Mormon Church has $100 BILLION

[Watchmen]

Not only have you been unable to substantiate your claim that it is immoral for the Church to ask for tithes or that the Church can set it's own standards for who can enter the Temple - but you run away from all questions and sources that destroy your arguments.

How can you live with the shame?

Being a full tithe payer is required to enter the temple to receive the endowment and sealing ordinances.

These ordinances are necessary for exaltation.

The Mormon Church is a $100 BILLION organization.

The Mormon Church withholds the blessings of the temple if the member does not pay 10% of their income while emphasizing week in and week out the importance and necessity of going to the temple.

This is extortion.

Extortion is immoral.

I only speak the truth. Zero shame.

 

[JesusKnowsYou]

Being a full tithe payer is required to enter the temple to receive the endowment and sealing ordinances.

These ordinances are necessary for exaltation.

The Mormon Church is a $100 BILLION organization.

The Mormon Church withholds the blessings of the temple if the member does not pay 10% of their income while emphasizing week in and week out the importance and necessity of going to the temple.

This is extortion.

Extortion is immoral.

I only speak the truth. Zero shame.

Untrue things don't become true by repeating them over and over.

Why won't you answer the questions I have posed to you?

Is the Church "extorting" men by encouraging them to pay their child support before they can enter the Temple?

Would you consider the commandment to pay tithes to be immoral if the Church were penniless?

These are simple questions that you refuse to answer - because you know they will expose you.

You don't honestly believe that the Church is extorting anyone.

You just don't like the Church and you want to attempt to hurt it in any way you can.

It's a sad fulfillment of prophecy.

Doctrine and Covenants 137 teaches that God's children can become exalted without baptism, the paying of tithes or entrance into the Temple.

No member of the Church is forced to pay tithes.

No member of the Church is threatened in any way in an attempt to get them to pay tithes.

No force and no threat means no extortion.

The paying of tithes has existed since ancient days and God has always taught that keeping His commandments results in the reception of blessings.

You don't have to like the reality you are faced with - but don't lie about it.

It makes you look pathetic.

 

[Watchmen]

Untrue things don't become true by repeating them over and over.

Why won't you answer the questions I have posed to you?

Is the Church "extorting" men by encouraging them to pay their child support before they can enter the Temple?

Would you consider the commandment to pay tithes to be immoral if the Church were penniless?

These are simple questions that you refuse to answer - because you know they will expose you.

You don't honestly believe that the Church is extorting anyone.

You just don't like the Church and you want to attempt to hurt it in any way you can.

It's a sad fulfillment of prophecy.

Doctrine and Covenants 137 teaches that God's children can become exalted without baptism, the paying of tithes or entrance into the Temple.

No member of the Church is forced to pay tithes.

No member of the Church is threatened in any way in an attempt to get them to pay tithes.

No force and no threat means no extortion.

The paying of tithes has existed since ancient days and God has always taught that keeping His commandments results in the reception of blessings.

You don't have to like the reality you are faced with - but don't lie about it.

It makes you look pathetic.

Your questions are irrelevant, as are your personal attacks (so unbecoming and a bad example of your faith).

Mormons are repeatedly told they must be worthy and go to the temple. To do so, Mormons must be full tithe payers. See question 10 of temple recommend question list. So emphasizing the temple and blessings then saying you must pay is extortion where the one demanding payment is a $100 BILLION organization. The force and threat is in the preaching of blessings and eternal salvation and the withholding of same should the member not pay.

By the way, I call it as I see it. I’ve seen many unsupported attacks against the church here and will defend the church when the attacker is wrong. Ask Katzpur. Just because I call out the church on this issue doesn’t mean I’m wrong or that I’m trying to hurt the church any way I can. To the contrary, I think your demeanor here has been far more damaging to the church.

 

[JesusKnowsYou]

Your questions are irrelevant, as are your personal attacks (so unbecoming and a bad example of your faith).

I will get into if my questions are irrelevant or not later in this post.

However - I think you and I disagree on what is considered a “personal attack”.

I consider a “personal attack” to be “making an abusive remark instead of providing evidence when examining another person's claims or comments.”

It is basically synonymous with an ad hominem which is “a response to a person’s argument by attacking the person’s character rather than the logic or content of the argument.”

So - yes - I did say that you lying about the paying of tithes and extortion makes you look pathetic - but I did so after directly responding to the claims of your argument.

It’s basically the same formula used by the Lord Jesus Christ in the New Testament. He often referred to his opponents as “hypocrites”, “liars” or even “vipers” after explaining why they were wrong.

