Randy Johnson

That would be very kind of you - I want to see if he really stated that he ONLY saw Jesus. Well, you claim you are not calling me a liar, so ............................. is this your idea of being tactful? http://members.aol.com/EarlyRR/visgr.html Hi Dawn, I emailed you some info regarding the principle of "Divine Investiture of Authority." If anyone else is interested....go to LDS.ORG, then GOSPEL LIBRARY...the MAGAZINES....select ENSIGN...then do a search on "Divine Investiture of Authority" and several talks will come up. Start with "Gospel Classics...The Father and the Son". randy Thanks, Randy, I'll look it over. :) Dawn, Yer a good girl!! rj This is a long article, I probably won't finish till tomorrow, so don't stay up waiting. I do want to ask a question, though. Why are all the "of"'s in red? I keep wanting to emphasize them because they are red and the rest of the text is black. 'Tis a bit distracting. Dawn, That...I could not tell you!! Hey, thanks for taking the time to check it out! You are alllllll right!! rj

Dawn, Well a hardee har har har to you too!! Hey..check out that talk I directed you to...and give me your input. I will be on the computer for a little bit....I am curious George! randy Can you give me better directions? When I search with that title, 100 results come up, but they all have different names. Dawn, Dang...all i know is that i went to the gospel library, the to magazines...selected ENSIGN....did a search on Divine Investiture of Authority..and it came up with a list of talks....I chose Gospel Classics...The Father and the Son. Thats all i can tell ya sis. sorry. rj

Dawn,Yes...I was taught the law of the fast. But we partake of the Sacrament weekly, not monthly as I believe the Restorationists/CoC/Remnant folks do. The first Sunday of the Month is our designated fast day. randy

That would be very kind of you - I want to see if he really stated that he ONLY saw Jesus. Well, you claim you are not calling me a liar, so ............................. is this your idea of being tactful? http://members.aol.com/EarlyRR/visgr.html Hi Dawn, I emailed you some info regarding the principle of "Divine Investiture of Authority." If anyone else is interested....go to LDS.ORG, then GOSPEL LIBRARY...the MAGAZINES....select ENSIGN...then do a search on "Divine Investiture of Authority" and several talks will come up. Start with "Gospel Classics...The Father and the Son". randy Thanks, Randy, I'll look it over. :) Dawn, Yer a good girl!! rj

Dawn,Well a hardee har har har to you too!! Hey..check out that talk I directed you to...and give me your input. I will be on the computer for a little bit....I am curious George! randy

That would be very kind of you - I want to see if he really stated that he ONLY saw Jesus. Well, you claim you are not calling me a liar, so ............................. is this your idea of being tactful? http://members.aol.com/EarlyRR/visgr.html Hi Dawn, I emailed you some info regarding the principle of "Divine Investiture of Authority." If anyone else is interested....go to LDS.ORG, then GOSPEL LIBRARY...the MAGAZINES....select ENSIGN...then do a search on "Divine Investiture of Authority" and several talks will come up. Start with "Gospel Classics...The Father and the Son". randy

......LOL...which of course some mornings that is EXACTLY what my stomach is telling me to do!<i work nites...get home, shower, shave go to church in give or take....35 minutes. I never have time to eat! randy

That would be very kind of you - I want to see if he really stated that he ONLY saw Jesus. Well, you claim you are not calling me a liar, so ............................. is this your idea of being tactful? http://members.aol.com/EarlyRR/visgr.html Hi Dawn, I just went to your link to read that account. I read the whole thing a couple of times...and nowhere does it make mention that there was "only one personage" present. It simply states that the Lord "opened the Heavens" and that JS "saw the Lord". Both statements I agree with completely. randy

