Are Mormons Christians?

[petros]

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

 

[karrie]

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]

I stated it eliminated?

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

 

[karrie]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

\
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]

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]

It sure looks like a marathon square dance developing over...

It depends what the meaning of the word is...is8O

 

[VanIsle]

\
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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

Isn't that special, petros is handing out homework.

 

[CDNBear]

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...

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.

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...

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".

Where my poiint was made clear.

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

That's not hate.

then you call me a "noob".

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

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.

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.

Maybe you think you should be above reproach.

Gawd NO!

 

[TenPenny]

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]

Personal attacks? Is that the best you've got?

How come 75% of offences are committed by males under 35 years old?