It’s the opposite of what you have been doing.

In Post #144 when you said, “You’re so blind it’s sad really.”

You said this in response to my claims about the Church not having any homophobic policies or practices.

You responded to my argument by attacking me instead of “providing evidence when examining my claims or comments”.

You attacked me rather than “the logic or content of my argument.”

You did the same thing in Post #153 when you said, “Because your questions are irrelevant to the point I made. You’re just trying to distract and pivot. Classic Mormon technique.”

You said this in response to my asking you, “Why won't you answer my questions?”

Not only did you never explain why my questions were irrelevant - but you attacked me - then you made a disparaging comment about all Mormons in general.

Now that is a “personal attack” or ad hominem - because you attacked me and "Mormons" - and not the claims of my argument.

I am mentioning this to prove your hypocrisy.

Now - before you start claiming that this is another “personal attack” - remember that I examined the claims of your argument before labeling you a hypocrite.

Basically - it’s not a “personal attack” - but me “calling it as I see it” - as you would put it - after attacking your argument.

Mormons are repeatedly told they must be worthy and go to the temple.

This is true - but not just “Mormons” (we prefer to be called Latter-day Saints) are told this - but this is stressed even to those who are investigating the Church.

As a missionary I taught all those who were considering joining the Church (and everyone else who would listen) about God’s commandment to pay tithes and the importance of Temple service.

We practiced imagining those we taught wearing white three times. At their baptism, in the Temple and then in the Celestial Kingdom.

Basically - everyone who joins the Church knows ahead of time about the paying of tithes and the Temple. No force. No threats. No deception.

To do so, Mormons must be full tithe payers.

Correct.

The Church believes that the Lord has set standards for the reception of ordinances.

There are standards for being baptized - taking the Sacrament - entering the Temple - performing Endowments in the Temple - being sealed in the Temple.

The more promised blessings the more stringent the standards.

See question 10 of temple recommend question list.

I was the one who provided the list of Temple Recommend Interview questions to you.

I am well aware that a member needs to be a full and honest tithe payer in order to perform Endowments.

I have always stated that fact.

However - a member does not need to be a full and honest tithe payer in order to enter the Temple - as you have erroneously claimed several times in this thread.

So emphasizing the temple and blessings then saying you must pay is extortion where the one demanding payment is a $100 BILLION organization.

This is where my earlier questions are proven to be completely relevant.

You keep claiming that God’s commandment that members of His Church pay tithes is “extortion” because the Church has $100 billion.

Which leads to the relevance of my earlier question, “Would you consider the Lord’s requirement that His Church’s members pay tithes “extortion” if the Church were penniless?”

This question is completely relevant because you keep referencing the $100 billion as if that is the reason that you consider tithing “extortion”.

This also ties into my other question, “Would you consider the Church requiring that men pay their child support before being able to have their Endowments taken out in the Temple to also be “extortion””?

In case you are wondering that is in reference to Temple Recommend Interview question #12.

Doesn’t the Church requiring its members to pay child support or other financial responsibilities to a former spouse just another form of the Church “extorting” people to you?

If so - why haven’t you been bringing up this interview question over and over like the tithing one?

I mean - the Church is asking its members to pay money before they can have their Endowments taken out - isn’t that essentially the same as the argument you have been peddling?

There is no threat or force - so it isn’t “extortion” - but it parallels your argument - doesn’t it?

The force and threat is in the preaching of blessings and eternal salvation and the withholding of same should the member not pay.

First off - salvation is a free gift from the Lord Jesus Christ. No one goes to the Temple to receive salvation.

You seem to be coming from a place of ignorance about Church doctrine.

Also - there is no “force” or “threat”. No one has a “right” to blessings - so nothing is “withheld”.

There are Baptismal Interview questions too. If the interviewer has misgivings about your answers to those questions - you cannot be baptized.

The Bishop can claim that a member is unworthy to partake of the Sacrament if the member committed certain sins.

No one is “entitled” to baptism or partaking of the Sacrament. Therefore - not allowing someone to do either is not “withholding” anything from them.

The same goes for entrance into the Temple and performing Temple ordinances.

If someone answers all the Temple Recommend Interview questions appropriately - instead of the one about tithing - they won’t be able to attend Endowment services.

If another person claims to pay 100% of their increase in tithing - yet fail to appropriately answer the other 14 Temple Recommend Interview questions - they also would not be allowed to attend Endowment services.

