Are Mormons Christians?

petros
#181
It hasn't? Are you 100% sure about that?
 
karrie
Avatar
#182
Quote: Originally Posted by petrosView Post

It hasn't? Are you 100% sure about that?

If you're implying that the screening processes for priests now eliminate pedophiles from being able to make it through, then please supply proof. I've never seen anything from either the police, teachers unions, or the church, that would imply someone came up with a fool proof way to keep pedophiles out.
 
petros
#183
I stated it eliminated?

You know they have bull**** detectors at airports these days?
 
karrie
Avatar
#184
Quote: Originally Posted by petrosView Post

I stated it eliminated?

You know they have bull**** detectors at airports these days?

I asked what you're trying to imply. I never said you stated diddly squat, because you didn't. You're just asking a bunch of baiting questions. State your opinion petros. I'm listening.
 
petros
Avatar
#185
Quote: Originally Posted by karrieView Post

I'm listening.

Are you really because you missed a ****load of relevant points already.

So you figure a far more rigorous screening process from a far wider array of canidates will keep the number of diddlers at status quo?
 
karrie
Avatar
#186
Quote: Originally Posted by petrosView Post

Are you really because you missed a ****load of relevant points already.

So you figure a far more rigorous screening process from a far wider array of canidates will keep the number of diddlers at status quo?

There are two flaws with that.

1. You're implying that the screening would only improve IF married men were allowed in, which isn't the case. The screening is a stable factor. The screening won't improve based on the number of applicants. it will let through a pretty constant error percentage.

2. You're implying that they're allowing men in who fail the screening due to lack of candidates. I doubt that's the case, as I've seen even married deacons turfed at times when they had almost no candidates to choose from.
 
petros
Avatar
#187
Quote: Originally Posted by karrieView Post

There are two flaws with that.

1. You're implying that the screening would only improve IF married men were allowed in, which isn't the case. The screening is a stable factor. The screening won't improve based on the number of applicants. it will let through a pretty constant error percentage.

2. You're implying that they're allowing men in who fail the screening due to lack of candidates. I doubt that's the case, as I've seen even married deacons turfed at times when they had almost no candidates to choose from.

\
1. I said that? Quote me. How will vastly improved screening not reduce the amount of diddlers let through?

2. I said that? Quote me. I said there is a lack of canidates?
 
VanIsle
#188
Quote: Originally Posted by karrieView Post

There are two flaws with that.

1. You're implying that the screening would only improve IF married men were allowed in, which isn't the case. The screening is a stable factor. The screening won't improve based on the number of applicants. it will let through a pretty constant error percentage.

2. You're implying that they're allowing men in who fail the screening due to lack of candidates. I doubt that's the case, as I've seen even married deacons turfed at times when they had almost no candidates to choose from.

I read that he said a "wider array of candidates" not married men.
 
karrie
Avatar
#189
Quote: Originally Posted by petrosView Post

\
1. I said that? Quote me. How will vastly improved screening not reduce the amount of diddlers let through?

2. I said that? Quote me. I said there is a lack of canidates?

1. I said you're implying it. Like I said, you're not directly saying anything, it's easier to wiggle out of it that way. Vastly improved screening would indeed reduce the number of diddlers let through. I'm not arguing that. But it would reduce the number of abstinent diddlers let through, and married diddlers let through in the same rate. You're failing to explain to me how marriage is related to this vast improvement in screening. Are we withholding this improved screening?

2. Again, I never said you said it, I said you implied it.
 
petros
Avatar
#190
Abstinent diddler is a diddler who doesn't diddle?

BTW a Deacon is a number cruncher who never went through Seminary screening. If a Deaconn is problematic it's a local issue within the Diocese.

What's your MMPI on Scale 5?
 
DaSleeper
Avatar
+1 / -1
#191
It sure looks like a marathon square dance developing over...

It depends what the meaning of the word is...is
 
VanIsle
#192
Quote: Originally Posted by petrosView Post

\
1. I said that? Quote me. How will vastly improved screening not reduce the amount of diddlers let through?

