@MormonFacts1 i read that the ppl responsible for this terrible crime were arrested , emcommunicated from the church. one man was killed for his crime.
some of the decendents of the children that servived are members of the church, it was individual mormons not the church that was responsible. it doesnt say anything about brigham young being involved and if it turns out hewas then he will have to answer to god for his actions.
@MormonFacts1 Was the Mormon Church responsible for the killings or did local Mormons act independently?
Evidence suggests that church president Brigham Young was not responsible or even aware of the Mountain Meadows Massacre before it happened. Assuming this is true, and there's no strong evidence to the contrary, one can safely say that responsibility for the massacre rests with local Mormons, not the church itself
What lead 'me' astray was saying to the Elders.. I'd like to know more because: you have a great sports facility and sporting activities, I like the organised dances, I really like the girls... i'd like to join. I was lead astray by the allurement of the social network. The doctrine?.. all Milk, for years milk, so we could preach milk. I watched as the membership built their Idols, that is themselves and their works...
@MormonFacts1 lol and that is why Mormonism is wrong, of course he sined he is a man every one who is a mortal does. to say he never sined is like saying he is perfect and there is only one person who is perfect...god. that is like blasphemy.
He talks as if he couldn't realize he was a sinner and needed the atonement when he was LDS. I hear that said many times a week in the LDS church.
The LDS church teaches over and over again our sinful nature and the need for Christ.
The fact that he felt like a hypocrite was his own fault. When he "came to know Jesus" he didn't do anything different than what the LDS church teaches about that need to have a personal relationship with the Lord.
Both an irrational position, take your pick. I've long had a suspicion that many so called 'atheists' are probably deep-rooted misotheists, and my agnostic friend independently expressed that to me. Of course that doesn't make it true, but it is curious.
How is atheism irrational exactly? The fact that it's scientifically rooted and that there is absolutely no evidence that a deity exists, therfore there's no reason to believe one exists?
I really love it when you atheists bring out the roots in 'science'. Tell me, what scientific 'fact' lead you to atheism? I am extremely curious what fact proved to you their is no god. Sounds to me like you are pulling the nonsense argument 'absence of evidence is evidence of absence'.
One cannot accept both evolutionary theory (a scientific fact of life) and the existence of a deity (an unprovable, unmeasurable conjecture).
You are just a bunch of chemical reactions, I'm afraid. There is nothing more to us than that. We don't have a soul, that's just the result of neurotransmitters in the brain. When these shut down, so does our so-called "soul."
There simply is no way earth is just 6,000 years old. The Bible is a load of crap, and has been debunked scientifically.
Every theologian that I know believes in both evolution and a deity, why are they so exclusive?
There are many books written by pH.D. neurologists about brain/soul relation, and unfortunately, it is not set in stone as you'd like to believe.
Not all theologians believe it is only 6,000 years old, but why do you think it isn't? According to Relativity, space/time can be warped i.e. by gravity etc. This isn't the Newtonian universe anymore, it's not so simple I am afraid.
I also noticed you are specifically targeting Christianity as if that is the only theistic tradition. Since you can supposedly debunk the Bible, why not Islam, Sikhism or some school of Buddhism (it's technically atheistic but some invoke a deity or sorts) or any other host of mono-poly-pantheistic belief?
And I am curious about the Bible being a load of crap and debunked, could you substantiate that?
You are speaking of Christianity, right? I can and have attacked Islam, Sikhism, Buddhism, etc. on similar grounds. There is no medical way someone can come back to life after being dead for three days. There is no chemical way water can transform into ethyl alcohol. There is no physical way to feed 5,000 people with 5 loaves of bread and two fish (unless they were just massive).
These are some of the examples of how science has disproven the Bible.
How has science 'disproven' the Bible? Those are claims of miracles NOT natural phenomena, if they were possible via natural phenomena it wouldn't be anything special for said miracles.
As far as the resurrection, it is more probable that it was in fact a supernatural event because it is impossible via natural phenomena. Explain how natural science can 'disprove' supernatural events (assuming they took place)?
Science has disproven the existence of supernatural occurrences. There have been numerous attempts to prove the existence of supernatural abilities/phenomena, all of which have FAILED.
Radioisotopic dating proves earth to be around 4.6 billion years old, not 6,000 years old.
C. Therefore science cannot probe supernatural occurrences.
Now tell me where science has 'disproven' a supernatural occurrence? All you have done is claimed people have tested SNP, which I just pointed out probing SNP with science is utter nonsense.
