Re: About Anger -- The Answer -- Mamusz' Restoration Forum

[ Show ]

Support VoyForums

[ Shrink ]

VoyForums Announcement: Programming and providing support for this service has been a labor of love since 1997. We are one of the few services online who values our users' privacy, and have never sold your information. We have even fought hard to defend your privacy in legal cases; however, we've done it with almost no financial support -- paying out of pocket to continue providing the service. Due to the issues imposed on us by advertisers, we also stopped hosting most ads on the forums many years ago. We hope you appreciate our efforts.

Show your support by donating any amount. (Note: We are still technically a for-profit company, so your contribution is not tax-deductible.) PayPal Acct: Feedback:

Donate to VoyForums (PayPal):

[ Login ] [ Main index ] [ Post a new message ] [ Search | Check update time | Archives: 1, 2, [3], 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 ]

[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]

Date Posted: 18:52:15 11/11/11 Fri
Author: john
Subject: Re: About Anger -- The Answer
In reply to: George 's message, "Re: About Anger -- The Answer" on 17:57:27 11/11/11 Fri

explanations have been given and lois continues... this shows the marks of one who is attempting to stir up contention... it is a good thing i am around this board to let "lurkers" know about the wolves...

john

>>and no matter how many times things are explained to
>>you Lois you still bring up the same things over and
>>over and over and over and over and over again...
>>
>>are you trying to be deceptive?
>>
>>john
>
>John, for the record, I personally do not see that any
>of this stuff has ever been answered. I'm still trying
>to find out why Wallace B. Smith invited a diehard
>communist terrorist to speak at the Kirtland Temple.
>And that was twenty-five years ago.
>
>I've never gotten any answer as to where the First
>Presidency got its authority to perform (or authorize
>the performance of) shacking up ceremonies for same
>and opposite sex couples.
>
>I ask why congregations that violated standing church
>rules on female ordination were shut down but not
>congregations that violated standing church rules
>against homosexual ordination, and I get no answer.
>Not even double-talk.
>
>Has Lois actually been given an explanation, or just
>offered the Kool-ade?
>
>George.

[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]

Replies:

Re: About Anger -- The Answer -- George, 19:56:33 11/11/11 Fri
- Re: About Anger -- The Answer -- john, 14:22:00 11/12/11 Sat