Randy Johnson

Dale,Just to be clear...I am LDS. I agree...the CoC can do anything it wants to. It has in the past...and it will continue to. You state that Pres. Veasy issued those "conditional" calls after consulting with the First Presidency. Maybe I missed it...but, where does it say that? Secondly, EVEN if he did...the very fact remains that he did not have the authority to issue such calls. In the LDS church, I will admit...we have a very clear and unmistakable "chain of command". There is never a moment when we as a body of saints do not know who the Presiding Authority is...and to whom we should look for the Lord to give guidance and direction...and through whom his revelations will come. In the CoC...it is a totally different ballgame. However, to be fair...the precedent was set in 1851 when the Reorganization first began to evolve. There was no order then either with respect to this. All sorts of people were having this revelation, or that dream....all of which were taken as from the Lord, yet those individuals were not ones in a position of authority to receive such things. The Lords house is a house of order. Regarding Pres. McMurrays personal struggles..whatever they were or are....be they physical or spiritual in nature...they are serious. I wish him well. Dale, could you investigate something for me though? On another board...the statement was made and was said to be verified through the "Goverment patent offices" that the CoC has officially abandoned the name of The Reorganized Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints. I was told and was under the impression that the CoC still maintains that name for legallity/Corporation purposes. It was also told to me that the Restoration Branch movement was pursuing vigorously the possibility of regaining the use of the RLDS name. Could you try to verify what the CoC position is on this? Randy

Dawn,Again...I just want you to know that I admire you in many ways..and I think you are a pretty sharp troop.....in general! hahahahaha! I have read and reread your post...and I must tell you...that does not sound like the Restored gospel and the "stone cut out of the mountain." To me, what I am hearing you say is...that for 175 yrs the Lord's church has been a failure (no other way of interpreting it....) and that because his church is in such turmoil and disarray...that he will yet again "set his church in order" through this "grass roots" movement..through people who very well may not even have the Gift of the Holy Ghost....let alone PH authority to so act. From what I know of what the Prophet Joseph taught....with all due respect, this is false doctrine. Now having said that, I can understand how you have come to such a place in your heart and mind. Going back to my other post regarding the futility of the Restorationists to be able to organize...I can see where you have let this notion evolve and take root. But...it is false....plain and simple. The Lord's house is a house of order. His Church has not failed. His "marvelous work and a wonder" has not been an exercise in futility! There is no need for a "grass roots" movement. What there is need for is for humility, repentance and faith. The world does not need more "movements"....the world needs more faithful disciples...who follow the Lord..and the Lord's annointed.

Randy, with all due respect, you cannot imagine what I have been through in the last 5 years. And while I feel, quite literally, that the floor has been pulled out from underneath me, I can honestly say I see God's hand in it. Growth is often painful, and this is right up there in the pain dept. And for a long time I was unable to see past that pain to the bigger picture. But now I can. I see things much more clearly now than I ever did in the past. I see how things are fitting together. In minute detail? No, but in the way I see God leading the people. We are sitting, I believe, on the very cusp of Zion, and God is calling His army forth. I can see and feel the power that is forming. And you know what, 5 years ago I would have been surprised who is in that army, but now I see that it is bigger and stronger than I could have imagined then. I am glad God has led me to this point. I wish you could join me here so you can see the glory of His work, too. Dawn, Can you share some of the things that you see more clearly? Can you share how things are fitting together? Dawn....you say the Restorationists are sitting on the very "cusp" of Zion. Explain if you can what you are seeing or experiencing that would have you think that, speaking relative to the "whole" of the Restoration branch movement. From what I am reading...I see just the opposite. Dawn...I appreciate your sincere offer to join with you. Let me ask you a question.....what is it that you have that I dont already have....or what you are experiencing that I have not already experienced? I guess...what I am asking is..."what does the Restoration movement have to offer me?