As I said time is relative, and there are built in assumptions to radiometric dating (as I hope you are well aware).
There is no evidence of supernatural occurrences, and as such, I have no reason to believe they exist. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence I'm afraid. All things are assumed false until proven true beyond a shadow of a doubt.
I am aware of the built in assumptions, however, after looking at the evidence that scientists used to develop these methods, these assumptions are indeed safe to make. The Bible is bullsh*t...
"All things are assumed false..." I assume you apply this to your knowledge claim that god doesn't exist? An agnostic would assume it's false, and atheist would say I know it's false (knowledge claim). If I am wrong explain how please.
Explain this so-called 'evidence of assumptions', because that makes absolutely no sense I am afraid. In order to say the Bible is bs, you better be ready to debunk all of it's supporting evidence.
Atheists, including Richard Dawkins and Christopher Htichens, do NOT absolutely claim the non-existence of a deity, but rather, the evidence is so strong against the existence that they don't believe. Just the same as you cannot say with 100% certainty there is a deity.
The Holey Babble was written by men, for men, for the control of women and the masses.
Exactly my point, so we'll call them agnostics not atheists. An atheist is simply a foolish stripe of agnosticism.
Also, what evidence against God? Of all the debates, lectures and discussions by Dawkins, Hitchens and every other atheist I've researched, I've never heard an argument against God.
Ongoing studies of so-called psychics. All of the major psychics (including John Edward, host of "Crossing Over") have been proven to be hoaxes. Supernatural occurrences? I think NOT.
There is nothing supernatural about psychics, they just claim to be spiritually attuned or a higher sense of brain wave activity. Just because most people don't have that awareness doesn't make it supernatural. Not that it is real anyway.
If you'd talk to a REAL scientist, I'm sure he'd explain radiometric dating and where we could get that the methods and assumptions are sound (i.e. not a creation scientist, they aren't real scientists and should have their degrees revoked).
On top of being absolutely impossible, the Bible and the Qur'an are the sickest, most vial books I've ever read in my life. Your "God" deserves no more love or affection than a porcupine. Your "God" does not deserve to be worshipped, real or fake.
Find me a REAL scientist that can tell me they know for certain the ratio of radioisotopes to daughter elements 4.5 billion years ago. Even if they could, they cannot unequivocally demonstrate that nothing has tampered wit the ratio. It's uniformitarianist nonsense really.
I am curious from where your vitriolic opposition to god comes?
You still have not shown me the 'scientific root' to atheism. Keep in mind, science and understanding is ever changing - truth does not. Search for truth.
Ask any REAL chemist or paleontologist to explain it to you. I'm a mathematical biologist, so I'm not very well versed on how radiometric dating works.
My opposition to the Judeo-Christian "God" comes from reading the Bible which is riddled with misogyny, homophobia, and racism/elitism. It's also filled with hate. It demands the death penalty for blasphemers, homosexuals, adulterers, disobedient children, etc. It demands a male's genitals be mutilated at 8 days old. You see where I'm going?
Circumcision: has NO benefits, diminishes sexual pleasure, and also diminishes the pleasure for the woman on the receiving end. Learn the facts, not the BS American doctors tout.
Misogyny: women are to be secluded during their period, women are to be in complete submission to their husbands, women are not to hold leadership positions in church.
Homophobia: homosexuals are to be stoned to death. Also no matter how good of a person you are, a homosexual can never go to heaven.
Anyway, I didn't ask for a description of the terms, I know what they mean, I asked where God supports them.
Your comment about homosexuality is complete hogwash, propagated by people who cannot read and the idiot extremist Christians (who don't know their own Bible)
NO sinner can go to Heaven, not just homosexuals or liars or adulterers, accept by the redemption of Christ.
Well, perhaps studies done in the UK (that show no medical indication for it) don't hold water here? 80% of the world's men are uncircumcised, and they have no more penis problems than the 80% circumcised US. Also, I know there's a difference as I've restored my own foreskin...and my sensation is a lot higher than when I did not have one.
I was giving examples from the Bible as to how those are used, not describing the terms.
You made some sweeping statements with nothing backing them up. If you could document them, then we'd have something to talk about.
I find it interesting you believe US scientist when it comes to things you want to believe and not when they say things you don't want to believe.