So - it's obviously not about the money - but keeping the commandments of God.

God saying that He wants His children to do more - give more - in order to receive more is not extortion.

By the way, I call it as I see it.

Me too.

I’ve seen many unsupported attacks against the church here and will defend the church when the attacker is wrong.

Then I would say that you require some self-reflection.

Because you are lobbing unsupported attacks against the Church.

Just because I call out the church on this issue doesn’t mean I’m wrong or that I’m trying to hurt the church any way I can.

It does if you do so while lying about the doctrines of the Church and running away from relevant questions.

To the contrary, I think your demeanor here has been far more damaging to the church.

Nothing either you or I say here does any damage to the Church.

However - your lying about the doctrines of the Church, making disparaging generalizations about “Mormons” and your hypocrisy in general are damaging you - no one else.

I stand by everything I have said here because I can support them with facts.

 

[Watchmen]

I will get into if my questions are irrelevant or not later in this post.

However - I think you and I disagree on what is considered a “personal attack”.

I consider a “personal attack” to be “making an abusive remark instead of providing evidence when examining another person's claims or comments.”

It is basically synonymous with an ad hominem which is “a response to a person’s argument by attacking the person’s character rather than the logic or content of the argument.”

So - yes - I did say that you lying about the paying of tithes and extortion makes you look pathetic - but I did so after directly responding to the claims of your argument.

It’s basically the same formula used by the Lord Jesus Christ in the New Testament. He often referred to his opponents as “hypocrites”, “liars” or even “vipers” after explaining why they were wrong.

It’s the opposite of what you have been doing.

In Post #144 when you said, “You’re so blind it’s sad really.”

You said this in response to my claims about the Church not having any homophobic policies or practices.

You responded to my argument by attacking me instead of “providing evidence when examining my claims or comments”.

You attacked me rather than “the logic or content of my argument.”

You did the same thing in Post #153 when you said, “Because your questions are irrelevant to the point I made. You’re just trying to distract and pivot. Classic Mormon technique.”

You said this in response to my asking you, “Why won't you answer my questions?”

Not only did you never explain why my questions were irrelevant - but you attacked me - then you made a disparaging comment about all Mormons in general.

Now that is a “personal attack” or ad hominem - because you attacked me and "Mormons" - and not the claims of my argument.

I am mentioning this to prove your hypocrisy.

Now - before you start claiming that this is another “personal attack” - remember that I examined the claims of your argument before labeling you a hypocrite.

Basically - it’s not a “personal attack” - but me “calling it as I see it” - as you would put it - after attacking your argument.

This is true - but not just “Mormons” (we prefer to be called Latter-day Saints) are told this - but this is stressed even to those who are investigating the Church.

As a missionary I taught all those who were considering joining the Church (and everyone else who would listen) about God’s commandment to pay tithes and the importance of Temple service.

We practiced imagining those we taught wearing white three times. At their baptism, in the Temple and then in the Celestial Kingdom.

Basically - everyone who joins the Church knows ahead of time about the paying of tithes and the Temple. No force. No threats. No deception.

Correct.

The Church believes that the Lord has set standards for the reception of ordinances.

There are standards for being baptized - taking the Sacrament - entering the Temple - performing Endowments in the Temple - being sealed in the Temple.

The more promised blessings the more stringent the standards.

I was the one who provided the list of Temple Recommend Interview questions to you.

I am well aware that a member needs to be a full and honest tithe payer in order to perform Endowments.

I have always stated that fact.

However - a member does not need to be a full and honest tithe payer in order to enter the Temple - as you have erroneously claimed several times in this thread.

This is where my earlier questions are proven to be completely relevant.

You keep claiming that God’s commandment that members of His Church pay tithes is “extortion” because the Church has $100 billion.

Which leads to the relevance of my earlier question, “Would you consider the Lord’s requirement that His Church’s members pay tithes “extortion” if the Church were penniless?”

This question is completely relevant because you keep referencing the $100 billion as if that is the reason that you consider tithing “extortion”.

This also ties into my other question, “Would you consider the Church requiring that men pay their child support before being able to have their Endowments taken out in the Temple to also be “extortion””?

In case you are wondering that is in reference to Temple Recommend Interview question #12.

Doesn’t the Church requiring its members to pay child support or other financial responsibilities to a former spouse just another form of the Church “extorting” people to you?

If so - why haven’t you been bringing up this interview question over and over like the tithing one?

I mean - the Church is asking its members to pay money before they can have their Endowments taken out - isn’t that essentially the same as the argument you have been peddling?