Dawn,Fluff???? Good nite girl!!!!! Ok....some thoughts: 1) You are absolutely correct when you state that we must embrace "correct doctrine" 2) Why does it matter that you leave your name on the rolls of an apostate church? a) it seems to me that answer should be obvious. The RLDS church that you want so desperately to maintain a connection with simply does NOT exist anymore. If you think it does you are in denial. The CoC is NOT the RLDS church. You cannot serve two masters. I guess the real question might be...."why are you so fearful of removing your name from the CoC church"? What is the real motivation behind you maintaining a token membership? There must some "payoff"...I am curious as to what it is. 3) While I agree that when it comes to determining the veracity and truthfulness of spiritual things....simply because a majority believes a certain doctrine to be true..doesnt make it true. I agree with you on that point. Having said that....the fact that the vast majority went west underscores several things...namely: a) That the majority of the saints were in agreement doctrinally...which tells me that they were taught openly and in plainness. B) That the vast majority of the Saints were in agreement with the duly acknowledged and recognized leadership of the church....in spite of the various "would be leaders" who rose up. c) That those "numbers" represented real people...many of which gave their lives for this restored gospel...and that thousands were willing..because of their testimony of the truthfulness of the gospel which they embraced...to literally sacrifice everything they had. d) Contrast those "numbers aka real people" that went west...with those that stayed behind, excepting very few, those people were weak in the faith as demonstrated by their very actions. They were literally tossed to and fro with every wind of doctrine. This was the nucleous of the Reorganization. That same mindset still prevails to this day. Hence, the RLDS/CoC/Restorationists having the various dilemma's...and things being in a constant state of chaos. 4) What difference does it make if the Restoration Branches organize....? It makes a difference because they "cannot" organize! Hence, they are not embracing correct doctrine. It has been embracing false doctrine that has brought them and the CoC...and the Remnant church to where they are today...which is to say...the exact same place they have been since 1851. Thats no exaggeration either. Dawn...when you say it's just "fluff"...really, with all due respect...that's just "smoke and mirrors" rhetoric to avoid having to come to terms with the reality of the situation.

Why do you suddenly want to stop beating this horse? Is it because you see that all churches are false except for the LDS? Is it because that dying horse is YOUR horse and if we keep "killing it" with truth you won't have a steed to take you further down the path you've chosen? Why is it the under dogs and "non-winners" always want to cut the game short? No. It is because whipping a dead horse isn't going to accomplish anything. This topic has been discussed ad nauseum between Randy and myself on several forums now, and nothing changes. He thinks he can talk me into believing that the LDS church is true because of the problems within the RLDS church. That is so far from logical that it is not worth my time or effort to discuss it anymore. If you and Randy want to discuss it, feel free. Dawn, Where have I EVER said or implied that I could "talk you into" anything? Absolutely nothing could be further from the truth!! What gets me though is that you can talk about this till the cows come home over on Center Place board...but for some reason you clam up over here. Whether you like it or not Dawn...this issue is at the very core of the problems facing the restorationists. The PH in the Restorationist movement know, and have known...that they have an impossible task before them. They have a doctrinal dilemma that cannot be resolved. From what I am reading on the Center Place board...the futility of it all is becoming more and more apparent. Like I have told you in the past...its when the Restorationists are pressed on this issue that we begin to start seeing responses like what you have just given. You are not alone. I have seen this countless times through the years. I would like to just once....have someone give an answer from the scriptures on how the Restorationists are planning to move forward, and show from the scriptures and/or from Church history how they plan to reorganize....again. Not just the canned..."the Lord will set the church in order". Dawn....it's not just "problems" within the RLDS church we are talking about. Good grief...the LDS church has problems.....problems that come with growth...problems with divorce....problems with inactivity/retention....we have all sorts of problems. The "problems" within the RLDS/CoC go way beyond being just "problems". You are very much minimizing what is happening...or in this case...what "cannot" happen. What cannot happen is the Restorationist's effecting any kind of "re-reorganization". It just cannot be done...at least doctrinally. There is no historical precedent for this...INCLUDING the original "reorganization" in 1851-1860. There is no comparison between the two. But, you are right about one thing....it is sickening to watch. I have good friends who are just sick to their stomachs over this. They are good and honorable people....but, they just keep treading water...thats it. Just marking time. It is very sad indeed.

Dawn,You failed to answer my question though...."why and to what purpose does it serve...to maintain membership in a apostate church? You have already stated that there is no "authoritative" PH in the CoC, it is only to be found within the Restoration branches.

