What Do You All Think About This?

[john doe]

Featherstone was a GA, but not an Apostle. So was Paul Dunn, if we get right down to it.

Why do you always have to reply with such stupid brayings?

Getting a little personal here, aren't we?

I suggest you research this a little further before your bitterness overtakes your sensibilitites. Is this new rule in the CHI, or was it part of a discussion heard in a leadership meeting? If this is actually a rule, it should be easy to find a reference or confirmation for it somewhere.

[Amillia]

Originally posted by Snow+Sep 5 2004, 10:26 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Snow @ Sep 5 2004, 10:26 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin--Amillia@Sep 5 2004, 09:19 PM

Why do you always have to reply with such stupid brayings?

So I was correct.

Now, about stupid brayings --- I'm not the one who calls temple requirements "EVIL" and I am not the one claiming that someone I know told me that someone else told them that yet another someone else said something and if you disagree with me the Bishop is a liar, Amelia

Where were you ever correct? LOL You are crazy, you know that? I call denying blessings to worthy saints evil. That includes a lot of other things you do as evil. For instance, you deny people here a clear picture of what a topic is about by your stupid brayings camoflaging them as responses with information. You must be evil.

[Amillia]

Originally posted by john doe@Sep 5 2004, 10:32 PM

Featherstone was a GA, but not an Apostle. So was Paul Dunn, if we get right down to it.

Why do you always have to reply with such stupid brayings?

Getting a little personal here, aren't we?

I suggest you research this a little further before your bitterness overtakes your sensibilitites. Is this new rule in the CHI, or was it part of a discussion heard in a leadership meeting? If this is actually a rule, it should be easy to find a reference or confirmation for it somewhere.

I would call all of Snows responses to me, personal and attacking. So why don't you ask him that question.

I appreciate your suggestion. I will research this as fact or fiction tomorrow, or Tuesday when there are responsible sources to quiz.

But what if I find that this bishop did lie. I can go to him direct and ask to hear the churche's stance on the matter. Then I could go to the church headquarters and ask their policy on the matter. Then if our bishop was lying we would all know.

Then what?

[Setheus]

So Amelia, you agree that there were speciel servants who went another way than "the crowd". Well then why are you arguing what the prophet has done...raise the standard. Are you implying that ALL of us now days are "special servants" and that we don't need to heed the council of the Servant of the Lord? And that we must do our "own special thing in our own way". Or are you afraid of the short commings of the saints? and that raising the standard will make us fail and unavoidably go to hadies because the command of the Lord was too great. ? The Lord HIMSELF has promised us that He would never allow a leader of the Church lead us into EVIL . And remember the words of Nephi to his brothers and how he showed them that the Lord will never give a commandment without a way to obey it. ----- So this leaves 3 possibilities...1. The saints are now ready for the bar to be raised and need it to be raised to prod us on to our full potiential and thus the Prophet is truly following the command of the Lord. 2. The Lord has taken back his promise (which if he did would cause him to cease to be God) or 3 Hinkley has somehow out smarted God and raised the bar while he was not looking.

I do know that not all will serve missions. I dont believe its a requirment to get to heaven. I took the military rout. I believe that some of us need to make the world safe and open for the hard core warriors known as Elder.

There is a reason for this new commandment. (I have not heard it myself but I will enquire of my bishop) However we feel about it lets follow it and see the blessings we recieve from it.

[Nina]

Amilla we must have been posting at the same time so I will reply now to your reply to me

"I agree with most of your post Nina, but I don't believe it is disobedient to follow the Lord's personal plan for you, just because it doesn't include the mission as recognized by the church leadership."

"There are so many young men who are destroyed when they come home early. What if they weren't meant to go in the first place and their failure was due to that fact? Some only go because of peer pressure and it turns out really bad for them. Maybe they really felt like this bishop's son, that they weren't to serve a mission, but felt compelled to anyway. Can you really just dump everyone into the same mold? Christ wouldn't I don't think."

Okay, let me just say this about that ... I agree that you should follow the Lord's personal plan for you, I also agree that you cannot dump everyone into one mold as you say.

I also know that sometimes it is hard, especially when we are younger to know all that we need to or should do (but of course we would never admit this). I am a perfect example ... I went on a mission ... I came home early for the very reasons you describe ... I thought the Lord had a different plan for me ... I thought I knew better than the Genreal Authorities and that I should be somewhere else doing something else ... I was so smart so in tune with my own destiny ... well you know what? I wasn't. The Lord did know what was best for me and the General Authorities did know where I should be. Now, years later, I regret so much not staying and working hard and pushing through the difficulties that every mission has. For as many people you know who say their lives where destroyed by going on a mission I probably know just as many who did not go on missions or who came home early and now that they have more spiritual and mental maturity kick themselves in the butt (Oops,can I say "butt" here? ) really grieving for the opportunity they missed to serve the Lord. My point is that when the Lord commands we should obey even when it is hard or a struggle or even when we don't know why ...

As for your gentleman who wants to go into the Armed Forces perhaps that is were he belongs (but maybe he belongs there in two years)I know of many instances during WWII where missions where suspended so that young men could serve their country but I think that is only for he and his leaders to decide and then they and the Lord can work it out ... if he doesn't get his endowment right away because of his choice ... well, wouldn't you agree that that is the Bishop's call?(guided by Our Father of course)?. It seems to me that the young man knows the score and what the consequences of his choice will be (and all of those consequences might not be bad) and can make his decision accordingly ...