There is no threat or force - so it isn’t “extortion” - but it parallels your argument - doesn’t it?

First off - salvation is a free gift from the Lord Jesus Christ. No one goes to the Temple to receive salvation.

You seem to be coming from a place of ignorance about Church doctrine.

Also - there is no “force” or “threat”. No one has a “right” to blessings - so nothing is “withheld”.

There are Baptismal Interview questions too. If the interviewer has misgivings about your answers to those questions - you cannot be baptized.

The Bishop can claim that a member is unworthy to partake of the Sacrament if the member committed certain sins.

No one is “entitled” to baptism or partaking of the Sacrament. Therefore - not allowing someone to do either is not “withholding” anything from them.

The same goes for entrance into the Temple and performing Temple ordinances.

If someone answers all the Temple Recommend Interview questions appropriately - instead of the one about tithing - they won’t be able to attend Endowment services.

If another person claims to pay 100% of their increase in tithing - yet fail to appropriately answer the other 14 Temple Recommend Interview questions - they also would not be allowed to attend Endowment services.

So - it's obviously not about the money - but keeping the commandments of God.

God saying that He wants His children to do more - give more - in order to receive more is not extortion.

Me too.

Then I would say that you require some self-reflection.

Because you are lobbing unsupported attacks against the Church.

It does if you do so while lying about the doctrines of the Church and running away from relevant questions.

Nothing either you or I say here does any damage to the Church.

However - your lying about the doctrines of the Church, making disparaging generalizations about “Mormons” and your hypocrisy in general are damaging you - no one else.

I stand by everything I have said here because I can support them with facts.

I don’t read text walls. A $100 BILLION organization threatening people’s eternal exaltation if they don’t pay is immoral. It’s as simple as that. I don’t need to rant and rave and do a lengthy text wall to prove my point. It’s immoral on its face.

 

[JesusKnowsYou]

I don’t read text walls.

Are you sure?

Cause you changed "eternal salvation" to "eternal exaltation" - which is something I corrected you on about two-thirds into my post.

You totally read my post - but you have no justification for what you have been saying - so you try to sound "cool" by claiming that you didn't read it.

Calling it "eternal exaltation" is completely redundant by the way.

A child of God becomes eternal by gaining exaltation.

You'd know that if you weren't so ignorant of Latter-day Saint doctrine.

You so read my post. Poser.

A $100 BILLION organization threatening people’s eternal exaltation if they don’t pay is immoral. It’s as simple as that.

More ignorance about Latter-day Saint doctrine.

Doctrine and Covenants 137 contradicts this false doctrine you are peddling.

You also have yet to justify your claim that God commanding that His children to pay tithes is immoral.

The most you offer is, "It's immoral because I say so! or "Wealth is immoral because I say so!"

I don’t need to rant and rave and do a lengthy text wall to prove my point.

According to you - you don't need to do anything at all in order to prove your point.

That's about as much as you have done here.

Take as much or as little space as you want - you can't prove your point - because you're wrong by every metric.

It’s immoral on its face.

Wait - are you telling me that you're making the same claim for the millionth time without offering any justification for it all while running away from any and all questions?

I'm convinced! (Note sarcasm)

You're a joke.

 

[Watchmen]

Are you sure?

Cause you changed "eternal salvation" to "eternal exaltation" - which is something I corrected you on about two-thirds into my post.

You totally read my post - but you have no justification for what you have been saying - so you try to sound "cool" by claiming that you didn't read it.

Calling it "eternal exaltation" is completely redundant by the way.

A child of God becomes eternal by gaining exaltation.

You'd know that if you weren't so ignorant of Latter-day Saint doctrine.

You so read my post. Poser.

More ignorance about Latter-day Saint doctrine.

Doctrine and Covenants 137 contradicts this false doctrine you are peddling.

You also have yet to justify your claim that God commanding that His children to pay tithes is immoral.

The most you offer is, "It's immoral because I say so! or "Wealth is immoral because I say so!"

According to you - you don't need to do anything at all in order to prove your point.

That's about as much as you have done here.

Take as much or as little space as you want - you can't prove your point - because you're wrong by every metric.

Wait - are you telling me that you're making the same claim for the millionth time without offering any justification for it all while running away from any and all questions?

I'm convinced! (Note sarcasm)

You're a joke.

I’ve said exaltation many times. I mentioned the temple many times. Go back to your false scriptures.

 

[JesusKnowsYou]

I’ve said exaltation many times.