Saying you cannot believe in both evolution and creation is dishonest. Some of the most brilliant theologians do, and they are more intelligent and educated that me, and I would suppose you too (no offense I assure you)
Watch the video "Top 10 Reasons The Bible Is Repulsive" for more information on the statements I made (giving clear examples of each one).
US scientists/doctors even, have deemed circumcision medically unnecessary. Apparently you're behind the times. The AAP has said "the potential benefits (note, not absolute benefits meaning they aren't proven) are not significant enough to recommend routine circumcision." It's a social custom more than anything, thus it's no different than cutting females...
Theologians believing in evolution contradict their beloved book in every way, shape, form. Evolution/big bang theory states that stars came before light. The Holey Babble says the opposite (hmmm....the Babble obviously doesn't know how light is formed). The Holey Babble also says we came from dust, rather than a progressive evolutionary line. Again, direct contradiction with evolution. So to believe in both of them is what's dishonest.
Evolution has absolutely NOTHING to do with the big bang or stars forming. And you mean to tell me that the big bang itself didn't create light? All that energy yet no emission of any light whatsoever?
You can't believe in both the big bang AND the Bible. That's another contradiction right there.
Wow. It's amazing how much Christians are willing to compromise to make themselves look more believable. Why don't you have it out with some Fundies and have them set you straight?
I didn't represent that as my believe in any way. You made the comment that science says light came after stars were born, whereas I submit there was light before the stars, and you didn't disagree.
Also your comment about us coming from dust being inconsistent with evolution is also a confusion of the terms. Evolution deals not with how live arose, but how it changes. You are smearing abiogenesis with evolution and calling it the same.
Racism/Elitism: God told the Jews to overthrow every inferior race they ran into and take their land for themselves. Hmmm...interesting.
I object because a normal, rational person realizes these things for what they are: simply, utterly repulsive. One cannot believe in both evolution and creation, and as only one is measurable, I tend to lean toward the former. Evolution and "God" don't mix, so I reject the latter as it's faith based, not evidence-based.
Creation and evolution are in no way mutually exclusive, as I have said before. One can say evolution is a product of God or evolution is a product of abiogenesis. So which conjectural claim do you adhere to?
I am curious where God told the Jews to do what you claimed above.
I'd also like to point out that your objection is a moral objection not a science based objection, which was one of my points earlier. Nothing wrong with that, but my point was, you are an atheist for moral reasons not scientific ones.
You have a lot of guts. You put your butt on Front Street there. I respect that; I think a lot of other people do also.
Who doesn't sin? ...Only my opinion but the concept of being in touch w/ your heart to the point of knowing that you are not getting "that change" in your guts is what many people call honesty.....Personally, I have a lot of respect for an honest man.
This (LDS discussion) is very interesting from an "outsider's" perspective.
@MormonFacts1 i read that the ppl responsible for this terrible crime were arrested , emcommunicated from the church. one man was killed for his crime.
some of the decendents of the children that servived are members of the church, it was individual mormons not the church that was responsible. it doesnt say anything about brigham young being involved and if it turns out hewas then he will have to answer to god for his actions.
latterdaysaint4rever 2 months ago
@MormonFacts1 Was the Mormon Church responsible for the killings or did local Mormons act independently?
Evidence suggests that church president Brigham Young was not responsible or even aware of the Mountain Meadows Massacre before it happened. Assuming this is true, and there's no strong evidence to the contrary, one can safely say that responsibility for the massacre rests with local Mormons, not the church itself
latterdaysaint4rever 2 months ago
@MormonFacts1 when did this happen?
latterdaysaint4rever 2 months ago
@MormonFacts1 and why was brigham young so bad?
latterdaysaint4rever 2 months ago
@MormonFacts1
Nice... slammed... I'm sure you take issue with it...
Sk8er408 6 months ago
What lead 'me' astray was saying to the Elders.. I'd like to know more because: you have a great sports facility and sporting activities, I like the organised dances, I really like the girls... i'd like to join. I was lead astray by the allurement of the social network. The doctrine?.. all Milk, for years milk, so we could preach milk. I watched as the membership built their Idols, that is themselves and their works...
54v115 8 months ago
@MormonFacts1 that is correct. HE just fucked with religious fervor 33+ wives
QuantumProphet 9 months ago
@MormonFacts1 haha I see cool man! always good to see people who have seen the light!
