Why is whyme?

The catch-all forum for general topics and debates. Minimal moderation. Rated PG to PG-13.
_3sheets2thewind
_Emeritus
Posts: 1451
Joined: Thu Dec 02, 2010 11:28 pm

Why is whyme?

Post by _3sheets2thewind »

from the selek thread:

why me wrote:
3sheets2thewind wrote:
Go start a thread about how Bradford is not temple worthy ....you colossal douchebag.


See my point, cwald? This is usual for this board for any defender of the church.


whyme, you do remember that you posted Bradfords action was apstate or apostacy, don't you?
whyme, you do remember that you posted Bradford was not Temple worthy, don't you?

Please whyme, how are you "defender of the church" when you go about literally judging the worthiness of others?

Your conduct related to Bradford, does in fact, qualify you as a douche-bag.

Your conduct related to Bradford, in no way or by the utmost farthing, allows you claim "defender of the Church".
_Drifting
_Emeritus
Posts: 7306
Joined: Thu Oct 27, 2011 10:52 am

Re: Why is whyme?

Post by _Drifting »

Why me hasn't caught up on the conference version of the Ensign so he hasn't heard Uchdorf say "stop it!".
“We look to not only the spiritual but also the temporal, and we believe that a person who is impoverished temporally cannot blossom spiritually.”
Keith McMullin - Counsellor in Presiding Bishopric

"One, two, three...let's go shopping!"
Thomas S Monson - Prophet, Seer, Revelator
_3sheets2thewind
_Emeritus
Posts: 1451
Joined: Thu Dec 02, 2010 11:28 pm

Re: Why is whyme?

Post by _3sheets2thewind »

Drifting wrote:Why me hasn't caught up on the conference version of the Ensign so he hasn't heard Uchdorf say "stop it!".



until then, here is what Uctdorf is saying in street terms.

http://youtu.be/toxIiMWQgKA
_why me
_Emeritus
Posts: 9589
Joined: Fri Feb 02, 2007 8:19 pm

Re: Why is whyme?

Post by _why me »

3sheets2thewind wrote:
whyme, you do remember that you posted Bradfords action was apstate or apostacy, don't you?
whyme, you do remember that you posted Bradford was not Temple worthy, don't you?
.


Of course we are selective in our reading understanding. Here was my position: I find sending an email firing someone to be offensive and when it is done inside a church institution it is even more offensive. I also said, that I consider such an action worse than a sexual fling. That being the case, I would consider it to be a problem with temple worthiness because the firing showed a lack of love for a fellow brother in the gospel. I saw no love in that action. And the LDS church does teach to love your neighbor. So, my own personal opinion is that church members need to held accountable as to how they treat another human being, even if that treatment happens in the workplace.

I would have the same opinion about church members bullying their subordinates etc.
I intend to lay a foundation that will revolutionize the whole world.
Joseph Smith


We are “to feed the hungry, to clothe the naked, to provide for the widow, to dry up the tear of the orphan, to comfort the afflicted, whether in this church, or in any other, or in no church at all…”
Joseph Smith
_why me
_Emeritus
Posts: 9589
Joined: Fri Feb 02, 2007 8:19 pm

Re: Why is whyme?

Post by _why me »

Drifting wrote:Why me hasn't caught up on the conference version of the Ensign so he hasn't heard Uchdorf say "stop it!".


No, but I heard bob newheart say it:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ow0lr63y4Mw
I intend to lay a foundation that will revolutionize the whole world.
Joseph Smith


We are “to feed the hungry, to clothe the naked, to provide for the widow, to dry up the tear of the orphan, to comfort the afflicted, whether in this church, or in any other, or in no church at all…”
Joseph Smith
_Themis
_Emeritus
Posts: 13426
Joined: Wed Feb 17, 2010 6:43 pm

Re: Why is whyme?

Post by _Themis »

why me wrote:
3sheets2thewind wrote:
whyme, you do remember that you posted Bradfords action was apstate or apostacy, don't you?
whyme, you do remember that you posted Bradford was not Temple worthy, don't you?
.