Dawn,Can you not see the insanity of this position? It makes absolutely zero sense! I guess what you are saying is that those people who started the Reorganiztion were wrong in leaving The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints....they should have just stayed and toughed it out, until the Lord "set the church in order" again, regardless of all the alleged "apostate teachings/doctrines" being taught! This situation today with the CoC and the Restoration branches is no different, but yet, for some reason the Restorationists are content to sit tight. This is what absolutely drives me nuts about the Restorationists! They want to maintain a foot in every camp. Dawn, I like and admire you very much. I just hate to see you on such a dead end merry-go-round....thats all.

Dawn,Why would you want to be a member of an apostate church? ...It might be enlightening if you were to research the history of most of the people who made up the nucleous of the RLDS church....and you would find that I was correct in my characterizations. Dawn....so...why do you feel it necessary to keep one foot in an apostate Church (CoC) and one foot in a Restoration branch? That kinda smacks of being a fence sitter...just waiting to see to which side the ball is going to drop, then you will make your "real" choice. Seems disengenious to me. Again...in a post a while back...when I asked this same question of you...you balked...and said you would wait until you saw what happened at the conference. Well, you saw what happened at conference..yet you still persist in maintaining this connection with the CoC. It really makes no sense. I dont understand how you can rationalize such a position.

Dawn,Why is it a "dead horse" with me...but yet, you go on and talk about it more with Snow?? what's up with that? But, you are right..I am beating that particular horse to death BECAUSE it lies at the core of the problem with the beginnings of the RLDS, Remnant and all the rest of the splinter groups. They all began because the people that that eventually joined with them were either: 1) prideful...in that they simply could not follow the rightful leadership (we are seeing this yet again with the Remnant/Restorationists) 2) they were excommunicated members of the Church and they just gravitated to these new movements 3) they were disaffected members...in that they got they got their feelings hurt etc...and simply gravitated to these various movements 4) they were "inactive" members who really didnt care one way or other...but they knew they were not going to risk their lives going west...and they simply gravitated to these various movements. Dawn, what is transpiring this very moment within the Restoration movement..ie; the PoZ calling this special "conference" to discuss the various "resolutions"...and how the Restoration branch movement is to go forward and proceed...given the CoC church's apostacy is "complete"....is what I am talking about!! Yes..this IS something that needs to be talked about....and shown for what it is. Dawn, just a quick question for you though.....on another board you made the comment that you "still" considered yourself a member of the CoC. Do you still hold to that...given your earlier comments that "if" Steve Veasey were confirmed..and the various callings that he put forward even before he had authority to do so, were also confirmed....that in your mind the apostacy would be complete? Is the CoC church's apostacy complete? If so, why do you still maintain membership in it?

...and I had a friend who told me that Brad Pitt was having an affair with Grace Kelly. My friend also had a dream that she went to school in her underwear and ate an apple made out of plastic. Same deal, no? Gotta love those restoration branches....they all seem to recieve revelation for the church. Not just their "prophet". I was told that if one recieves a revelation or a vision that conscerns the entire church one should count it as a gift from God and keep it to himself. When the lord wants something done regarding His church and wants all to know He will work only through His chosen mouth piece and Prophet. My point? Either this dreamer is just that, a dreamer or this person has slapped God in the face for sharing a great personal gift of knowledge. I'm leaning more towards the first. A. Why should something that concerns the entire church be kept to ones self? B. Were any of the prophets of the OT, who went around having visions and calling people to repentence, leaders of the church? You sound just like the minister who (verbally) slapped Joseph Smith in the face when he recounted his vision to him. Pharisees. Dawn, Concerning the "dream"...is this not exactly what happened in 1851? Someone had a dream, this "someone" was not even in a position of authority to receive such revelations...then it's picked up by word of mouth....kicked around a bit....the rumor mill picks it up.....and then poof....we have the RLDS church...then poof..the same thing happens again and we have the Remnant Church.....then poof....the PoZ have a "special conference"....and then poof......we have the ...???? I think you get the picture. The Lord's house IS a house of order. rj