That would be very kind of you - I want to see if he really stated that he ONLY saw Jesus. Well, you claim you are not calling me a liar, so ............................. is this your idea of being tactful? http://members.aol.com/EarlyRR/visgr.html Dawn, You are most correct about the nine various versions. Do they contradict each other is the grand question at hand. I would say no, most definately they do not. The 1832 versions states that JS saw "the Lord". Which is of course true. The 1838 version states that JS saw "two beings, the Father and the Son, the Father introduced the Son...saying "this is my beloved Son, hear him". Are these two versions at odds with each other? Again....I say...NAY NAY!! The fact that JS in the first version states he "saw the Lord" does not in any way mean to say that God the Father was not present. Yes...I understand the logical argument of..."hmmm....God the Father present....not mentioned in first version....Hmmmmm....does not compute. Let me offer the following...which you may already be aware of...seeing as how you are a pretty sharp troop: We are discussing here about various details, details that some feel..if they happened at all...should have been important enough to be found in each successive version. Is there scriptural precedent to show that such is NOT the case? You bet. I will let those who are sincerely interested look up, ponder, pray and COMPARE CLOSELY...the following: Luke 24:4 and Matthew 28:2 Regarding Paul's vision on the road to Damascus compare the following: ACTS chapters 9, 22, and 26 ...specifically...ACTS 9:7, 22:9 and 26:14 ask yourselves the obvious questions about the "details" of the 3 different accounts written the scholars say maybe as much as 24 years after the event. I will be interested in your response...as always!!!! randy

Hi Tamara,I guess I am not understanding in just exactly you are disagreeing with me about. I think it has been shown clearly that there is much symbolism in the scriptures about the use of the "right hand". I mentioned that when possible, a person is further acknowledging the sacredness and the importance of the sacrament when they partake using their "right hand", this is of course they are conversant with the symbolism already discussed. If they are not conversant with them...then they are simply partaking with whichever hand is most convenient. I also, mentioned that I have never read anywhere from a President of the Church, Apostle or any other GA..that has expressed the idea that this practice is a "thou shalt". I also said...that IMO...that Bishop was expressing his own point of view. Also...that partaking with the left hand in no way invalidates or makes the sacrament "less than" because they partook that way. ...also...that the Lord would not hold "right handed" amputee's accountable in any way because they had to partake with the left hand. (this one is silly to even talk about....we all know this). I mentioned it before "tongue in cheek". I think we all probably agree that the most important part of the sacrament is whether we are bringing a "broken heart and contrite spirit" to the Lord when we partake....and if we are striving with all our might to be obedient to what the Lord has commanded. IMO...although I agree with the very articulate post from Amillia that illustrated very clearly the symbolism connected with the use of the right hand....I am kinda thinking that at the end of the day....it's not going to matter which hand we partook of the sacrament with as long as we were sincerely repentant and striving to be obedient. randy

Have you actually seen the copies of the original and printers manuscript? Didn't you say that both copies are not fully intact? If it is truly as you claim it to be, which I am skeptical - seeing a lack of verifiable proof, then the answer given by Ray should be sufficient. What I was commenting upon - verses calling Jesus the Son of G-d - suggest that the original did not simply refer to a Modalistic G-dhead as you suggest, but rather three separate beings as I stated. I also mentioned, earlier in this thread, that Christ is our Father, our G-d, and the Son of our Heavenly Father, the Father of our spirits, at the same time, to which you replied that that was only my opinion - or of that of the Church. The original copy of the BoM would support me in this idea - with, or without, the changes made, and Ray has pointed that out to you, once again. The printers manuscript is intact and rests in the RLDS archives. The original manuscript is a different story. The original manuscript was buried in the cornerstone of the Nauvoo House when the bodies of Joseph and Hyrum were secretly buried there, temporarily, for safe keeping (I believe that is when it was buried. I do know that is where it was buried.) After Emma Smith remarried, her husband set about the task of finishing building part of the building for them to live in. At that time, he retrieved the manuscript, which had deteriorated so much that only about half of it was left. He took that manuscript and divided it between the RLDS and the LDS. The portion that was given to the RLDS continued to deteriorate as the Reorganization had just reorganized and did not have a place or way to keep manuscripts from further deteriorating. The part he gave the LDS is in better condition because they had better facilities at the time to store it. The different manuscripts have been examined from time to time, and this is not new news. I am sure that you can find as much proof as you wish to find if you searched for it. Unless you wish to call me a liar, maybe you can do your own search and retract what you said. You can interpret these scriptures any way you want, but your interpretation (as well as Ray's) is just that. One interpretation of those scriptures. Many others read it and come to differing conclusions. Dawn, Just a quick question before I blast off to Bishopric meeting....are you familiar with the concept of "Divine Investiture of Authority"? A clear understanding of this principle will help clarify what we are discussing here. More later....see ya!! Oh...and you are so right...I dont think I would find much discussion about T's on the CoC board!!! LOL! randy