Of course we are selective in our reading understanding. Here was my position: I find sending an email firing someone to be offensive and when it is done inside a church institution it is even more offensive. I also said, that I consider such an action worse than a sexual fling. That being the case, I would consider it to be a problem with temple worthiness because the firing showed a lack of love for a fellow brother in the gospel. I saw no love in that action. And the LDS church does teach to love your neighbor. So, my own personal opinion is that church members need to held accountable as to how they treat another human being, even if that treatment happens in the workplace.

I would have the same opinion about church members bullying their subordinates etc.


Your position is extremely judgmental and is based on only one side, a side(DCP) you have been known to defend all the time. Try and be a little more open minded, instead of being a DCP acolyte.
42
_3sheets2thewind
_Emeritus
Posts: 1451
Joined: Thu Dec 02, 2010 11:28 pm

Re: Why is whyme?

Post by _3sheets2thewind »

why me wrote:
3sheets2thewind wrote:
whyme, you do remember that you posted Bradfords action was apstate or apostacy, don't you?
whyme, you do remember that you posted Bradford was not Temple worthy, don't you?
.


Of course we are selective in our reading understanding. Here was my position: I find sending an email firing someone to be offensive and when it is done inside a church institution it is even more offensive. I also said, that I consider such an action worse than a sexual fling. That being the case, I would consider it to be a problem with temple worthiness because the firing showed a lack of love for a fellow brother in the gospel. I saw no love in that action. And the LDS church does teach to love your neighbor. So, my own personal opinion is that church members need to held accountable as to how they treat another human being, even if that treatment happens in the workplace.

I would have the same opinion about church members bullying their subordinates etc.



So your Doctrinal position is he is a murderer
_Polygamy-Porter
_Emeritus
Posts: 8091
Joined: Wed Oct 21, 2009 1:07 am

Re: Why is whyme?

Post by _Polygamy-Porter »

Asking why me why he isn't an active member, and/or why he defends LDS is like asking a wino why he won't get a job and stop drinking.
New name: Boaz
The most viewed "ignored" poster in Shady Acres® !
_Equality
_Emeritus
Posts: 3362
Joined: Thu Aug 28, 2008 3:44 pm

Re: Why is whyme?

Post by _Equality »

why me wrote:
3sheets2thewind wrote:
whyme, you do remember that you posted Bradfords action was apstate or apostacy, don't you?
whyme, you do remember that you posted Bradford was not Temple worthy, don't you?
.


Of course we are selective in our reading understanding. Here was my position: I find sending an email firing someone to be offensive and when it is done inside a church institution it is even more offensive. I also said, that I consider such an action worse than a sexual fling. That being the case, I would consider it to be a problem with temple worthiness because the firing showed a lack of love for a fellow brother in the gospel. I saw no love in that action. And the LDS church does teach to love your neighbor. So, my own personal opinion is that church members need to held accountable as to how they treat another human being, even if that treatment happens in the workplace.

I would have the same opinion about church members bullying their subordinates etc.



3sheets2thewind wrote:So your Doctrinal position is he is a murderer

Lol. I see what you did there.
"The Church is authoritarian, tribal, provincial, and founded on a loosely biblical racist frontier sex cult."--Juggler Vain
"The LDS church is the Amway of religions. Even with all the soap they sell, they still manage to come away smelling dirty."--Some Schmo
_hobo1512
_Emeritus
Posts: 888
Joined: Sat Jul 10, 2010 5:27 pm

Re: Why is whyme?

Post by _hobo1512 »

Why me is too busy deciding who is a worthy Mormon and who isn't. Who is a good Catholic or not, and on and on.

Considering the fact that he doesn't practice either, it is the epitome of hypocrisy.

He likes to make his little pronouncements and accusations, and not deal with any of the rebuttal with any substance.

He talks to imaginary nuns and priests, so I would imagine many of his Mormon conversations involve some invisible people as well.

He reminds me of a little bird that comes out of Bavarian clocks every hour.
Post Reply