XXXPharcydeXXX 9 months ago
@MormonFacts1 lol and that is why Mormonism is wrong, of course he sined he is a man every one who is a mortal does. to say he never sined is like saying he is perfect and there is only one person who is perfect...god. that is like blasphemy.
XXXPharcydeXXX 9 months ago
isn't every one a sinner though?
XXXPharcydeXXX 9 months ago
He talks as if he couldn't realize he was a sinner and needed the atonement when he was LDS. I hear that said many times a week in the LDS church.
The LDS church teaches over and over again our sinful nature and the need for Christ.
The fact that he felt like a hypocrite was his own fault. When he "came to know Jesus" he didn't do anything different than what the LDS church teaches about that need to have a personal relationship with the Lord.
Snake in the grass, this guy is.
HomesliceDrummer 2 years ago
I won't call "astray." I'd just say trading one delusion for another.
bagpiper2005 3 years ago
But of course you are not delusional in any sense.
MiracleOfRealism 2 years ago
You're right. I'm not. I'm an atheist :-D
bagpiper2005 2 years ago
I deduced that, perhaps to hastily.
MiracleOfRealism 2 years ago
Which, of course, makes me not delusional. But if I wasn't an atheist, I'd probably be a misotheist, so take your pick.
bagpiper2005 2 years ago
Both an irrational position, take your pick. I've long had a suspicion that many so called 'atheists' are probably deep-rooted misotheists, and my agnostic friend independently expressed that to me. Of course that doesn't make it true, but it is curious.
MiracleOfRealism 2 years ago
How is atheism irrational exactly? The fact that it's scientifically rooted and that there is absolutely no evidence that a deity exists, therfore there's no reason to believe one exists?
Wow, that sounds perfectly rational to me.
bagpiper2005 2 years ago
I really love it when you atheists bring out the roots in 'science'. Tell me, what scientific 'fact' lead you to atheism? I am extremely curious what fact proved to you their is no god. Sounds to me like you are pulling the nonsense argument 'absence of evidence is evidence of absence'.
MiracleOfRealism 2 years ago
One cannot accept both evolutionary theory (a scientific fact of life) and the existence of a deity (an unprovable, unmeasurable conjecture).
You are just a bunch of chemical reactions, I'm afraid. There is nothing more to us than that. We don't have a soul, that's just the result of neurotransmitters in the brain. When these shut down, so does our so-called "soul."
There simply is no way earth is just 6,000 years old. The Bible is a load of crap, and has been debunked scientifically.
bagpiper2005 2 years ago
Every theologian that I know believes in both evolution and a deity, why are they so exclusive?
There are many books written by pH.D. neurologists about brain/soul relation, and unfortunately, it is not set in stone as you'd like to believe.
Not all theologians believe it is only 6,000 years old, but why do you think it isn't? According to Relativity, space/time can be warped i.e. by gravity etc. This isn't the Newtonian universe anymore, it's not so simple I am afraid.
MiracleOfRealism 2 years ago
I also noticed you are specifically targeting Christianity as if that is the only theistic tradition. Since you can supposedly debunk the Bible, why not Islam, Sikhism or some school of Buddhism (it's technically atheistic but some invoke a deity or sorts) or any other host of mono-poly-pantheistic belief?
And I am curious about the Bible being a load of crap and debunked, could you substantiate that?
MiracleOfRealism 2 years ago
You are speaking of Christianity, right? I can and have attacked Islam, Sikhism, Buddhism, etc. on similar grounds. There is no medical way someone can come back to life after being dead for three days. There is no chemical way water can transform into ethyl alcohol. There is no physical way to feed 5,000 people with 5 loaves of bread and two fish (unless they were just massive).
These are some of the examples of how science has disproven the Bible.
bagpiper2005 2 years ago
How has science 'disproven' the Bible? Those are claims of miracles NOT natural phenomena, if they were possible via natural phenomena it wouldn't be anything special for said miracles.
As far as the resurrection, it is more probable that it was in fact a supernatural event because it is impossible via natural phenomena. Explain how natural science can 'disprove' supernatural events (assuming they took place)?
MiracleOfRealism 2 years ago
Science has disproven the existence of supernatural occurrences. There have been numerous attempts to prove the existence of supernatural abilities/phenomena, all of which have FAILED.
Radioisotopic dating proves earth to be around 4.6 billion years old, not 6,000 years old.
bagpiper2005 2 years ago
Simple logic here.
