
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.

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?

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?

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

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.

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".
You have 20,000 posts and I see one blatantly insighting hate...
then you call me a "noob".
Go back and read your post. Go ahead and defend that nonsense.
You attacked me for bringing up your one post.
Maybe you think you should be above reproach.

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.