Yes - you did - but you don't seem to know what it is.

If you did - you wouldn't mistake sacrifice for extortion.

I mentioned the temple many times.

Yes - you did - but you don't seem to know what it is for.

You seem to believe that it is like any ol'meeting house.

Go back to your false scriptures.

You don't even know what our Standard Works teach.

There's no reason for you to be so ignorant.

Educate yourself.

 

[Watchmen]

Yes - you did - but you don't seem to know what it is.

If you did - you wouldn't mistake sacrifice for extortion.

Yes - you did - but you don't seem to know what it is for.

You seem to believe that it is like any ol'meeting house.

You don't even know what our Standard Works teach.

There's no reason for you to be so ignorant.

Educate yourself.

Maybe you missed my post earlier when I pointed out I had answered the temple recommend questions myself and had also given them. I know this stuff inside and out.

 

[JesusKnowsYou]

Maybe you missed my post earlier when I pointed out I had answered the temple recommend questions myself and had also given them. I know this stuff inside and out.

You say that - but your posts tell a different story.

 

[Watchmen]

You say that - but your posts tell a different story.

No. They tell the truth. You’re blinded by your faith and can’t see any differently.

 

[JesusKnowsYou]

No. They tell the truth. You’re blinded by your faith and can’t see any differently.

You can't claim that while refusing to answer questions or ignore relevant latter-day scripture.

My questions and the scripture I referenced disprove your claims.

All you have done here is employ "Hit and Run" coward tactics.

 

[2ndpillar]

Never, AFAICT, since the requirement for tithes is based on a religious commandment, not need for cash per se.

Religious commandment? Commandments don't originate with the false prophet Paul and his feeding of the ox. The covenant (commandment) given to Abraham was the covenant of circumcision, not of tithes. A covenant/commandment, which Paul apparently nailed to the cross. Abraham gave tithes to Melchizedek, the high priest, and not to the Mormon church. As for the Mosaic requirements/law, which "Christians" apparently distain, the tithes were to go to the Levites, the temple, feasts, widows, etc,, under which headings, the Mormon church does not fall. I think the "leadership" of the Mormon church might fall under the umbrella of the "shepherds of Israel" who "feed themselves" but do not "feed the flock" , nor "healed" them, but have "dominated" them (Ezek 34:1-4). The end result will be "I will feed them (shepherds) with judgment". (Ez 34:16) From my perspective, the self righteousness of many Mormons, having their sacred underwear as a covenant with God for their protection, is a bit cloying. They are not high priest nor are they Levites, who are to "keep My statutes" when "I send My messenger" who will "smelter" the "son the sons of Levi" so that the offering of Judah and Jerusalem will be pleasing to the LORD" (Malachi 3).

Under the Mosaic law, there appear to be three tithes: a regular tithe given to support the priests and the work of the temple; a “festival tithe” for the celebration of the required feasts (cf. Deut. 12:17–19); and a “charity tithe,” given every third year to the Levite, the sojourner, the fatherless, and the widow (Deut. 14:28–29).

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

Religious commandment? Commandments don't originate with the false prophet Paul and his feeding of the ox. The covenant (commandment) given to Abraham was the covenant of circumcision, not of tithes. A covenant/commandment, which Paul apparently nailed to the cross. Abraham gave tithes to Melchizedek, the high priest, and not to the Mormon church. As for the Mosaic requirements/law, which "Christians" apparently distain, the tithes were to go to the Levites, the temple, feasts, widows, etc,, under which headings, the Mormon church does not fall. I think the "leadership" of the Mormon church might fall under the umbrella of the "shepherds of Israel" who "feed themselves" but do not "feed the flock" , nor "healed" them, but have "dominated" them (Ezek 34:1-4). The end result will be "I will feed them (shepherds) with judgment". (Ez 34:16) From my perspective, the self righteousness of many Mormons, having their sacred underwear as a covenant with God for their protection, is a bit cloying. They are not high priest nor are they Levites, who are to "keep My statutes" when "I send My messenger" who will "smelter" the "son the sons of Levi" so that the offering of Judah and Jerusalem will be pleasing to the LORD" (Malachi 3).

Under the Mosaic law, there appear to be three tithes: a regular tithe given to support the priests and the work of the temple; a “festival tithe” for the celebration of the required feasts (cf. Deut. 12:17–19); and a “charity tithe,” given every third year to the Levite, the sojourner, the fatherless, and the widow (Deut. 14:28–29).

