Our newest member, Wayneman: Shades' missionary companion??

[_JonasS]

Oh my gosh, I got pissed reading the first page.

Welcome Waynman, it is really exciting to hear that you know shades, kinda feels nice. Don't worry about all the crap... just have fun and enjoy yourself.

This is Shades board.

I don't personally care who is anti mo or pro mo. There has been issues in the past with Identity and suspicions of peoples identities which is stupid because this is a forum good dammit.

Discussion forums are for discussing[sp?].


Pirate.

[_harmony]

In other words, you wouldn't have mentioned what you know, just to score a point.

You suggested that believing Latter-day Saints here, if they knew your identity, would seek to hurt you.

I was referring to Droopy and bcspace. I wasn't referring to you... but I think you know that. You just want to play "Look at me! I'm the victim!"

That's a point, is it not? You shouldn't have made it. It's not fair. It's certainly not fair with regard to me, and you know that it's not fair with regard to me.

It wasn't made in regards to you... but then you didn't ask me to clarify that, did you? You just jumped to a conclusion.

[_harmony]

Harm, what is the issue with #7? I always thought #7 was directed toward polygamists, that group in Manti, etc. Do you sympathize with them or a similar group?

I think you would also have a bit of a problem with the garment question based on what you said in another thread.

I have no problem with #7, nor with the garment question. I may not like them much, and think they are decidedly non-sexy, but I still wear them... except when medically unfeasible.

Is there anything else you'd like to know?

[_harmony]

I'm assuming that DCP thinks that your answers to questions 4 and possibly 7 would be questionable, Harm.

That's true.

And I would need to probe a bit about question 3, as well.

You would have no cause to probe any answer of mine. Were you to probe, my SP would be breathing down your neck for an explanation.

Answer to #3: Yes. I don't have to have a testimony of Joseph's mantle after Fanny... I only need a testimony of the restoration, which I have.

Answer to #4: Yes. And as soon as they start to prophecy, reveal, or use a seer stone, I'll be the first to stand up and cheer.

Answer to #7: I don't know any polygamists, any anti-Mormons, or any groups that are enemies of the church. (I don't think interaction on an internet bulletin board counts as "supporting, knowing, or affiliating.")

[_Yoda]

You would have no cause to probe any answer of mine. Were you to probe, my SP would be breathing down your neck for an explanation.

Answer to #3: Yes. I don't have to have a testimony of Joseph's mantle after Fanny... I only need a testimony of the restoration, which I have.

Answer to #4: Yes. And as soon as they start to prophecy, reveal, or use a seer stone, I'll be the first to stand up and cheer.

Answer to #7: I don't know any polygamists, any anti-Mormons, or any groups that are enemies of the church. (I don't think interaction on an internet bulletin board counts as "supporting, knowing, or affiliating.")

And---You answered the questions just as I predicted you would.

How would these answers not be acceptable, Daniel?

[_Daniel Peterson]

You just want to play "Look at me! I'm the victim!"

I'm not kidding when I say that I find amateur attempts at the long distance psychoanalysis of strangers a fascinating enterprise.

You just jumped to a conclusion.

I jumped to no conclusion at all.

I simply pointed out that I'm a counterexample. Which is true.

And which seems to have inflamed a few inflammables here, as usual.

[_Daniel Peterson]

How would these answers not be acceptable, Daniel?

I've seen enough of harmony's criticisms of the Brethren, from Joseph Smith on down, not to be satisfied with her answers as just given. I'm guessing that her bishop and stake president may not know or fully grasp her standpoint.

Harmony's theological position is, as she's explained it here and elsewhere, somewhat incoherent in my view, but it definitely casts doubt on priesthood keys, the Doctrine and Covenants, etc.

[_Pokatator]

I've seen enough of harmony's criticisms of the Brethren, from Joseph Smith on down, not to be satisfied with her answers as just given. I'm guessing that her bishop and stake president may not know or fully grasp her standpoint.

I am not sure you can grasp her standpoint. Then you go ahead play this game....

I'm not kidding when I say that I find amateur attempts at the long distance psychoanalysis of strangers a fascinating enterprise.

You really are one weird dude.

I simply pointed out that I'm a counterexample. Which is true.

You are one narcissistic dude.

[_cinepro]

Next time, just tell him you are cinepro on MDB and let him be the judge about the depth of your testimony issues. Based on your posts that I've read, I'm not sure that you believe in any aspect of Mormonism.

When I was 11, I was Winthrop in a local production of "The Music Man". Should I also tell my leaders that my name is "Winthrop" and that I am from River City, Iowa?

[_Daniel Peterson]

I am not sure you can grasp her standpoint.

If I've got something wrong, I'm sure you can explain it.

Go ahead and try. It'll be your first substantive post, at least in my experience with you.

Everything I see from you is a personal insult directed at me, as in your post just above. I don't believe that I've ever seen you engage an actual issue.

Can you, incidentally, not see the difference between amateur long distance pop psychology, and the discussion of historical and doctrinal matters? Perhaps you can't. Your track record seems to indicate that it eludes you.