I agree completely with you, Jared. God will do what needs to be done in His own time. I was referring only to the designs of man. I find it interesting, Jared, that we are at odds because of the Restoration Branches/Remnant situation, yet our beliefs are virtually identical. It is a sad state of affairs when those who hold to the same tenets, etc., can't even call each other brothers and sisters in Christ. Dawn, Actually, the original dedicated "temple land" comprised approx. 63.27 acres. The Hedrickite Church owns the 2 1/2 acre portion, which includes the "high point" of the dedicated 63.27 acres. The LDS church owns approx. 20 acres which have been purchased over the years from successors in interest to parties who asserted title by adverse possession..years after The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints was dispossessed of the land. The RLDS church owns the majority of the balance of the land, however, there are other various owners of smaller lots....one of which is the Missouri Pacific Railroad. You are correct when you state that Joseph dedicated the entire 63.27 acres...not just the 2 1/2 acres we usually refer to as the "temple lot". The Prophet Joseph clearly taught there would be built a "temple complex" comprising 24 temples. This fact always seems to get lost when we discuss the "temple" that will be built in Independence, Mo.

Jared, On another board you made the comment that "the Hedrickite church owns the Temple Lot, and they will never sell it to the LDS church". Just a couple of thoughts.... 1) NEVER is a pretty strong word... 2) I would consider the Temple Lot (the portion the Hedrickite' own) as the Lord's...and he will "do" or "not do" with it as he see's fit. 3) It may seem somewhat of a flippant comment (dont mean it to be)...but, when the time comes the Lord wants the LDS church to regain control of the Temple lot...it will happen. There is absolutely no doubt in the minds of the LDS people that this will happen. We dont even give it a second thought...really. The LDS church has built hundreds of temples around the world..and has bucked up against some pretty stout opposition when it comes to purchasing land for temple sites etc. There are many, many exciting and faith promoting testimonies about how those obstacles were overcome. The Temple lot in Indep.Mo...at the end of the day, will be no different. When it's meant to happen...it will. Jared, in your mind....you must believe that at some point in time, the Lord will somehow deliver the Temple Lot into the hands of the Remnant Church...correct??? How do you feel that will be accomplished? randy

Jared,That is exactly what has been happening in the LDS church. The LDS church is beginning to have a significant global presence and impact. It is blessing the lives of countless millions of people, whether they are aware of it directly or not. These blessing are both spiritual and temporal in nature. The spirit of the Lord is going before the Lord's Ambassadors as they teach, preach, expound and exhort the Restored gospel. It is truly a marvelous work and a wonder to behold, and to be a part of!!!!! randy

Dawn,I couldnt tell ya! All I know is that the scriptures teach, and the Prophets have testified often about the significance of, and the vital role that....Independence, Jackson County Missouri..will YET play in the future of the church. Our understanding of what is Zion, what constitutes Zion....in addition to that of the "gathering of Israel" is global in scope. It is clear and unmistakable. randy

Jared,Basically, its no different than when the Saints left Missouri the first time and established the Church's HQ's in Nauvoo under JSjr. Just a little more time has elapsed. Yes, the Church shall in a coming day...build the city of the New Jeruselem, along with the Temple..and will reestablish the HQ's of the Church here in Independence, Mo. All in due time, my good man...all in due time! This area is not ready for that to happen. It couldnt handle it. It would be more detrimental than helpful. The leaders of the Church must be VERY careful in their speech when it comes to Indep/Jackson county. One slip of the tongue, so to speak, and Independence/Jackson county would have, how shall we say....a rather significant increase in the LDS presence here. But...timing is everything!! ....rest assured, it will happen when it's supposed to happen. There is no doubt about that. randy ....IMO...at the present time...the necessity of having the Church HQ's here is not the primary goal. As was stated earlier....the MOST important aspect of the "gathering" is spiritual. People need to accept the gospel and join the Lords church, then the temporal aspect of the gathering can work itself out. It would appear to me that having their HQ's here has not helped the CoC, nor the Restorationist movement...as we have seen first hand.

Hi Jared!A few thoughts about what the LDS believe about Zion : 1) It is the name the Lord has given to his Saints, it is the name by which the Lord's people have always been identified. 2) JS jr taught that the whole of North and South America comprises the "land" of Zion. 3) The New Jeruselum which is to be built in Jackson County, Mo. is also called the "City of Zion or Zion". 4) At the time of the Second Coming, "the Lamb shall stand upon Mount Zion, and with him a hundred and forty-four thousand, having his Father's name written on their foreheads". (See LDS D&C 133:18 ; Rev. 14:1-5) The Mount Zion spoken of is identified by latterday revelation as the New Jeruselum, which is to be built in Jackson County, Missouri. Jared, so...."Zion" is both a spiritual condition as well as a tangible place...a center of refuge for the Saints and the righteous. We also believe the "gathering of Israel" is both a spiritual one, as well as a temporal one. It is spiritual in that the "lost sheep" of Israel are FIRST "restored to the Lord's true church and fold of God," meaning that they come to a true knowledge of the God of Israel, accept the restored gospel which he has restored in these latter days, and join The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints. It is temporal in that these converts are then gathered home to the "lands of their inheritance" as spoken of in 2 Ne. 9:2 ; 25:15-18 and Jer. 16:14-21. Just a few thoughts..... randy