A. Science can only probe the natural world
B. Supernatural phenomena (SNP) are not natural
C. Therefore science cannot probe supernatural occurrences.
Now tell me where science has 'disproven' a supernatural occurrence? All you have done is claimed people have tested SNP, which I just pointed out probing SNP with science is utter nonsense.
As I said time is relative, and there are built in assumptions to radiometric dating (as I hope you are well aware).
MiracleOfRealism 2 years ago
There is no evidence of supernatural occurrences, and as such, I have no reason to believe they exist. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence I'm afraid. All things are assumed false until proven true beyond a shadow of a doubt.
I am aware of the built in assumptions, however, after looking at the evidence that scientists used to develop these methods, these assumptions are indeed safe to make. The Bible is bullsh*t...
bagpiper2005 2 years ago
"All things are assumed false..." I assume you apply this to your knowledge claim that god doesn't exist? An agnostic would assume it's false, and atheist would say I know it's false (knowledge claim). If I am wrong explain how please.
Explain this so-called 'evidence of assumptions', because that makes absolutely no sense I am afraid. In order to say the Bible is bs, you better be ready to debunk all of it's supporting evidence.
MiracleOfRealism 2 years ago
Atheists, including Richard Dawkins and Christopher Htichens, do NOT absolutely claim the non-existence of a deity, but rather, the evidence is so strong against the existence that they don't believe. Just the same as you cannot say with 100% certainty there is a deity.
The Holey Babble was written by men, for men, for the control of women and the masses.
bagpiper2005 2 years ago
Exactly my point, so we'll call them agnostics not atheists. An atheist is simply a foolish stripe of agnosticism.
Also, what evidence against God? Of all the debates, lectures and discussions by Dawkins, Hitchens and every other atheist I've researched, I've never heard an argument against God.
MiracleOfRealism 2 years ago
Example:
Ongoing studies of so-called psychics. All of the major psychics (including John Edward, host of "Crossing Over") have been proven to be hoaxes. Supernatural occurrences? I think NOT.
bagpiper2005 2 years ago
There is nothing supernatural about psychics, they just claim to be spiritually attuned or a higher sense of brain wave activity. Just because most people don't have that awareness doesn't make it supernatural. Not that it is real anyway.
MiracleOfRealism 2 years ago
If you'd talk to a REAL scientist, I'm sure he'd explain radiometric dating and where we could get that the methods and assumptions are sound (i.e. not a creation scientist, they aren't real scientists and should have their degrees revoked).
On top of being absolutely impossible, the Bible and the Qur'an are the sickest, most vial books I've ever read in my life. Your "God" deserves no more love or affection than a porcupine. Your "God" does not deserve to be worshipped, real or fake.
bagpiper2005 2 years ago
Find me a REAL scientist that can tell me they know for certain the ratio of radioisotopes to daughter elements 4.5 billion years ago. Even if they could, they cannot unequivocally demonstrate that nothing has tampered wit the ratio. It's uniformitarianist nonsense really.
I am curious from where your vitriolic opposition to god comes?
You still have not shown me the 'scientific root' to atheism. Keep in mind, science and understanding is ever changing - truth does not. Search for truth.
MiracleOfRealism 2 years ago
Ask any REAL chemist or paleontologist to explain it to you. I'm a mathematical biologist, so I'm not very well versed on how radiometric dating works.
My opposition to the Judeo-Christian "God" comes from reading the Bible which is riddled with misogyny, homophobia, and racism/elitism. It's also filled with hate. It demands the death penalty for blasphemers, homosexuals, adulterers, disobedient children, etc. It demands a male's genitals be mutilated at 8 days old. You see where I'm going?
bagpiper2005 2 years ago
I asked you if you knew the assumptions,
What misogyny, homophobia and racism/elitism?
You must be thinking of the laws of Abraham - which were replaced by Gods laws.
Circumcision has benefits as well as discouraging incest for genetic reasons which I assume you are well aware.
Now you tell me, what moral basis do you rely on to object to these things?
MiracleOfRealism 2 years ago
Circumcision: has NO benefits, diminishes sexual pleasure, and also diminishes the pleasure for the woman on the receiving end. Learn the facts, not the BS American doctors tout.
Misogyny: women are to be secluded during their period, women are to be in complete submission to their husbands, women are not to hold leadership positions in church.
Homophobia: homosexuals are to be stoned to death. Also no matter how good of a person you are, a homosexual can never go to heaven.
bagpiper2005 2 years ago
So how do you sort 'bs' from 'fact'?
