Dr. Shades wrote:[MODERATOR NOTE: Shiloh, please do not make personal attacks in the Terrestrial Forum. This typically means avoiding calling someone names such as "Weirdo."]
"Weirdo" is how I sign my name.
Sincerely,
Weirdo
Last edited by _Shiloh on Mon Nov 19, 2012 11:56 pm, edited 1 time in total.
3sheets2thewind wrote:is there a difference between attacking and Apostle and out-right refusing to follow what the Apostle said?
It depends whether the civil disobedience is accompanied by any loud laughter or light-mindedness.
Mormonism ceased being a compelling topic for me when I finally came to terms with its transformation from a personality cult into a combination of a real estate company, a SuperPac, and Westboro Baptist Church. - Kishkumen
consiglieri wrote:Why is bcspace so obsessed with doctrine?
Surely what he has posted here cannot fit his procrustean definition.
All the Best!
--Consiglieri
You mean the MI isn't doctrinal?
"It doesn't seem fair, does it Norm--that I should have so much knowledge when there are people in the world that have to go to bed stupid every night." -- Clifford C. Clavin, USPS
"¡No contaban con mi astucia!" -- El Chapulin Colorado
So odd, BC, that you are quoting a non-doctrinal source to support an assertion of doctrine.
So you're claiming the article doesn't quote or reference actual doctrine? You're obviously opposed to the conclusion, what is your response to that other than to criticize me for posting it? There are some here who spend a significant portion of their lives attacking MI as if it were the apologetic mouthpiece of the Church, what have you against bringing the battle here for all to see?
Of course it's not.......crimany man, official doctrine can be changed into opinion anytime later that what the earlier "revelation" or "doctrine" declared is now thought to be uncomfortable, or simply wrong. Don't you know yet that anything ever said earlier than today's prophet is suspect?
Dr CamNC4Me
"Dr. Peterson and his Callithumpian cabal of BYU idiots have been marginalized by their own inevitable irrelevancy defending a fraud."
Bob Loblaw wrote:Why is bcspace so obsessed with homosexuality?
Why is bcspace so obsessed with doctrine?
Because he's still trying to figure out what is and is not LDS doctrine. The never changing god is, they claim, the author of the ever changing LDS 'doctrine'.
If I were to help stone a man (or hold cloaks while others did so), I hope I would have the gumption to pick up the rock myself and hurl it in the full light of day—and then take the consequences.
Do what is right and let the consequence follow, even when you find yourself in Spirit Prison and have Mitt Romney continually asking who bribed you to get in here.
That part of the point. Some here treat it as if it were by arguing against it so strenuously. I myself am certainly not limited to mere doctrinal discussion.
Why is bcspace so obsessed with homosexuality?
Typical closet case.
Typical invective from those who have no arguments to support their claims.