Hi Dale,I appreciate your thoughts as well. It's not a matter of "not liking" the CoC. As I said...there are many, many wonderful people to be found there. Thats not the issue to me. The issue with me is the total lack of doctrinal unity. There is confusion about...well, just about everything. Perhaps doctrinal problems are not a big issue with you personally. If it's just finding a place to go to feel more at home socially...then perhaps you have chosen well. I dont know how old you are...but, I have been a member all of my 48yrs. I am pretty outspoken, outgoing etc. Why is it that I have never seen this "rigidness" with which you speak? I am not sure what you mean by "overbearing" in the church. Could you elaborate on that for me? As far as the CoC teachings with respect to "common consent"....you will find out in short order...that the very nature of how they conduct it produces division, confusion, infighting....you name it....it's there. All one has to do is to look at what has transpired already in the CoC during this "transition" period. Confusion abounds on every side. Dale, you mentioned that you never felt that you could be honest about what you believed. I am sorry and saddened to hear that. Would you mind sharing what you believe with me? I for one, give you my word...I will not disrespect your beliefs and thoughts on these things. I am just sincerely curious as to what you believe and why. randy

Thanks for your response!My basic problem with this scenario is that he has no authority to issue such calls. Being "designated" bestows nothing upon him. IMO...those PH calls that were mentioned in the letter most certainly could be extended...just not through Pres. Veasey. They could have appropriately been issued through the presiding quorum ie; The First Presidency. There just simply is no order within the CoC church. No rhyme or reason for how they do things. I dont think anyone in the CoC is seriously considering that Pres. Veasey will not be confirmed. That would cause WAY WAY to much hardfeelings...given the fact that all those people to whom these calls were issued would have to be told in effect...."uh..hmm...sorry bout this, but...well....the Lord really DIDNT want Pres. Veasey as President....and well, he didnt want you either". I dont think that is going to happen. On the CoC board the comment was made about the appropriatness of extending "last minute" calls to those folks...about how it impacts families etc. Of course that is true. But, I dont recall that being a factor when the Prophet Joseph extended calls to serve missions etc. Or for that matter...I marvel that Elder Utchdorf and Elder Bednar were called literally HOURS before they were to be sustained in conference as the newest members of the 12. It matters not how much "heads up" a person gets before the call is extended, but rather that they know from whom the call comes...and they say simply..."yes, I will go and do what the Lord has commanded". The Lord calls us...we respond. But, this has always been a basic difference between the CoC and the LDS church. randy oh...it was Pres. Kimball who received the revelation on PH being extended to every worthy male. But, it must be remembered...that it was Pres. Kimball as Prophet of the Church, that had continuously petitioned the Lord about this issue...and it was Pres. Kimball through whom the Lord made his will known. I think there is a huge difference between that event, and what is transpiring within the CoC at this time!!

Earlier this morning I read Pres. Veasey's "Letter of Counsel" to the CoC church which among other things enumerated the various PH calls that will be put forward IF he is approved by the special conference coming up the first week of June. See, this is a perfect example of what I was mentioning to Dale on the other thread. Confusion reigns yet again!! Here is Pres. Veasey who is President of the CoC Quorum of the 12, who has been designated as the next President/Prophet of the church. Then you have the CoC First Presidency, which according to CoC doctrine is STILL organized and functioning (unlike the LDS First Presidency which is automatically dissolved upon the death of the President) and from what I have been told is STILL the presiding quorum of the Church. Ok, the obvious question is : How is it that Pres. Veasey can extend "contigent" PH calls...especially to the Apostleship...when he has not been ordained and thus, does not have the prophetic mantel ie; PH keys to extend such calls? On the CoC board the reasoning is because of 1) not enough time during conference to "extend calls from scratch" after Pres.V is confirmed......2) that the Lord certainly has already been "working with" ie; inspiring Pres. V with these various PH calls (what happened to the First Presidency?...figure heads?) Say What???? What I am reading is just amazing to me! There is no PH office of "President Designate". There is no authority bestowed or mantel given that goes with a "designation" is there? Not according to JSIII. No...once again the RLDS/CoC is putting the "cart before the horse". But...this same mindset was evident in 1851 with the genesis of the Reorganization as well in the present day.....and so it goes: Confusion...confusion and yes....more confusion!! just an observation...... randy Dawn, Dale or Jared....help me out here....how can this be???

