Mormon Heroes

[_Coggins7]

First, I want a substantive, credible source for this entire story. Secondly, the President of the Church cannot alter such a policy without the unanimity of the Brethren, as I stated. Where is the documentation that all of the quorum "felt the spirit"? If it was only a policy, and not doctrinal in nature, perhaps they felt they could do if of their own accord?

Slow down there Coggy old boy. I gave you the source. Go read the book then come back. You really need to read beyond the Ensign and your priesthood manual if you want to discuss these things intelligently.

Give it a rest Jason, its getting stale. I've got much more important reading to do then Quinn's doggy training papers.

Much more important.

What you just don't seem to realize is that it is you who are agitated and consternated by the problems of Church history, not me, and it is you who need to jump, jive and wail regarding them, not me.

It is you who must work out every detail of history, doctrine, science, and the personal foibles of the Church's leadership, and reconcile them all in a neat, clean, unambiguous and logical way before you will be faithful, not me.

It is you who root out, hunt down, and sniff out each and every particle of historical incongruity, doctrinal imprecision or apparant inconsistency, and personal weakness in a leader, till and cultivate it, and refuse to be faithful to your covenants until all is settled to your satisfaction, not me.

I do not need to read Quinn, you need to read Quinn.



Maybe I will get around to Quinn one day, but I have no fear of anything I'll find there. I pursued anti-Mormon literature for 20 years, because my testimony allowed me not to fear it.

[_Mister Scratch]

First, I want a substantive, credible source for this entire story. Secondly, the President of the Church cannot alter such a policy without the unanimity of the Brethren, as I stated. Where is the documentation that all of the quorum "felt the spirit"? If it was only a policy, and not doctrinal in nature, perhaps they felt they could do if of their own accord?

Slow down there Coggy old boy. I gave you the source. Go read the book then come back. You really need to read beyond the Ensign and your priesthood manual if you want to discuss these things intelligently.

Give it a rest Jason, its getting stale. I've got much more important reading to do then Quinn's doggy training papers.

Much more important.

Such as frontpagemag.com?

[_Coggins7]

Wow, this is a real classic. Actually, the Church *did* capitulate. It had weathered the pain of lawsuits, stuff being thrown at the BYU basketball team, etc. This "timing" argument makes zero sense. On the other hand, it is kind of interesting to consider that the Church lifted the ban purely for PR reasons, as Coggins suggests.

The only thing classic about this is your abject whoring of yourself out to your adversary. That's a real tragedy.

[_Mister Scratch]

Wow, this is a real classic. Actually, the Church *did* capitulate. It had weathered the pain of lawsuits, stuff being thrown at the BYU basketball team, etc. This "timing" argument makes zero sense. On the other hand, it is kind of interesting to consider that the Church lifted the ban purely for PR reasons, as Coggins suggests.

The only thing classic about this is your abject whoring of yourself out to your adversary. That's a real tragedy.

Well, hey---at least I am not the one arguing that the Church held out on lifting the priesthood ban due to PR reasons.

[_dooosh]

First, I want a substantive, credible source for this entire story. Secondly, the President of the Church cannot alter such a policy without the unanimity of the Brethren, as I stated. Where is the documentation that all of the quorum "felt the spirit"? If it was only a policy, and not doctrinal in nature, perhaps they felt they could do if of their own accord?

Slow down there Coggy old boy. I gave you the source. Go read the book then come back. You really need to read beyond the Ensign and your priesthood manual if you want to discuss these things intelligently.

Give it a rest Jason, its getting stale. I've got much more important reading to do then Quinn's doggy training papers.

Much more important.

What you just don't seem to realize is that it is you who are agitated and consternated by the problems of Church history, not me, and it is you who need to jump, jive and wail regarding them, not me.

It is you who must work out every detail of history, doctrine, science, and the personal foibles of the Church's leadership, and reconcile them all in a neat, clean, unambiguous and logical way before you will be faithful, not me.

It is you who root out, hunt down, and sniff out each and every particle of historical incongruity, doctrinal imprecision or apparant inconsistency, and personal weakness in a leader, till and cultivate it, and refuse to be faithful to your covenants until all is settled to your satisfaction, not me.

