The Definitive MADhouse Quote Page.

[_Philo Sofee]

Anddddddd...it just keeps getting worse. Sad really.

Nominee said:
I am 39, single and will absolutely never marry any man that cannot go to the temple with me. I know for a fact that my Heavenly Father wants no less for me than to be sealed for eternity to my husband and our family. He expects no less. If I do not meet my husband in this life I will meet him after this life. I live righteously and worthily and I have complete faith in the love my Heavenly Father has for me and the promises he has made. I know that my needs and desires will be met because I will always do my very best to make God's interests my own. God is a better judge of character than I am. There is zero possibility for me to have less than a temple marriage because I choose what is right for me. And I will be married someday because eternity is a long time given to meet the right guy. I want to live in the Celestial kingdom, I want to live with my Father. I wouldn't settle for less and I wouldn't advise my daughter to either. Mortality is minuscule.

Perfect example of brainwash. Heh, the nice thing is we won't be getting more brainwashed rugrats from her to further inhabit the earth......she's at least not continuing to add to the problem.

[_cwald]

View PostYirgacheffe, on 14 December 2012 - 05:46 PM, said:
According to the Chicago Tribune they had to take down their original Facebook page because of death threats.

Kenngo1969 responds with this:

It's one of the agenda items for our Priesthood Executive Committee meeting this morning: "5. Recruit snipers to pick off pants-wearing Relief Society sisters before they enter the building for Sacrament Meeting." :rofl: (Sorry; couldn't resist! ;) Carry on!)

Oh man, that is so funny. I'm rolling on the floor laughing.

http://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/59564-wear-pants-to-church-day-and-other-cultural-dress-standards/page__st__180

[_cwald]

BCSpace said in the Wear Pants To Church Day thread;

I think those who do it for the purpose of "rocking the boat", if it were known, should be denied TR, but otherwise, I don't think anyone cares.

[_cwald]

Choas - MDDB Moderator said:

I am almost speechless. Do not use this board to call anyone's church leaders liars!

[_cwald]

Daniel Peterson said:

Quit trying to play the victim, Yootaw.

"Thou shalt not bear false witness" (Exodus 20:16).

And what, exactly, is my type of Mormon?

The type that is falsely accused of "dishonesty," "hubris," "insults," "invective," "bullying," and "bile"?

I can't say that I blame you for not wanting to be treated as you and wayfarer have treated me on this thread.

I do, quite sincerely, find it interesting to watch what goes on there (MDB). In very much the same way, frankly, that I've been fascinated by yootaw and wayfarer's behavior here.

[_cwald]

Bill Hamliton said:

This has become an astonishing morass of nincompoopery.

[_cwald]

Louis Midgley, on 23 December 2012 - 04:18 PM, said:
Wade:

Well, you might be right. I realize that I cannot control the way in which others will read what I write. But one can still learn from critics of all types. What can I learn from a critic on another very hostile board where I found the following curious item from someone called "harmony":

Posted: Wed Dec 05, 2012 10:51 am

MODERATOR

Who is the King being referred to?

This kind of breath-taking question is to be expected from one who styles herself as 'harmony", and yet is anything but. It comes from drinking deep from the irony-deficient watering hole of jackals who yap and snip incessantly at the heels of faith-defenders they mistakenly consider to be meanies.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[_sethpayne]

From the sincerely awesome Kerry Shirts:

Well well well now......NOW finally we can get a grasp at how sour it is to even if implicitly call someone an anti-Christ now don't we? I agree, saying that about Dan or even implying it SHOULD make him feel mad, just exactly as it should when someone is implicitly linked to be an anti-Christ. We now see the evil fruits of using the Bible to pigeon hole people don't we. We certainly should if we don't. Just because the Bible says something doesn't mean it's right or accurate or even nice and useful or even necessary. And if all this wasn't done directly it was still done using a stupid example from the Bible (as if that has context for OUR time - SHEESH!) as a justification to not directly say so, but make people think that the link to John's silliness is possible with someone today. Now then, we need to stop casting insults and diatribes because people are different, and try a little more to be more Christlike. An impossible task, I know, but the attempt HAS to be tried. Now that we all know how to make everyone feel bad, lets change the subject, and impressions, and innuendos and name calling, and love one another.

http://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/595 ... 1209206250

[_Chap]

From the sincerely awesome Kerry Shirts:

Well well well now......NOW finally we can get a grasp at how sour it is to even if implicitly call someone an anti-Christ now don't we? I agree, saying that about Dan or even implying it SHOULD make him feel mad, just exactly as it should when someone is implicitly linked to be an anti-Christ. We now see the evil fruits of using the Bible to pigeon hole people don't we. We certainly should if we don't. Just because the Bible says something doesn't mean it's right or accurate or even nice and useful or even necessary. And if all this wasn't done directly it was still done using a stupid example from the Bible (as if that has context for OUR time - SHEESH!) as a justification to not directly say so, but make people think that the link to John's silliness is possible with someone today. Now then, we need to stop casting insults and diatribes because people are different, and try a little more to be more Christlike. An impossible task, I know, but the attempt HAS to be tried. Now that we all know how to make everyone feel bad, lets change the subject, and impressions, and innuendos and name calling, and love one another.

http://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/595 ... 1209206250

Ooof! That really got to poor old Daniel Peterson:

Itself an implicit criticism of, and attack on, others.

Let's stop making distinctions altogether. Drawing a circle to include people and things invariably leaves other people (or things) out.

Let's just understand that everything is everything, and that all is good and right, and that nothing is wrong or false.

[_cwald]

go_utes01 said:

...I am grateful that there are no ordinances performed by LDS ministry that a member or perspective member is required to pay for.

http://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/59659-what-is-the-difference-of-paid-employees-of-the-lds-church-and-other-christian-churches-that-have-paid-positions/page__st__100