Hi Dale!Good luck with your upcoming baptism into the CoC. I am not sure how to say this without sounding crass, but....I think you will find that being a member of the CoC WILL be much, much easier than staying the course in the LDS church. As you know...the LDS emphasizes high moral and ethical standards. I would think thats a good thing. The church emphasizes obedience to gospel principles and the importance of following the Prophets and Apostles. Again...a good thing. As a member of the CoC...you will find that you will basically have the freedom to do or believe anything you want. Is this a good thing? You will find that the favorite color within the CoC is "gray". You will find that the word "unity" is frowned upon. You will find that "confusion" is the norm rather than the exception. I say this as a lifelong resident of Independence, Mo.....I have seen this over and over and over again. Dale, please....do not misunderstand my intent here. I am in no way trying to discourage you from joining the CoC. I just want you to fully understand what to expect. I have just communicated with a friend of mine who recently joined the CoC...and he has had enough and is coming back into the LDS church. Like you....he had/has issues with certain things within the LDS church...but, he has gained some invaluable insight and perspective from "within" the CoC....and it is not what it appears to be. Dale....good luck to you! Yes....I am sincere when I say that! No sarcasm intended or implied. randy

Dear Dawn,I forgive you! And I hope you do the same for me. Mike forwarded an email to me showing his response to you. I am happy that he did the right thing. All is well again! randy

Dawn,Yes...I misunderstood the situation. In light of this new and correct information...it makes his action against you now even more grievous and offensive...at least IMO. He just seems to go off half-cocked all the time, making making rash judgements...taking other peoples word for things that he just simply should not do. Dawn, like I have said....I have always admired you. You are strong and steadfast in your beliefs...and I admire and respect that very much. I always knew where I stood with you. My good friend...I do apologize for this mess. I hope the Moderator will review what has happened and do the right thing. I truly am sorry for what has happened....I really am. The only thing I can do is to try to help resolve it. Dawn...I hope you can forgive me....and I truly hope we can continue to be good friends and go forward from this with even a stronger friendship. Take care...and God bless you Dawn!

Yes. I realize that I am very angry and am posting in haste, and I, also, will need to seek Randy's forgiveness in the matter. Dawn, Just a couple of thoughts here.. 1) YOU do not owe me an apology whatsoever! You are right in being angry and upset with me. 2) Given the fact that the Owner/Moderator talked to you personally about the facts of your case...and made a judgement that allowed you to be reinstated...it did come as a shock that he did an "about face" and banned you again for no reason whatsoever, other than the fact that he had reinstated you AFTER discussing it with you at length. 3) I will continue to email him and try to get him to see his mistake and the harm that he is doing. 4) I did let my pride, hurt and anger get in the way when I sent that post to him. It's just that I hate feeling as if I am being manipulated or being singled out for no apparent reason other than that I disagree with most on that board. Dawn, I have always admired you, and have respected your honest and straightforward manner! I still do! I did not expect anything less in these posts...and I wouldve been kinda disappointed if you wouldnt have spoken your mind. I do apologize for mentioning your name...and I will do what I can to help get this resolved. I will always consider you a good friend. randy

