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

The catch-all forum for general topics and debates. Minimal moderation. Rated PG to PG-13.
_Chap
_Emeritus
Posts: 14190
Joined: Mon Jun 11, 2007 10:23 am

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

Post by _Chap »

marg wrote:
Were in not for organization fighting to keep church out of schools, to keep science free of religious dogma...the schools would be teacing intelligent design as science and evolution would be disgarded. It's a constant battle.


I think that the history bears this out, by and large. Powerful organisations. religions included, rarely give up their positions of influence voluntarily.

marg wrote:I've never heard of Catholics attending daily mass. They might I don't know, haven't spent much time looking into Catholicism.


Lay Roman Catholics have never been obliged to attend daily mass. They are however obliged to attend mass every Sunday (the day held to be the weekly anniversary of the resurrection of Jesus), and on a few other 'holy days of obligation' during the course of the year.

Amongst both Roman Catholics and other groups of Christians who regard the eucharist as central to belief and practice, it is however common amongst the devout to try to attend the eucharist more often, and sometimes even daily, in the form of a short service which usually takes place early in the morning. But this is completely voluntary, and it is possible to be a 'good Catholic' without doing so.

By contrast, some Christians might have the impression that in the CoJCoLDS "Everything which is not compulsory is forbidden" and vice versa - in the sense (e.g.) that privately organised prayer and study circles are said to be discouraged, but one is supposed to attend a large number of other acitivities during Sunday and at other times in the week.

To what extent is this contrast a real one?
Zadok:
I did not have a faith crisis. I discovered that the Church was having a truth crisis.
Maksutov:
That's the problem with this supernatural stuff, it doesn't really solve anything. It's a placeholder for ignorance.
_Wayneman
_Emeritus
Posts: 30
Joined: Sun Feb 08, 2009 6:42 pm

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

Post by _Wayneman »

So anyways. :confused:

Shades, it was real good catching up with you :)
_Dr. Shades
_Emeritus
Posts: 14117
Joined: Mon Oct 23, 2006 9:07 pm

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

Post by _Dr. Shades »

Wayneman wrote:Shades, it was real good catching up with you :)

Likewise! :-)

By the way, it looks like you missed my post wherein I asked you two things:

  1. The areas in which you served, and
  2. What's your opinion of President Ames.

So, will you enlighten us?
"Finally, for your rather strange idea that miracles are somehow linked to the amount of gay sexual gratification that is taking place would require that primitive Christianity was launched by gay sex, would it not?"

--Louis Midgley
_Jason Bourne
_Emeritus
Posts: 9207
Joined: Sun Oct 29, 2006 8:00 pm

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

Post by _Jason Bourne »

I think it sucks to be you Harmony. You are caught up in a religious maze of nonsense.


One wonders how Marg's condescending self righteous smugness about religion is any different than a believer in God and Christianity thinking she is an amoral prig simply and totally lost due to her benighted and evil ways.

I mean really. If the believers here acted with the same superior smugness that Marg does towards them she would be screaming about it.
_Wayneman
_Emeritus
Posts: 30
Joined: Sun Feb 08, 2009 6:42 pm

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

Post by _Wayneman »

By the way, it looks like you missed my post wherein I asked you two things:

1. The areas in which you served, and
2. What's your opinion of President Ames.


So, will you enlighten us?

Let's see: 1. Inuyama, Nonami, Yokaichi, Kanazawa, Toyota, and one other, the name of which still eludes me. It was up north though, east of Kanazawa. But Amani and Materfis were my companions there, I remember. Oh, and Bidulph was the DL. I'm telling you, I was atrocious about keeping a journal :)

2. I had no problems with Ames. I had very little interaction with him, so I was probably not a favorite. However, he never gave me a reason to dislike him. He even told me he liked my singing voice. :cool:

I DID like him for at least one other thing, though. He loosened up the music-listening rules for p-day. Smith said no music, except Mo-Tab, and things like that. Ames said, basically, anything which wouldn't chase the Spirit away.

Needless to say, I think we all stretched that one a bit. :wink:

PS I know emoticons are lame, but I find them useful.
_marg

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

Post by _marg »

Jason Bourne wrote:
I think it sucks to be you Harmony. You are caught up in a religious maze of nonsense.


One wonders how Marg's condescending self righteous smugness about religion is any different than a believer in God and Christianity thinking she is an amoral prig simply and totally lost due to her benighted and evil ways.

I mean really. If the believers here acted with the same superior smugness that Marg does towards them she would be screaming about it.


