Radio Free Mormon Podcast

[_aussieguy55]

I listening to Harper on the FV.He finally relys on the spiritual experience. How valid is this epistemology?

[_DBMORMON]

a total unbeliever whose bishop is nuanced would perhaps allow such. depends on how he would frame things.

So now you advocate the leadership lying in order to retain the member and his tithes.

Ok. Good to know.

I advocate you quite being an ass. but I don't expect you to listen.

[_Polygamy-Porter]

I don't eat Cheerios.

We all know that P. Porter eats Deseret Alpha-Bits

Only when I travel to Zion for business and happen to stay in the Hotel Utah.

[_Polygamy-Porter]

a total unbeliever whose bishop is nuanced would perhaps allow such. depends on how he would frame things.

So now you advocate the leadership lying in order to retain the member and his tithes.

Ok. Good to know.

I advocate you quite being an ass. but I don't expect you to listen.

I don't think you understand the definition of advocate.

Unless you support me being an ass? I can oblige.

First, please clarify a few thing for me.

You DBMORMON, are in real life, Bill Reel? Your recent replies seem to indicate this.

Forgive me if I am wrong.

If you are not Bill, I don't understand why I am talking to you.

[_DBMORMON]

I don't understand why I am talking to you.

I don't understand either way.

[_moksha]

I don't understand why I am talking to you.

I don't understand either way.

I think I understand. The Mormon critics arguments are easy to fire when they have black and white Mormonism in their sights, but the target coordinates become blurrier when you add shades of gray and a spot of color. Other than that, he is protective of the names Mormon Discussions and Shady Acres Trailer Park.

by the way, Consiglieri's podcasts are well worth listening to, especially that latest one on Church history as performed with an Exacto knife and scotch tape.

[Guest]

You previously served as a bishop.

Did you "nuance" the rules with fringe members?

I'm just curious if, how far you bent the rules as bish.

Today, a former LDS bishop, you advocate on a public form(yours) doctrinal changes as well as publicly disagreeing with top leadership.

Where do you see yourself in five years?

Still faking it to attend a church that won't change while publicly denouncing things that you can't "nuance"?

Or

Starting your own "nuanced" sect of Mormonism?

[_DBMORMON]

You previously serve red as a bishop.

Did you "nuance" the rules with fringe members?

I'm just curious if, how far you bent the rules as bish.

Today, a former LDS bishop, you advocate on a public form(yours) doctrinal changes as well as publicly disagreeing with top leadership.

Where do you see yourself in five years?

Still faking it to attend a church that won't change while publicly denouncing things that you can't "nuance"?

Or

Starting your own "nuanced" sect of Mormonism?

I never served red. that was a rumor started by my critics

[_DBMORMON]

You previously serve red as a bishop.

Did you "nuance" the rules with fringe members?

I'm just curious if, how far you bent the rules as bish.

Today, a former LDS bishop, you advocate on a public form(yours) doctrinal changes as well as publicly disagreeing with top leadership.

Where do you see yourself in five years?

Still faking it to attend a church that won't change while publicly denouncing things that you can't "nuance"?

Or

Starting your own "nuanced" sect of Mormonism?

bent the rules..... not much though I sided with love over rules
I disagree with leadership on stuff. last I checked they don't require blind obedience.
in five years I see myself still going to work and having only 2 kids at home
i'm not faking anything. I state quite openly what I believe and where I stand.
not starting a church.... I like my current job

[_candygal]

Consig...good stuff as usual!