Dawn, I am not sure why you would want to take this public other than to try to exact your "pound of flesh" from me...but here ya go. First, if you read my email to Mike you would have noticed that I was trying to right a wrong. If I were "out to get you" as you say...seems to me to be an odd way of going about it dont ya think? I received a very curt and smart-alek email from him telling me at length about how he had just "gone through the records" and noticed that I had been banned from the board two yrs ago. He then got on a soapbox telling me how there has NEVER been anyone reinstated that had been previously banned and that this termination was final and not to bother with trying to get another account. Well, then you mention that you had been banned and reinstated. Well, shoot me if you must...but after learning that and rereading his post and the tone of it...well it P'd me off to be honest. I hate being lied to and to be jerked around. If the guy caved to pressure from someone that had an issue with me...tell me, but dont give me all that other crap. So...I called him on it. I did mention that you had told me that you had been banned once before from that board and had been reinstated. I just wanted him to know that he had zero credibility and that his board operated with a double standard and was exclusionary. I apologize for mentioning your name, although...in order for my accusation to have any credibility...I had to show him that what I was saying was the truth. You were banned and then reinstated for the reasons you stated. Again..if one is a member of a Restoration branch they at least get an opportunity to plead their case. The rest of us just get the boot with no explanation or opportunity to appeal...and that rots. Ok...there ya go. The floor is yours.....have at it!

Dawn, I know you respect Bradley...heck, I do! But, he is not a lawyer....and he is cherrypicking what it is he wants to actually present in his posts. He is missing the entire point of the book. If you will notice...all of his comments are his opinion on the conclusions drawn by Mr. Reimann. He has been unable to refute any of his conclusions based upon the law. Listen...the book is exhaustive. Bradley just briefly mentioned about JSIII being the "Trustee-in-Trust". This issue is complicated and lengthy and is gone over extensively in the book. He also has not addressed the fact that the LDS church was not a defendant in the case. The RLDS attorneys attempted to make it appear so...but it was not. The tactics used at the time were illegal for the many points that are shown and which Bradley fails to point out. Going back to the issue of the RLDS choosing to use "coined phrases" is because they tried to "piggyback" the issue of succession along with the "ownership of the Temple" case. They had to try to paint the picture that the original church had somehow became "disorganized" and in effect..."ceased to exist". Like I had mentioned, and as Mr. Reimann goes into detail about....if the official name of the Church had been used in the official pleading of the case...the RLDS church's case would have been fatally flawed at the outset. Actually, as Mr. Reimann points out numerous times by numerous ways...the case WAS fatally flawed from the outset. The fact that the original "The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints" as an institution went west with the official records, history, and acknowledged leadership and assets of the original church....it would have been a no brainer for any judge to be able to rule that said church was neither "disorganized" or that it had "ceased to exist" thereby needing some sort of "reorganization". Bradley mentions that it is obvious that Mr. Reimann didnt like the outcome of the case as it was decided by Judge Sherman. Actually, it could be said that Bradley simply doesnt like the conclusions that an experienced lawyer, whose speciality was in real Estate litigation...and who examined these two cases extensively....was able to show beyond any doubt that the RLDS church LOST both cases and NOT for the reasons that have been traditionally given by the RLDS church. No..Bradley could not give the book anywhere close to an honest review because of the obvious implications. Dawn, is there a way that you can post some emails from me addressing these issues on the Center Place board....or do you feel you cant or should not do it? Let me know...thanks. I would feel that I would have to email Mike Palmer and ask him about it. I was already banned and unbanned when a girl from another board brought a discussion from that other board to Centerplace, though I explained to her that I was not going to discuss it there. We were both banned because of that interchange, but my ban was lifted because Mike felt I was goaded into having to defend myself. He did tell me to be more scrupulous in the future. So ............... If you want me to ask him, I will, but I will abide by his decision. I might add here, though, that there were no conclusions in that book because it was not based on precidents to the case, it was based on what happened after it, which makes those "conclusions" moot. Dawn, So you are saying now that you have read the book? I thought you said you had not, but that you could still judge it's credibility etc etc. I dont believe you have read it...you are simply taking Bradley's word for it....in this you are making a serious error. The court cases he sited were to show a basis for one aspect of the case....NOT for the entire case. You see...this is where a group of people just cast their lots with a couple of people...ie; Richard Price/Bradley Barnhart....then everyone feels content to let them do the legwork and accept whatever conclusions they draw from it. This is not good. There are so MANY aspects of both of those cases that are gone into and discussed at length. Any one of which could prove and show conclusively that the case was thrown out of court, and NOT simply "abandoned" because it was "quicker and cheaper" for the RLDS church to go that route. NO! That has been the mantra and traditional position of the RLDS church for all of these decades...and it is simply not true!! Yes....ask Mike if you can do that for me! Thanks!