I don't claim atheism is morally superior to any particular position, hence I don't possess self righteous smugness but I certainly have heard from you how atheism = immorality and religious belief = morality. So certainly, you have an attitude of condescending self righteous smugness. As far as screaming, it seems you are the one doing the bitching.
_Jason Bourne
_Emeritus
Posts: 9207
Joined: Sun Oct 29, 2006 8:00 pm

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

Post by _Jason Bourne »

I don't claim atheism is morally superior to any particular position,


You claim that critical thinking unfettered by the shackles of what you personally view as naïve and silly beliefs is morally superior to moral positions that may have grounding in religious tradition.

hence I don't possess self righteous smugness


Your most certianly do. Your posts are full of your own sense of indignations and smugness against what you view as indoctrinated antiquated beliefs.

but I certainly have heard from you how atheism = immorality and religious belief = morality.


No Marg you have not. Not really. I have, at least for quite sometime, refrained from that view and indeed it is not one I hold. So it seems at least in this area your analysis of what a poster's position is, is failing you. Go ahead Marg. Go find posts where I take this position. I think you will be hard pressed to find them. If you do I will apologize for them.

So certainly, you have an attitude of condescending self righteous smugness.


Actually you are wrong again. I don't go around at all stating how non believers are stupid, or lacked religious grounding in their early years so this is obviously why they are humanistic and amoral, or that they have chosen to reject God in order to satisfy their hedonistic lusts and desires and appease their conscience in order to do so. But you routinely state how incredulous you are about how LDS persons are so clearly indoctrinated in order believe an obviously lie and fraud. A good percentage of your posts are peppered with such comments.

As far as screaming, it seems you are the one doing the bitching



What a profound and intelligent response. I am in awe.
_harmony
_Emeritus
Posts: 18195
Joined: Fri Oct 27, 2006 1:35 am

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

Post by _harmony »

Jason Bourne wrote: But you routinely state how incredulous you are about how LDS persons are so clearly indoctrinated in order believe an obviously lie and fraud. A good percentage of your posts are peppered with such comments.


Let us never forget the posts that assert that Mormons in particular and religious folk in general are lacking in intelligence. That one is such a gem, it should be framed and hung in the dining room of every Christian, right next to their picture of Christ.



ad
(Nevo, Jan 23) And the Melchizedek Priesthood may not have been restored until the summer of 1830, several months after the organization of the Church.
_Dr. Shades
_Emeritus
Posts: 14117
Joined: Mon Oct 23, 2006 9:07 pm

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

Post by _Dr. Shades »

Wayneman wrote:Let's see: 1. Inuyama, Nonami, Yokaichi, Kanazawa, Toyota, and one other, the name of which still eludes me. It was up north though, east of Kanazawa.

Hmm. Would that be Komatsu, Uozu, or perhaps Kenrokuen?

But Amani and Materfis were my companions there, I remember. Oh, and Bidulph was the DL.

He and I spent two weeks as co-juniors, so you'll see his name quite a bit in my journal (just do a search on "Biddulph.") Anyway, you were in this mystery area from sometime after March 1991, right?

Also, it appears as though you were companions with Proctor at some point. Where was that, and at what stage of your mission?

I'm telling you, I was atrocious about keeping a journal :)

Most were.

I DID like him for at least one other thing, though. He loosened up the music-listening rules for p-day. Smith said no music, except Mo-Tab, and things like that. Ames said, basically, anything which wouldn't chase the Spirit away.

Needless to say, I think we all stretched that one a bit. :wink:

No doubt! Even the mission home staff was listening to MC Hammer.
"Finally, for your rather strange idea that miracles are somehow linked to the amount of gay sexual gratification that is taking place would require that primitive Christianity was launched by gay sex, would it not?"

--Louis Midgley
_Wayneman
_Emeritus
Posts: 30
Joined: Sun Feb 08, 2009 6:42 pm

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

Post by _Wayneman »

Hmm. Would that be Komatsu, Uozu, or perhaps Kenrokuen?

UOZU! That's it.

Also, it appears as though you were companions with Proctor at some point. Where was that, and at what stage of your mission?

I was never companions with Proctor. You may have got that information from the Nagoya Alumni website. Yes, I have him listed as a doryo, but when I filled out my profile (10 years ago), I just listed a bunch of guys I knew, along with my comps.

No doubt! Even the mission home staff was listening to MC Hammer.

HAAAA. LOL! :lol: That is too funny!

by the way, I mentioned that you are the first person from our mission I have been in contact with.

That is inaccurate. Baggs (you remember him?) called me up about two years afterwards, to try to get me to join some vitamin-selling pyramid scheme.

It PISSED me off! Damn Mormons. :wink:

I was excited to get the phone call (how he got my number, I don't know), but he quickly dispensed with the niceties, and went right into his shpeel.

And Rasmussen (one of my comps in Kanazawa, before he became an AP) actually emailed me once about 10 years ago. I had forgotten all about that. But, honestly, that is about it.

I know you've been in contact with Pres. Smith, but has there been anybody else? Other than your extensive work online, what have you been up to for 17 years?

Oh, and one more thing:

I said earlier that I wasn't here to re-convert you to the faith.

I lied. Get your ass back to church. :razz:
Post Reply