I do not need to read Quinn, you need to read Quinn.



Maybe I will get around to Quinn one day, but I have no fear of anything I'll find there. I pursued anti-Mormon literature for 20 years, because my testimony allowed me not to fear it.

What a spectacle! The dueling Mormons.

[_Coggins7]

What a spectacle! The dueling Mormons.

How are you Merc?

[_Pokatator]

Warren Jeffs

Rulon Jeffs

John Singer

[_moksha]

The second was the timing. The Lord is not a fool. 1969 was just coming out of the height of continuous race rioting around country that had gone on for several years, and of the ascendancy of Black Power ideology.

You are right, it would have been better to beat the rush and make the change back in 1949. The Church could have been the vanguard for the Lord.

[_ludwigm]

...
My spouse for staying married to me despite our fundamental disagreement.
...

Yes, she is. I think of my spouse.

...
Any critic who is married to a TBM
...

I don't think anybody can know without long experience what Mormonism is.

We was married for years, when happened an one and a half year separation, without any telephone or letter - call it a mission, the army has its own sacreds. After my homecoming, I learned the "big news", her membership.

At that time, there was two thing I knew about The Church.
The one was the famous "those polygamist folks", the other a joke from the Linux op.sys, which I have read but never understand, even I am a joculator. (Welcome to Utah. If you think our liquor laws are funny, you should see our underwear!)

I did understand the joke at the first evening. To learn the others (I'd like to say all others) have costed six year as investigator.

[_Jason Bourne]

First, I want a substantive, credible source for this entire story. Secondly, the President of the Church cannot alter such a policy without the unanimity of the Brethren, as I stated. Where is the documentation that all of the quorum "felt the spirit"? If it was only a policy, and not doctrinal in nature, perhaps they felt they could do if of their own accord?

Slow down there Coggy old boy. I gave you the source. Go read the book then come back. You really need to read beyond the Ensign and your priesthood manual if you want to discuss these things intelligently.

Give it a rest Jason, its getting stale.

Kiss off coggy. I will post what i feel like posting.

I've got much more important reading to do then Quinn's doggy training papers.

Now you really are looking rather dumb since the book that I suggested you read was not written by Quinn. What a funny boy you are. You ask for a source, twice! I give it to you twice! You ramble on about something it is clear you are CLUELESS about-clueless and you seem to be going together a lot these days. Then you say you won't read it because it is written by Quinn-who you pretend to know something about-but you don't. But the book was not written by Quinn.


Just keep posting Coggins and dig your hole deeper.

Much more important.

What you just don't seem to realize is that it is you who are agitated and consternated by the problems of Church history, not me, and it is you who need to jump, jive and wail regarding them, not me.

Course not. You pretend there are no problems. If it works for you that is fine. Just do not expect not to be called on it.

It is you who must work out every detail of history, doctrine, science, and the personal foibles of the Church's leadership, and reconcile them all in a neat, clean, unambiguous and logical way before you will be faithful, not me.

Ah....not Coggy will make personal attacks

Did you find me a pre 1835 LDS source that teaches the Father had a body? No? Didn't think so.

It is you who root out, hunt down, and sniff out each and every particle of historical incongruity, doctrinal imprecision or apparant inconsistency, and personal weakness in a leader, till and cultivate it, and refuse to be faithful to your covenants until all is settled to your satisfaction, not me.

Ah more personal attacks. Evidence please Mr, that I am not faithful to my covenants.

I do not need to read Quinn, you need to read Quinn.

Once again, now read real slooooooowwwww......the book I references was not written by Quinn.

Maybe I will get around to Quinn one day, but I have no fear of anything I'll find there. I pursued anti-Mormon literature for 20 years, because my testimony allowed me not to fear it.

Yep, the fruits of your testimony are abundantly evident here.


By the way the book I referenced, the Bio of Pres McKay is not anti and was written by a Church member. It is a great read. You can find all about the priesthood ban issue, HBL and HBB as well as all sorts of interesting things, since it is clear you often don't know what you are talking about.

Are you really LDS?