2. I said that? Quote me. I said there is a lack of canidates?

I've gone back over every post of yours. No where have I read anything that implies you are implying anything. Your posts seem pretty straight forward to me. I gather you are asking about screening devices for anyone joining the clergy. In such a position of trust, they should all be finger printed and have a criminal records check done. All the police have to have that done. Just to have a student spend a night in our house, both of us had to have a criminal records check done and my husband was finger printed. A simple name change can clear a person in a criminal records check so, all people who are put in the position of trust with children, should be required to be finger printed - IMO.
 
petros
Avatar
#193
I'm still waiting for quotes too.

VI your hubby should be damn good at spotting a bull****ter. How did he aquire those skills? Are they ever updated? Which demographics tend to lie more? The guilty or the not guilty?
 
karrie
Avatar
#194
You want me to quote why I was asking if that's what you were trying to imply. Do you get what the term imply means?
 
TenPenny
Avatar
#195
Quote: Originally Posted by petrosView Post

One line of many.

Try it this way. How many good non-pedophiles who have what it takes to be great a priest can't because they are married?

One line of many. The line in which she explains what she meant, however. You might not have caught that part.

There are likely married pedophiles who have what it takes go be a great priest but can't because they are married.
 
petros
Avatar
#196
You assumed. Do you know what that means?

I have something to keep you busy. If diddlers are evenly dispersed through the population, which subset of the stats are more or less likely to diddle?
 
gerryh
+3
#197
Isn't that special, petros is handing out homework.
 
CDNBear
Avatar
#198
Quote: Originally Posted by VaessenView Post

If you want to call me a troll for doing so, that's up to you.

That's not why I called you a troll...

Quote: Originally Posted by VaessenView Post

Well, I think this is the problem with people in society today. You can be example A. A person that just doesn't get it.

Morons and Nutters is a bit of a troll job too. Only morons and nutters see the need to come on to a silly forum and spread hate and troll like you apear to be doing, as well.

That's trolling.

Quote:

I didn't read thousands of your posts either. I don't have to.

If you're going to comment on them, you may want to have read them first.

Or even just read a little further down the page...


Quote: Originally Posted by CDNBearView Post

Actually, I can understand how the populace could be swayed with the mythology in the Bible, in the era it was first presented to said populace.

If one were to examine the birth of the Mormon Church, the era it was created in, you would think that the people would have been smarter, and less likely to be swayed with such obviously dubious nuttery.

And lets not even get started on the moronic CoS and the nutters that fell for that.

Quote: Originally Posted by CDNBearView Post

Once ingrained, it's hard to shake. New converts puzzle me, but something can be said for desperation. Indoctrination of children, what child would think mom and dad would lead them astray?
Paper education is one thing, but these people were ground breakers. Survivors that lived by their wits. How they got scammed, I'll never figure out.

I concede.

Who said straight out "I'm going to create a religion".

Where my poiint was made clear.

Quote:

You have 20,000 posts and I see one blatantly insighting hate...

That's not hate.

Quote:

then you call me a "noob".

Are you new here? Then you're a noob. I was a noob once too.

Quote:

Go back and read your post. Go ahead and defend that nonsense.

1, It's an opinion based on how John Smith created the Church.
2, I fully believe that anybody that believes that story, is a moron and/or a nutter.
3, That doesn't mean I hate Mormons. I have nutty relatives, and my younger brothers in the MWS, are morons. I still love them.

Quote:

You attacked me for bringing up your one post.

Actually, I didn't attack you. I pointed out that your post appeared to be a great big troll. I made a statement that I smelled a sock puppet. I commented on your claim that my thousands of posts were ignorant. And finally, I pointed out the duplicitous nature of your posts.

Quote:

Maybe you think you should be above reproach.

Gawd NO!
 
TenPenny
+1
#199
Quote: Originally Posted by petrosView Post

You assumed. Do you know what that means?

I have something to keep you busy. If diddlers are evenly dispersed through the population, which subset of the stats are more or less likely to diddle?