Hey GIVE! I am left curious now Jenda. Tell what you heard at Easter about sacrement. :) Well.............. it has to do with oaths, and the part of the body you hold when you take an oath (at least during Biblical times) Sacrum (the small wedge-shaped bone(actually a fusion of 5 bones into "one bone")) means "holy bone". When people made oaths, they placed their hands under the other person's sacrum and held the testicles (the root of that word is the same root as the word testimony). The oath was made on that part of the anatomy that was of most value. Anyway, sacrum has the same root as the word sacramentum................. I'm sure you get the picture by now. Well, interesting. :) Anyway, after reaching under someone's sacrum to grasp their testicles to take an oath, I am not interested in reaching that hand out to take communion. LOL, well have you been grabbing them Ts lately that would make it significant in your church communion? That would be quite the rumor to start, wouldn't it??? Dawn, I did have something real profound to offer, but....I am all flustered now and cant think. Who would thunk this topic would have turned down this road!! LOL! It does however, remind of what happened in a Gospel Doctrine class one time. We were studying the OT...and the discussion was about the meaning of the word Gentiles....well, this good sister kept saying "Genitals" and never caught her slip up. It was most humorous!! Needless to say...the spirit took a "break" from our class for a bit! LOL! Just goes to show...we just can never miss a Sunday....we never know what fun things are gonna happen! randy

Our right hand is nothing. It is Christ's right hand (or God's) that is important. Our right hand can do nothing. God's right hand bestows His power. Oh..and just another thought that popped into my head when I reread Jenda's comment that "God's right hand bestows power" which is true of course...and in this light as PH holders we have been called and ordained and given the "power and authority" to act in the name of Jesus Christ....so since God and Christ are our examples in ALL things, it stands to reason, IF God uses his "right hand" to bestow power...we should use our "right hand" also. Just a thought. randy ....now IF I just happened to be a "right handed" amputee...the Lord would accept my "left hand" with love!!

Our right hand is nothing. It is Christ's right hand (or God's) that is important. Our right hand can do nothing. God's right hand bestows His power. Just my two cents worth...but, I also have been taught this from my youth and I agree with Amillia that there is symbolism involved in using the right hand. We raise our right hand to the square when we are sustaining someone...as PH when we are performing a Confirmation and standing in the circle (if more than 5 LOL) we place our right hand on the head.....so yes, I agree that "when possible" ie: making sure the 18 mos old isnt grabbing the tray....we should try to use our right hand. HOWEVER, I have never read or heard at anytime from the President of the Church, nor the Twelve or any GA...that we MUST use our right hand to partake of the sacrament. I think the symbolism is there when we do...but, no condemnation or invalidation of the sacrament if we don't. I would venture to say...that was that good Bishop's desire and counsel for his ward...but, IMO..if it was presented as a "thou shalt"...that wasn't quite correct. randy

Dawn,It just seems like such a simple thing to see....I am amazed about how members of the CoC/RLDS cant see it. Counselors are called to counsel with the President of the Church. No President....no need for Counselors. Who are they going to counsel? Show me anywhere in the D&C or in your Church history where a "Presidency" still remained a Presidency without a President. Just ask yourself that question a couple of times...."Can there be a Presidency without a President? Let me ask you this....and this may sound like a stupid question at first...but given the belief that Counselors can still counsel without a president......would it be possible for Counselors to be called into a Presidency without the President first being called? In the LDS church the President selects his counselors.....then when he dies the Counselors are automatically released...and in our Church they would go back into the Quorum from which they were called....normally the 12. As it stands right now...at this moment in the CoC....who is the Presiding quorum of the Church....First Presidency without a President....or the 12?