At the time the Latter day Saints were established
Tithes were statutory in most countries, and for most established churches. It would have been common to most Christians. it is still common, in abridged form, in many European countries.
It is certainly not unique to the LDS.

 

[2ndpillar]

No, but if a religion is ran like a business it should be taxed like one.

No, a religion should have no protection from taxes since it should have no special status under the constitution.

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..."

 

[2ndpillar]

At the time the Latter day Saints were established
Tithes were statutory in most countries, and for most established churches. It would have been common to most Christians. it is still common, in abridged form, in many European countries.
It is certainly not unique to the LDS.

At the time of the establishment of the "Latter day Saints", they were "established in the U.S., at a time before even the advent of federal taxes, which were prohibited by the constitution, and instead the government ran under import fees. As far as "European countries", they as well as the U.S. still follow blue laws, which were set in motion under the "beast with two horns like a lamb", Constantine, in 321 AD, in which he closed the shops on the day of his sun god (Sol Invictus), Sunday, so that would be their day of rest. I wouldn't suggest anyone follow that decree, and therefore bear the mark of the beast, yet the Mormons, and Latter day saints, apparently do. Those bearing the mark of the beast apparently do not escape the wrath of God (Rev 19:20-21), whether they are wearing sacred underwear or not. Although to be fair, white clothing might have a reflective affect on the wearer under the glow of a nuclear weapon (Zechariah 14:12), but it is doubtful if it would protect one's eyes.

As far as state churches, such as the Church of England, initiated so that the king of England could divorce his wife, well, they are state churches, and can do what ever they please. And as far as not being "unique", according to Matthew 7:14, it might be better to be among the few, and being among the unique.

As far as practices of other churches, the daughters of Babylon, well, the LDS were to set themselves apart, but apparently they didn't.

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

At the time of the establishment of the "Latter day Saints", they were "established in the U.S., at a time before even the advent of federal taxes, which were prohibited by the constitution, and instead the government ran under import fees. As far as "European countries", they as well as the U.S. still follow blue laws, which were set in motion under the "beast with two horns like a lamb", Constantine, in 321 AD, in which he closed the shops on the day of his sun god (Sol Invictus), Sunday, so that would be their day of rest. I wouldn't suggest anyone follow that decree, and therefore bear the mark of the beast, yet the Mormons, and Latter day saints, apparently do. Those bearing the mark of the beast apparently do not escape the wrath of God (Rev 19:20-21), whether they are wearing sacred underwear or not. Although to be fair, white clothing might have a reflective affect on the wearer under the glow of a nuclear weapon (Zechariah 14:12), but it is doubtful if it would protect one's eyes.

As far as state churches, such as the Church of England, initiated so that the king of England could divorce his wife, well, they are state churches, and can do what ever they please. And as far as not being "unique", according to Matthew 7:14, it might be better to be among the few, and being among the unique.

As far as practices of other churches, the daughters of Babylon, well, the LDS were to set themselves apart, but apparently they didn't.

Lets face it ... You don't like the LDS...
Your posts are biased against them. so are of little value. even as opinion.
Certainly not worth debating.

 

[Watchmen]

You can't claim that while refusing to answer questions or ignore relevant latter-day scripture.

My questions and the scripture I referenced disprove your claims.

All you have done here is employ "Hit and Run" coward tactics.

No. Your question and scripture referenced were irrelevant. My past callings:

Branch presidency.
Temple worker.
Young Men’s President.
Missionary.
Seminary teacher.

Again, I submit you are blinded by your faith. Don’t worry. You’re not the first. And you won’t be the last.

 

[JesusKnowsYou]

No. Your question and scripture referenced were irrelevant. My past callings:

Branch presidency.
Temple worker.
Young Men’s President.
Missionary.
Seminary teacher.

Again, I submit you are blinded by your faith. Don’t worry. You’re not the first. And you won’t be the last.

What is this? Some misguided appeal to authority?

You being any of these things in the past does not magically make my questions irrelevant nor does it make actual Latter-day Saint doctrine disappear.

You sharing this with me just makes you even more sad and pathetic.

As I said before - "Hit and Run" coward tactics - that's all you've got.

 

[Watchmen]

What is this? Some misguided appeal to authority?

You being any of these things in the past does not magically make my questions irrelevant nor does it make actual Latter-day Saint doctrine disappear.

You sharing this with me just makes you even more sad and pathetic.

As I said before - "Hit and Run" coward tactics - that's all you've got.

Nope. Shows I know what I’m talking about and that your assumptions about me were wrong.