Believe me, cog, it's quite apparent you have inner demons and hatreds. Quite. :O
Well, then I'm in good company here, as a substantial number of those who post here, and on other similar websites, are being driven by "inner demons" almost by definition. Were that not the case, this board and other boards like RFM would not even exist at all.
The face of sin today often wears the mask of tolerance.
You have no idea what mine are, if I have them, or their nature. Harmony, wittingly or not, in years past, has been very clear about her problems with the Church relative to its teachings on male/female relationships and here problems accepting such, based on some very clear problems she has with the male of the species as a matter of principle.
Slog on Beastie.
Believe me, cog, it's quite apparent you have inner demons and hatreds. Quite. :O
Not only that, but that he's definitely got a bee in his bonnet about faithful LDS women who have the audacity to question the male leadership of the church. His is a form of penis envy, because no one questions his authority. Of course, that's because he has none, but still...
Holy high h****s***? Personally, I would have much preferred the melodic ring of "high holy h****s***". But that's just a personal preference.
Now a couple of criticisms..."retard Bishop". Not received well on this end, but heh, it's your free for all.
About your advice to "STFU". I fail to see how this is helpful to your strong support of the LDS church/theology/doctrine/belief/culture in practice since shutting the F up about F-ing is a major sub theme of this thread. Aren't you really demonstrating the very repressive nature of LDS perspectives on sex that you appear to claim do not exist?
Care to explain?
LSD
DO NOT sign your posts "LSD" when I am in this frame of mind.
Now, I don't think her Bishop is a retard. This was rhetorical as used in that sentence. I do not believe she has a Bishop, and if she does, she has carefully kept him in the dark regarding her real views of the Church, and, for that matter, his divine authority to judge her worthiness to attend the Temple, which she clearly does not accept as a matter or principle. The entire thing is a polemical fraud, period.
As to those famous Army acronyms, this will very likely be the first and last time I will ever use such language here. I never have before, and a probably won't again. I will not go back and erase the post, however. I let it stand. All I or Wade or anybody here have ever asked for is calm, rational, civil debate. So rare is it in actuality, and so common is the deceptive, mendacious, disingenuous, deceitful, and bad faith smearing of the Church and its leaders, that I've hit a rough spot tonight.
I am on the attack. Just for once, I get to go for the throat. Let the frauds, poseurs, intellectual crackpots (like merc, PP, Zoid, Schmo, and a dozen others), and desperate demagogues like Rollo beware.
The face of sin today often wears the mask of tolerance.
Coggins7 wrote: I am on the attack. Just for once, I get to go for the throat. Let the frauds, poseurs, intellectual crackpots (like merc, PP, Zoid, Schmo, and a dozen others), and desperate demagogues like Rollo beware.
Just a question...what does any of this attacking each other have to do with sex? I much prefer the topic of the thread....
Just a question...what does any of this attacking each other have to do with sex? I much prefer the topic of the thread....
Nothing. Jersey just brought it up because its not my style. I've never used profanity before here. I've labeled people as what I perceive them to be (when civil debate fails), but never this.
I'm fed up with all the posing, prevaricating, and bad faith, that's all.
The face of sin today often wears the mask of tolerance.
Coggins7 wrote: I am on the attack. Just for once, I get to go for the throat. Let the frauds, poseurs, intellectual crackpots (like merc, PP, Zoid, Schmo, and a dozen others), and desperate demagogues like Rollo beware.
Just a question...what does any of this attacking each other have to do with sex? I much prefer the topic of the thread....
I suggest we get back to the topic of the thread: sex. And since I am the original author of this thread, I'd really like to request that posters either stick to the topic, or post elsewhere.
I don't really understand the frothing reaction to this thread. I mean, it's a LDS board so when sexuality is discussed it will revolve about LDS, right? I mean, if it was another board that was secular many of the same posts (the original post -- with complaints) would probably be similar. Now, Harmony has pretty much only sampled LDS females, this isn't to say that their concerns, and issues with sexuality, don't exist in the populace at large -- I'm rather sure they probably do to an extent. But, the Church does take on the topic of sexuality, and in light of that it appears appropriate to discuss it.
Just a question...what does any of this attacking each other have to do with sex? I much prefer the topic of the thread....
Nothing. Jersey just brought it up because its not my style. I've never used profanity before here. I've labeled people as what I perceive them to be (when civil debate fails), but never this.
I'm fed up with all the posing, prevaricating, and bad faith, that's all.
Well, you know where you can stuff it, Loran.
If this is an example of your discernment, the rest of us have nothing to worry about. You will never discover who we are, where we live, nor will you make trouble for us (much as you would like to) in real life. You have no discernment, Loran. You, poor dear, are a wannabe, not the real deal.
Moniker wrote:I don't really understand the frothing reaction to this thread. I mean, it's a LDS board so when sexuality is discussed it will revolve about LDS, right? I mean, if it was another board that was secular many of the same posts (the original post -- with complaints) would probably be similar. Now, Harmony has pretty much only sampled LDS females, this isn't to say that their concerns, and issues with sexuality, don't exist in the populace at large -- I'm rather sure they probably do to an extent. But, the Church does take on the topic of sexuality, and in light of that it appears appropriate to discuss it.
Perhaps you can see why the subject of what is sexually lacking in at least some LDS males got me banned from Z. It is a subject that lies near and dear to the hearts of all men, especially men like Loran, who have no doubt experienced the very dysfunctions we're discussing. One does hate to see oneself so plainly described, on an internet bulletin board. No wonder he's pissed!
Coggins7 wrote: I am on the attack. Just for once, I get to go for the throat. Let the frauds, poseurs, intellectual crackpots (like merc, PP, Zoid, Schmo, and a dozen others), and desperate demagogues like Rollo beware.
Just a question...what does any of this attacking each other have to do with sex? I much prefer the topic of the thread....
I suggest we get back to the topic of the thread: sex. And since I am the original author of this thread, I'd really like to request that posters either stick to the topic, or post elsewhere.
Don't worry about me, harm. I'm shutting the f up.