Emma,I got the idea from those on the CoC web board. It is my understanding from members of the CoC, that...as of this moment....there still is a functioning First Presidency. If those two councilors still comprise a functioning First Presidency (which I personally do not believe)...then those two would of necessity have a "voice"...along with the 12, on who would be the next President of the CoC. But you see...this is where the confusion comes in with the members of the CoC. On the one hand they believe the First Presidency is intact, in which case they are the Presiding Quorum of the Church....and yet on the other, they believe that the 12 would now bear the responsibility of naming the successor because the President relinquished that responsibility. So you have a situation where there are two equal heads at the same time. In addition to that, from what I have been told...both President McMurray and Wallace B. Smith both still hold the right to name a successor. Figure that one out. The Lord has said this kind of confusion is not to be found in his house. In the LDS church, when the President dies....the First Presidency automatically becomes dissolved...and the 12 are the Presiding Quorum....as it states in the D&C. No confusion. Its all very straightforward. I will try to investigate the two Wight Brothers and get you their names. There are many LDS direct descendants of Lyman Wight.

any links? http://www.sealedportion.com/ Dawn, Question, why would you voluntarily give anyone a link to that site? What purpose does it serve...and what risk did you just expose Emma to? Not good.

Hello again Emma,I will look forward to your more detailed response! Oh...I wanted to mention that way back in 1977 I worked for two brothers, whose last name was Wight. They were LDS also...and direct descendants of Lyman. They lived in up by Platte City, Missouri. I wish I could remember their first names....dang.....oh well, they were super people....and we had lots of good discussions about Lyman.

Hi Dawn,You are absolutely correct...I always get different answers!! That why I love asking that particular question!! Well, I will give you guys this much....ya'all are perty creative on how you perceive things might work out this time!! Now you have "two" Prophets with the right to name a successor! Maybe between the two of em..they can come together and be in agreement on the next one! Dawn....I dont mean to be flippant, but really....where is this situation covered in your D&C? I have been told by RLDS/CoC that the Lord will "cleanse" his house..and it will start at the "top". This "house cleaning" has been going on since 1844 according to you guys! Has the RLDS/CoC been that disorganized and disheveled that it would take this long to "cleanse"? Do you believe your church will ever achieve any degree of unity...or do you believe it will simply remain in this confused and controversial state until the Lord comes? Just curious.

Hi Emma,Are you related to Lyman Wight then? He was the Apostle who was in TX when the Prophet was killed. Just curious. Just a couple of comments though......1) Who are the Counselors in the First Presidency supposed to counsel? My answer would be...the President of the Church. My next question is ....if no President who do they counsel? My answer....no one, because the First Presidency is dissolved upon the death of the President...then the NEXT presiding quorum would devolve upon the Quorum of the 12. Just my two cents on that. What are your thoughts? Also....in your opinion, why do you think that the issue of JSIII being the "openly designated successor" was never brought up by Emma, James Whitehead, William Marks...or ANY other of the Saints who had allegedly witnessed it.....at the special conference/meeting of the Church on August 8, 1844? Dont you think that would have been the most perfect time to bring that fact forward for remembrance of the Saints? It has been put forward that it was because Emma would have been afraid for her life....indeed, any Saint that would have spoken up in favor of that motion would have had their lives put in jeopardy by Brigham Young. Do you agree with that wild tale? Just curious.