Anyway, I didn't ask for a description of the terms, I know what they mean, I asked where God supports them.
Your comment about homosexuality is complete hogwash, propagated by people who cannot read and the idiot extremist Christians (who don't know their own Bible)
NO sinner can go to Heaven, not just homosexuals or liars or adulterers, accept by the redemption of Christ.
MiracleOfRealism 2 years ago
Well, perhaps studies done in the UK (that show no medical indication for it) don't hold water here? 80% of the world's men are uncircumcised, and they have no more penis problems than the 80% circumcised US. Also, I know there's a difference as I've restored my own foreskin...and my sensation is a lot higher than when I did not have one.
I was giving examples from the Bible as to how those are used, not describing the terms.
bagpiper2005 2 years ago
You made some sweeping statements with nothing backing them up. If you could document them, then we'd have something to talk about.
I find it interesting you believe US scientist when it comes to things you want to believe and not when they say things you don't want to believe.
Saying you cannot believe in both evolution and creation is dishonest. Some of the most brilliant theologians do, and they are more intelligent and educated that me, and I would suppose you too (no offense I assure you)
MiracleOfRealism 2 years ago
Watch the video "Top 10 Reasons The Bible Is Repulsive" for more information on the statements I made (giving clear examples of each one).
US scientists/doctors even, have deemed circumcision medically unnecessary. Apparently you're behind the times. The AAP has said "the potential benefits (note, not absolute benefits meaning they aren't proven) are not significant enough to recommend routine circumcision." It's a social custom more than anything, thus it's no different than cutting females...
bagpiper2005 2 years ago
Theologians believing in evolution contradict their beloved book in every way, shape, form. Evolution/big bang theory states that stars came before light. The Holey Babble says the opposite (hmmm....the Babble obviously doesn't know how light is formed). The Holey Babble also says we came from dust, rather than a progressive evolutionary line. Again, direct contradiction with evolution. So to believe in both of them is what's dishonest.
bagpiper2005 2 years ago
Evolution has absolutely NOTHING to do with the big bang or stars forming. And you mean to tell me that the big bang itself didn't create light? All that energy yet no emission of any light whatsoever?
MiracleOfRealism 2 years ago
You can't believe in both the big bang AND the Bible. That's another contradiction right there.
Wow. It's amazing how much Christians are willing to compromise to make themselves look more believable. Why don't you have it out with some Fundies and have them set you straight?
bagpiper2005 2 years ago
I didn't represent that as my believe in any way. You made the comment that science says light came after stars were born, whereas I submit there was light before the stars, and you didn't disagree.
Also your comment about us coming from dust being inconsistent with evolution is also a confusion of the terms. Evolution deals not with how live arose, but how it changes. You are smearing abiogenesis with evolution and calling it the same.
MiracleOfRealism 2 years ago
Racism/Elitism: God told the Jews to overthrow every inferior race they ran into and take their land for themselves. Hmmm...interesting.
I object because a normal, rational person realizes these things for what they are: simply, utterly repulsive. One cannot believe in both evolution and creation, and as only one is measurable, I tend to lean toward the former. Evolution and "God" don't mix, so I reject the latter as it's faith based, not evidence-based.
bagpiper2005 2 years ago
Creation and evolution are in no way mutually exclusive, as I have said before. One can say evolution is a product of God or evolution is a product of abiogenesis. So which conjectural claim do you adhere to?
I am curious where God told the Jews to do what you claimed above.
MiracleOfRealism 2 years ago
I'd also like to point out that your objection is a moral objection not a science based objection, which was one of my points earlier. Nothing wrong with that, but my point was, you are an atheist for moral reasons not scientific ones.
MiracleOfRealism 2 years ago
And you didn't comment about my time example, if you could please.
MiracleOfRealism 2 years ago
testskriftene:
You have a lot of guts. You put your butt on Front Street there. I respect that; I think a lot of other people do also.
Who doesn't sin? ...Only my opinion but the concept of being in touch w/ your heart to the point of knowing that you are not getting "that change" in your guts is what many people call honesty.....Personally, I have a lot of respect for an honest man.
This (LDS discussion) is very interesting from an "outsider's" perspective.
afrircans1970 3 years ago
"I was a sinner and thought and in deed"
hence the EXCOMMUNICATION!
omiolo 3 years ago
yes, after his own will, as you know - because he realised that he was a sinner
testskriftene 3 years ago