and founded on a loosely biblical racist frontier sex cult."--Juggler Vain "The lds church is the Amway of religions. Even with all the soap they sell, they still manage to come away smelling dirty."--Some Schmo
Equality wrote:There you go again! You just can't leave it alone, can you? Every single thread here about the CHIs being leaked back to 1899 you have had to comment on. Obsessed much?
were you not told, explicitly, to distance yourself from me?
Last edited by Guest on Fri Aug 29, 2014 7:41 pm, edited 1 time in total.
"Rocks don't speak for themselves" is an unfortunate phrase to use in defense of a book produced by a rock actually 'speaking' for itself... (I have a Question, 5.15.15)
Mayan Elephant wrote:even as an active member, i never understood the secrecy of the chi. i got my first copy as a missionary when i was a secretary for three districts. the mission president asked me to highlight the changes in his new/old copies so we could prepare some sort of conference with the district and stake presidents.
the whole thing seems so tame. there really was nothing in there that is damning or interesting. it is not surprising that an organization would have instructions for volunteers. and nothing in there ever struck me as outrageous to a believer.
There you go again! You just can't leave it alone, can you? Every single thread here about the CHIs being leaked back to 1899 you have had to comment on. Obsessed much?
Dude, what the hell is your problem? Everyone here is free to comment on ANY and EVERY thread they like -- that's the beauty of this place. If you've got an 'axe to grind' with a particular poster, take it somewhere else.
"Moving beyond apologist persuasion, LDS polemicists furiously (and often fraudulently) attack any non-traditional view of Mormonism. They don't mince words -- they mince the truth."
-- Mike Quinn, writing of the FARMSboys, in "Early Mormonism and the Magic World View," p. x (Rev. ed. 1998)
Geesh, I feel stupid. I don't know either one well enough to know. My apologies to all involved.
"Moving beyond apologist persuasion, LDS polemicists furiously (and often fraudulently) attack any non-traditional view of Mormonism. They don't mince words -- they mince the truth."
-- Mike Quinn, writing of the FARMSboys, in "Early Mormonism and the Magic World View," p. x (Rev. ed. 1998)
Rollo Tomasi wrote:. I don't know either one well enough to know. My apologies to all involved.
Sorry, I thought it was obvious based on the other thread. I should have used a smiley, I suppose.
"The Church is authoritarian, tribal, provincial, and founded on a loosely biblical racist frontier sex cult."--Juggler Vain "The lds church is the Amway of religions. Even with all the soap they sell, they still manage to come away smelling dirty."--Some Schmo
Rollo Tomasi wrote:. I don't know either one well enough to know. My apologies to all involved.
Sorry, I thought it was obvious based on the other thread. I should have used a smiley, I suppose.
or a frowny?
"Rocks don't speak for themselves" is an unfortunate phrase to use in defense of a book produced by a rock actually 'speaking' for itself... (I have a Question, 5.15.15)