Blessed,Just a couple of thoughts. First, my heart aches for you and the other members of the CoC. I cannot fathom how I would feel if we were to struggle through such an ordeal. A few years back...we had a Stake leader who succumbed to temptation. I was called into the Bishopric by him. It shook and shocked me to the core. But, the Lord loves him as much as anybody....back then, as well as now. He has made his way back into full activity....his marriage is still intact...and I admire him for his steadfastness and courage in his time of adversity and trial. I would like to echo my feelings....that I feel Pres. McMurray did the right and proper thing. He was striving to be true to himself and to the Lord. In his own way...I believe he was attempting to keep the Church pure and unspotted. I admire him for his courage. Tamara....I just kinda want to correct you about the "just about any 18 yr old can be an Elder" comment. That notion is spread around in the RLDS/CoC...and has been for decades. It simply is not true. I explained this in detail on the CoC board. Suffice it to say...I have TWO boys..one 22...the other 19...neither one of them are Elders....sadly to say. There is nothing automatic in receiving the Priesthood...or advancing in the PH. There are some guidelines the Bishops follow...but they are just that...guidelines. The calls still come through revelation through the Presiding High Priest in the ward and Stake....which is the Bishop and Stake President. I have just one thought about what "generally" is happening now in the CoC. Simply put...and I dont mean this to be harsh....but, it is just another round of "this is it....this is when the Lord is gonna make his move to bring the Church together....or this is when the "one mighty and strong" is going to come forward and put the Church in order" etc. This has been going on since JSIII. Every President in the RLDS church has had some degree of chaos surrounding him. Everytime something momentous like this happens....everyone gets all excited and the grapevine starts chattering about "who" or "what" is going to happen. Its just always chaos. No other way to describe it. Its like the RLDS/Restorationists/CoC thrive on it. As I see it....it is yet another crystal clear example of why the Lord "allowed" Apostolic succession to become the method by which he would control who became his Prophet. There is no confusion...no angst....no politicing...there is no need or possibility for speculation. The path is clear....the path is straight. The Lord's House is NOT a house of confusion. How can this one point be made any more clear than in this latest event in the CoC? I have many wonderful friends in all the Restoration factions here in Indep. Mo. I was able to meet BLESSED during their conference. She is without doubt...one of the sweetest and most congenial and saintly women I have met. She was gracious...and kind...and made me feel most welcome. The CoC is chocked full of these types of wonderful people. But....having said that, it can not....erase the fact that the RLDS/CoC has been in a constant state of confusion and upheaval since its inception. Confusion and upheaval is simply not part of the Lord's plan for his church. In the weeks to come we will see many comments about how Wally B. Smith may come back and designate a successor...or how he himself may repent and lead the church once more....and if that happens, how that might open the door for the Restorationists to be able to come back into the church and "save it" if you will...and restore it back to its "Restoration distinctives". We will hear all of this...and much more. The end result will be as it has always been.....more confusion and upheaval. I sincerely hope....that whatever path the CoC finds itself on...that its wonderful members can eventually find some measure of peace and comfort. randy

Dawn,The church teaches that those who kept their "first estate" in the pre-existance were privileged to come to this earth...receive their bodies and to be tested. We didnt care for how long or short...if we would be impoverished or kingly...healthy or disabled in some way. That fact that we were here and "in the game" was the goal. As far as I know...I have not read any official stance with respect to the other concepts you put forward...such as choosing our time, parents..circumstances etc. It will not suprise me however, to find out in some future day that our degree of faithfulness gave us an opportunity to choose some of these various options. Let me go back for a second....the church does teach that those who have held "keys" of the priesthood....indeed..the priesthood itself, were foreordained to do so in the preexistance based upon their faith and valiance. randy ....I would just like to add that I absolutely agree that those among us who have Downs...Cerebral Palsey...or any other mental disability....that in the preexistance they were among THE most noble, valiant and faithful among us. I would venture to say...that if we were to know who they were in the pre-existance and their status there....we would bow in humble reverence and respect. IMO.

