Neither did you. Otherwise you would not be here, and would not be still dodging alcoholism after 20+ year
s.
Based upon what principle or criterion?
Additionally, for someone who claims that the care taking of a sick wife keeps you from full attendance at LDS meetings, you sure do have tons of time devoted to this board.
Yeah, about once a week, and today was a real slow day. It doesn't take much brain power to keep coming up with these little High School cut downs guys. I'm done with you, as I've been out of High School for over thirty years.
So never mind answering the above question. Your in the deep end of the pool holding a bowling ball. Good luck.
The face of sin today often wears the mask of tolerance.
Coggins7 wrote:Let's accept that as true, in which case, if you have a testimony, what are you doing outside the Church?
Or is that a bald faced lie, and are you lying only to me, or to yourself and God as well?
That's not what you asked him, Loran. Your question was as follows:
"Did you ever receive a testimony of the Gospel?"
To which he replied:
"Yes, I did".
Why do you misrepresent what he's stated? Just curious how you work that out in your mind.
Look at the description Jersey Girl:
Once I realized it was based on group expectations and was a self induced emotional epiphany based upon half truths and out right lies, I came to my senses and realized it would be damaging to force my children to be coerced into feeling their own emotional epiphany, which they would then base the rest of their lives on this fallacious feeling.
That's not the LDS testimony. I have no idea what this is, but its something cut from a whole cloth that is completely alien to the Church of which I am a member and my personal experience within it, which, I have found, is very much the same as the experience of testimony of many friends, family, and acquaintances I have had within it. It is only the exmos who claim to have had a testimony in order to give their apostasy a patina of intellectual and ethical credibility who's description of it is highly out of the normative.
The face of sin today often wears the mask of tolerance.
Coggins7 wrote:OK. Let's start with every post you've ever made here since coming into the forum, at least as Boaz and lydia.
Good grief, Loran. Cap't Jack isn't the same poster as Boaz.
Second, I didn't leave because I couldn't live the standards or discipline of the Mormon church.
Sure you did. There's no such thing as purely intellectual apostasy. In my entire life, when I've seen apostasy up close, including from intellectuals, the intellectualism is masking other, less conspicuous attributes.
And you're sooooooo widely experienced with apostacy, you've seen everything. The sad part is, you don't have any idea how foolish you look.
I left because I decided it wasn't true. Up until I decided to leave, and for the most part since I've left, I kept all the standards expected of a member of the Mormon faith. Including, as I mentioned before, giving up two years of my life to be a missionary.
And what falls under the umbrella of "for the most part" as to which standards and disciplines have been modified or rejected?
Under the "none of your business" umbrella. And that's a very large umbrella, Loran.
"SAN LUIS - Officials of the Sangre de Cristo Catholic Church here may decide today whether to file charges against three Mormon missionaries in the 2006 vandalism of a local shrine."
"We're just mortified this has happened. This is not what we're about," he said.
He said the three, who come from California, Idaho and Nevada, would face restrictions on their church memberships, although he declined to discuss the nature of the restrictions."
Back to the topic at hand:
I'm not surprised at the actions of the elders. What I *do* find surprising, though, is the lengths people are going to in an attempt to excuse the behavior on the other board. This from a group that finds anti-mormon conspiracies lurking the shadows of any burglary into a church building.
Someone even "forensically" inspected the photo of the boy with the statue head and determined that since there weren't any chips on the ground, the boy must not have removed the head himself. Another doofus (Selek, I think) is arguing about needing proof, when really if these boys had any shred of integrity left, they should simply confess their error instead of waiting for a "trial."
Sheesh.
I may be going to hell in a bucket, babe / But at least I'm enjoying the ride.
-Grateful Dead (lyrics by John Perry Barlow)
Coggins7 wrote:Let's accept that as true, in which case, if you have a testimony, what are you doing outside the Church?
Or is that a bald faced lie, and are you lying only to me, or to yourself and God as well?
That's not what you asked him, Loran. Your question was as follows:
"Did you ever receive a testimony of the Gospel?"
To which he replied:
"Yes, I did".
Why do you misrepresent what he's stated? Just curious how you work that out in your mind.
Look at the description Jersey Girl:
Once I realized it was based on group expectations and was a self induced emotional epiphany based upon half truths and out right lies, I came to my senses and realized it would be damaging to force my children to be coerced into feeling their own emotional epiphany, which they would then base the rest of their lives on this fallacious feeling.
That's not the LDS testimony. I have no idea what this is, but its something cut from a whole cloth that is completely alien to the Church of which I am a member and my personal experience within it, which, I have found, is very much the same as the experience of testimony of many friends, family, and acquaintances I have had within it. It is only the exmos who claim to have had a testimony in order to give their apostasy a patina of intellectual and ethical credibility who's description of it is highly out of the normative.
Holy cats, buddy. You asked him if he ever had a testimony of the gospel. He says that he did. He then goes on to address the loss of said testimony. He's being straight up honest and you're twisting.
I'm twisting nothing. What I'm saying is that, based upon his description, he never had a testimony at all. He had something perhaps, but not the real article.
I know better Jersey, so please...
The face of sin today often wears the mask of tolerance.
Coggins7 wrote:I'm twisting nothing. What I'm saying is that, based upon his description, he never had a testimony at all. He had something perhaps, but not the real article.
I know better Jersey, so please...
I have a hard time understanding how a person so continuously in violation of the WoW, who underwent not one but two Church courts, is in much of a position to be making declarations about the legitimacy of others' testimonies.
Coggins7 wrote:I'm twisting nothing. What I'm saying is that, based upon his description, he never had a testimony at all. He had something perhaps, but not the real article.
I know better Jersey, so please...
I have a hard time understanding how a person so continuously in violation of the WoW, who underwent not one but two Church courts, is in much of a position to be making declarations about the legitimacy of others' testimonies.
No, Scratch, you've got it all wrong. Here, take my hand...You see, Loran is exactly correct. If B&L only had the "right" testimony, the genuine solid gold real deal, he wouldn't have lost it. He obviously had the "wrong" testimony, a pathetically false hollow version. The real thing cannot be lost. Ergo, the obvious possession of the false version. B&L was obviously delusional when he thought he had a testimony.
Coggins7 wrote:I'm twisting nothing. What I'm saying is that, based upon his description, he never had a testimony at all. He had something perhaps, but not the real article.
I know better Jersey, so please...
I have a hard time understanding how a person so continuously in violation of the WoW, who underwent not one but two Church courts, is in much of a position to be making declarations about the legitimacy of others' testimonies.
No, Scratch, you've got it all wrong. Here, take my hand...You see, Loran is exactly correct. If B&L only had the "right" testimony, the genuine solid gold real deal, he wouldn't have lost it. He obviously had the "wrong" testimony, a pathetically false hollow version. The real thing cannot be lost. Ergo, the obvious possession of the false version. B&L was obviously delusional when he thought he had a testimony.
;-)
I think she's got it! I really think she's got it!