Farmer geologists.
 
petros
Avatar
+1
#200
Personal attacks? Is that the best you've got?

How come 75% of offences are committed by males under 35 years old?
 
Dexter Sinister
Avatar
+2
#201
Back on topic, sort of. I've known several Mormons fairly well, including a guy who for several years was in the office next to mine and was the local Mormon bishop. Mormons have a lay priesthood, it's not a full time job like it is for most denominations that have priests and bishops and so on. There's no doubt in my mind that they're Christians, and they certainly consider themselves to be so, they just think they have a new revelation. God was apparently vexed enough with humanity at one point to withdraw from the world, but by 1830 he'd calmed down enough to come back and try for a fresh start in the New World, hence all that bumph about the golden plates and the angel Moroni (always sounded like a Latinized plural for moron to me) and the Book of Mormon and all the rest of it. And hence the official name, the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints. These are the latter days to them, very much reminiscent of the apocalyptic claims of certain other Christian sects, and since god wasn't around for a long time before 1830, nobody who rose to sainthood before that is legitimate. Only in these latter days can there be legitimate saints. The most interesting thing about these Latter Day Saints to me is that, like Scientology, there is documentary proof of its completely fraudulent origins, yet still people buy it.


Reminds me of one of my favourite jokes. The Pope is addressing a hastily assembled emergency meeting of the College of Cardinals and announces, "Gentlemen, I have good news and bad news. The good news is that the second advent has occurred, Jesus has returned as promised, I was speaking to Him a short while ago and there's no question it's Him." The cardinals were amazed and delighted until one of them thought to say, "That's wonderful Your Eminence, what could possibly be the bad news?" And the Pope said, "He called me from Salt Lake City."


I told that one to the Mormon bishop, and he laughed, then said quite seriously, "That's what we believe, you know." Then I laughed.
 
Nuggler
Avatar
+1
#202
Priests in the Anglican church can marry, and I believe we've had our share of pedos.

Nothin like them papists though.................... hee hee hee.
 
Cliffy
Avatar
+2
#203
The Mormons are sort of right in that these are the latter days of the Christian religion. Jesus was the harbinger of the Age of Pisces and it is coming to a close. The Age of Asparagus is upon us and a new religious/spiritual paradigm is about to begin. All hail the vegetables of this planet and beyond.
 
Vaessen
#204
Okay, well there are going to be pedophiles in the clergy either way, apparently. I still think that many pedophiles were hidden by the church, there was a culture created within the clergy of acceptance of pedophilia and that I am tempted to believe that there are many more pedos in the clergy than in regular old society but that the statistics saying it's the same are misleading because getting those stats is an inexact science.

Quote: Originally Posted by CDNBearView Post


That's not hate.

1, It's an opinion based on how John Smith created the Church.
2, I fully believe that anybody that believes that story, is a moron and/or a nutter.
3, That doesn't mean I hate Mormons. I have nutty relatives, and my younger brothers in the MWS, are morons. I still love them.

Actually, I didn't attack you. I pointed out that your post appeared to be a great big troll. I made a statement that I smelled a sock puppet. I commented on your claim that my thousands of posts were ignorant. And finally, I pointed out the duplicitous nature of your posts.

Quote: Originally Posted by CDNBearView Post

They're not.

It's a cult, created by a fraud. Believed by nutters and morons.

You're so full of shyt
 
CDNBear
Avatar
#205
Quote: Originally Posted by VaessenView Post

You're so full of shyt

You're so sensitive.

Or can you prove it's hate?

I bet I can walk into #3 District tomorrow and tell the desk Sgt. the same thing.

I think Mormons are nutters and/or morons.

Do you think I'll be arrested for a hate crime?

I'll even video tape it if you like.
 

Similar Threads

0
Christians on the March
by darkbeaver | Jan 30th, 2007
29
to all Christians...
by newjet322 | Jan 15th, 2007
19
Palestinian Christians
by Rick van Opbergen | Dec 10th, 2006
115
Christians VS Democracy??
by Karlin | Dec 1st, 2005
no new posts