Dawn,Happy Day after Thanksgiving! I got your message....thank you...it made me smile! Funny isnt it...how such a simple act as wishing someone a "Happy anything" can lift their spirits and give them strength in an "hour ye think not". Thank you!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Dawn, you are a dear friend....and I have so enjoyed our talks and our bantering! Well, as you know...my wife and I met and went "steady" in 5th grade...and seems like we got married shortly thereafter! Actually...4 and a half years later. Anyway....as the patter of little feet came...and came again....and came yet again....(3 kids by 19)....we were what ya might call....a "wee bit" overwhelmed! I was just trying to figure out just exactly it was I was doing wrong.....so to speak! LOL! I digress...sorry. My testimony is this....after I got active...and Pam joined the church...it was shortly thereafter that we went to church this one sunday morning. Place was packed (we got there late...again)....but some good folk scrunched over and let us in....cuz I was ready to just keep walking straight on back through the back door. Well...as the meeting was about to begin.....these 9 very distinguished looking men came to sit on the stand....they were followed by two other very distinguished gentlemen. The nine men turned out to be the nine mission presidents in the region....the other two were Paul H. Dunn...who was a member of the First Council of Seventy..and a general authority....and the other was Elder David B. Haight...who just TWO weeks prior was sustained and set apart as a member of the Quorum of the Twelve. This was his first assignment as an Apostle. Needless to say...their was a very sweet, calm and yet very powerful spirit that was present. As a 16 yr old....I had never felt this before. The hair was sticking up on the back of my neck...and I did not know why. I was about to find out. Well, the 9 mission presidents each were asked to bear their testimonies...which were brief..yet very powerful. Elder Dunn spoke next....and he was his usual funny and spontanious self. Then Elder Haight came to the pulpit. To this day..I do not remember what he spoke about....but, I remember the incredibly powerful testimony which he bore. He related to us about his recent call to the apostleship....and how after he was ordained and set apart..with Pres. Kimball being voice ...this taking place in the council room of the 12. He told how after the ordination the other members of the 12 were offering their love and support ...and they all were slowly making their way out of the room...Elder Haight began to follow them out. Pres. Kimball politely told Elder Haight that he may want to stay behind...by himself to ponder and pray about what had just taken place etc. Elder Haight...evidently made the comment to the effect that...."thats ok, I would rather go with the rest of the brethren. Elder Haight then said that Pres. Kimball turned and faced him...took him by the shoulders and told him straight out...."no...Elder Haight...you are to stay here". Elder Haight of course...assured Pres. Kimball that he would stay..ponder....and pray. Then he bore his testimony that he KNOWS that God lives...and that Jesus is the Christ. He bore his Apostolic witness of the reality of the resurrected Lord Jesus Christ....and bore his witness that he lives! I tell you Dawn....as I sit here trying to type these thoughts...the feelings come back....and testify to me as strong as they did then...that his testimony was...and still is true. I think Heavenly Father blessed me on that particular day...and caused those good folk to "scrunch over" to make room....because he knew the testimony that was going to be born....and what kind of impact and lasting impression it was going to have on this new 16yr old father. He knew that that witness I would hear and feel would sink so deep...and take such deep root in my heart and soul....that it would carry me through some very dark days....and indeed many years of despair...poverty..and feelings of hopelessness. It did. When I received my own witness of the spirit that day...it enabled me to withstand the suicide of my father 3yrs later...the accidental death of my brother....and the sudden death of my mother. But...even more importantly...I realized I didnt have to doubt or question about whether what I heard was true or not. I knew it. I knew it then...I know it now. That one moment in time....where the spirit..by the ministration of the Holy Ghost...gave me such and incredible foundation of truth to build on.....I am so incredibly thankful for each day! I have some others....but, this was my first experience. randy

Ray, I understand what you are saying, I just disagree with you. You are stating that since the "organizational structure" of the church remained intact, that the church remained the "true church". Those two concepts are not necessarily entwined with each other. For example, the same argument has been (and still is) made about the Catholic Church. The spiritual authority is God's to give, not man's to assume. Dawn, The problem that I see you have is this.... Lets say for an example...just as a comparison that : 1) LDS church began teaching plural marriage 2) CoC/RLDS began teaching that women can be ordained to the PH 3) LDS church has "open communion" 4) CoC/RLDS began practicing "open communion" 5) LDS church teaches the concept of "Exaltation" 6) CoC/RLDS believes that salvation can to people through other ways...and NOT only through the atonement of Jesus Christ. My point is this...just as you believe the LDS church began teaching false doctrine that necessitated a "reorganization".....so also the CoC/RLDS has began teaching false doctrine...hence (according to the initial rational for the Reorganization) certain Restorationists have (according to their testimony) sought the Lord in prayer....and in answer to that prayer...the Lord directed them to RE-Reorganize the RLDS church....hence we now have the REMNANT Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints....which according to them is the "continuation" of the original church. So....my position is this....if you cannot support the rational of the Remnant Church seeing the need for a RE-Reorganization because the CoC/RLDS is teaching false and apostate doctrine (in their opinion) how is it you can support the initial "reorganizers" in their separating from the the main body of the Saints and the duly authorized and recognized leadership of the Church? It just doesnt make sense to me.....its ok to reorganize in 1851 because of the teaching of false doctrine...yet, when your Church is shown to be teaching false doctrine (according to your beliefs)....for some reason...its not ok to "RE-Reorganize" in 2000. How come? Explain please. randy

Tamara!! Thank you! LOL! You are so much fun! How are you doing? I hope all is going well with you and yours! I got put in "time out" on the CoC discussion board because I thought I would inject some humor....but I guess it wasnt very funny. So Pam thought I needed some time to cool my heals! I suppose she is right. It is kinda frustrating though..when Joanne can literally rip into someone and she gets nothin...nada..zilch...zippidy do da! Oh well. I will be back around the 13th or so! LOL! I just want to tell you again how much I enjoyed meeting you during your conference! You are and were so kind, thoughtful and sweet! randy How come you never want to meet me? I come out there frequently, and you have never said "Hey, let's hook up!" Randy, how long was your time out? They gave me 4 months when everyone else who ever got one was given 2 weeks. I think it sounded a bit ......... shall we say........biased, to me. But I was quicker than they were. I got in two requests to have my account deleted before they sent me my "scolding". When they refused to delete my account and sent me that letter, I became a little less placid about it. They finally gave me my wish. And, even though you have seen some great things from Joanne, believe me, you ain't seen nearly the things I have. Among other things, she accused me of having a "less than honorable" relationship with another poster on the board. And she got away with every single thing. Not once did she get "scolded". When I complained about that incident, they reprimanded ME. I threatened to send all my Joanne folder to the apostle in charge of the webboard if they didn't delete my account the way I asked. They did, but it took a threat to make them do it. So, Randy, what was the humor you tried to interject. I would love to hear it. B) Dawn!! This is SOOO weird! My very NEXT post was going to extend an invitation to you to go out to dinner with my wife and I. I would absolutely love to meet you! I am not saying this just cuz you asked....I was really gonna ask ya. Honest injun! So....let me know the next time you are up here....deal? Great! Hmmmm....lets see....about Joanne.....I was at work...and I have one of those "old english words that are never used anymore" calenders on my desk. (its not mine). I was thumbing through it....looking for some funny words I might use in my next post to Joanne or "David". I found the words "flibbergib" which means "gossipy person, "Cappernoited" which means "giddy or excited". So...I made up a post to Joanne that had them in it. Well, she didnt see the post right away but others did...and started asking me about the meanings. I played dumb....I know, I know..easy for me to do. Anyway....as it turned out....in addition to meaning "excited and giddy"...Cappernoited also means "tipsy or inebriated"....well, I wasnt aware that she was a recovering alcoholic. So....needless to say it didnt go over very well. I did write her an email apologizing for my mischief. She accepted it graciously. Pam the "pickle" didnt however....so I was told to go sit in the corner with my dunce cap on...till Nov 13th. randy