I don't know if it's up to us to decide if it's "fair" or not.

[Snow]

Originally posted by Amillia@Sep 5 2004, 09:35 PM

Where were you ever correct? LOL You are crazy, you know that? I call denying blessings to worthy saints evil. That includes a lot of other things you do as evil. For instance, you deny people here a clear picture of what a topic is about by your stupid brayings camoflaging them as responses with information. You must be evil.

Amelia,

Am I more evil, or less evil than President Hinckley?

[Amillia]

Originally posted by Snow+Sep 5 2004, 10:50 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Snow @ Sep 5 2004, 10:50 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin--Amillia@Sep 5 2004, 09:35 PM

Where were you ever correct? LOL You are crazy, you know that?  I call denying blessings to worthy saints evil. That includes a lot of other things you do as evil. For instance, you deny people here a clear picture of what a topic is about by your stupid brayings camoflaging them as responses with information. You must be evil.

Amelia,

Am I more evil, or less evil than President Hinckley?

More. Way more. Because I didn't say, nor do I believe Hinckley is Evil. I think that a policy that denies blessings is evil. Get your facts straight. You are too easy to read as evil because you are a mass of confusion.

[john doe]

Then what?

Why don't we find out the facts before we decide what to do about it? Maybe your bishop misheard or misinterpreted what he was told? We don't know and it would be foolish to make that judgement until we do. Maybe this whole thread is just a result of you misunderstanding what was actually told to you?

[Amillia]

Originally posted by john doe@Sep 5 2004, 10:57 PM

Then what?

Why don't we find out the facts before we decide what to do about it? Maybe your bishop misheard or misinterpreted what he was told? We don't know and it would be foolish to make that judgement until we do. Maybe this whole thread is just a result of you misunderstanding what was actually told to you?

Well we discussed it most the afternoon, so I don't believe I misunderstood.

[john doe]

Well we discussed it most the afternoon, so I don't believe I misunderstood.

So you've already discussed this with your bishop? Not your old one, the current one. And did he divulge where his guidance on this came from? Is it in the CHI? Or was it the personal opinion of another leader, perhaps on the stake level? I'm not doubting what you say, but I have never heard this new rule before, and its source needs to be found to verify its accuracy.

BTW, do you know our old friend who used to post here under several different names, but most prominently as Peace? Your habit of calling doubters of your unsubstantiated word as being "EVIL" sounds familiar to me.

[Amillia]

Originally posted by john doe@Sep 5 2004, 11:15 PM

Well we discussed it most the afternoon, so I don't believe I misunderstood.

So you've already discussed this with your bishop? Not your old one, the current one. And did he divulge where his guidance on this came from? Is it in the CHI? Or was it the personal opinion of another leader, perhaps on the stake level? I'm not doubting what you say, but I have never heard this new rule before, and its source needs to be found to verify its accuracy.

BTW, do you know our old friend who used to post here under several different names, but most prominently as Peace? Your habit of calling doubters of your unsubstantiated word as being "EVIL" sounds familiar to me.

No. I'm sorry I didn't make it clear. I discussed it with my neighbor, my old bishop. I agree the truth must be known. My bishop was in meetings most the day because next week is Stake conference. I will contact him Tuesday night when he has interviews.

No I don't know anyone called Peace. Old friend? I have been lurking for a couple of months and only started posting a little a few weeks ago. If Peace is an old friend, why do you believe I am Peace?

And I don't believe it is unsubstantiated when it comes from a Bishop.

[john doe]

If Peace is an old friend, why do you believe I am Peace?

Let's just say that sometimes you recognize people by the way they walk before you actually see them close enough to see their face. Your accusatory finger-pointing and use of "EVIL" seem familiar. If you don't know her, then that's fine, too.

And I don't believe it is unsubstantiated when it comes from a Bishop.

FORMER bishop. You said you have not actually substantiated the new rule from your CURRENT bishop. Former bishops are not usually given explanatory memos when current bishops receive new instruction. Your former bishop is an unsubstantiated source, and he should be the first one to point this out to you. He apparently didn't know where this new rule came from, or he would have shared that source with you, right?

[Amillia]

Originally posted by john doe@Sep 5 2004, 11:49 PM

If Peace is an old friend, why do you believe I am Peace?

Let's just say that sometimes you recognize people by the way they walk before you actually see them close enough to see their face. Your accusatory finger-pointing and use of "EVIL" seem familiar. If you don't know her, then that's fine, too.

And I don't believe it is unsubstantiated when it comes from a Bishop.

FORMER bishop. You said you have not actually substantiated the new rule from your CURRENT bishop. Former bishops are not usually given explanatory memos when current bishops receive new instruction. Your former bishop is an unsubstantiated source, and he should be the first one to point this out to you. He apparently didn't know where this new rule came from, or he would have shared that source with you, right?

I put it up in another post. The old bishop was told by our present bishop that the statement was from the Prophet. He said it was read to him from a document.

I didn't ask what sort of document. It could have been a memo sent to the bishops from the Stake presidency or it could have been from a bishops hand book. I will find out.

I still consider my old bishop to be a bishop. I think he still carries confidences and considers it his calling to do so. I heard it taught that a bishop was a bishop for all eternity. Isn't that true anymore?

Just wonder why you called Peace your old friend and then proceeded to state things like this: Your accusatory finger-pointing and use of "EVIL" . It wasn't nice to say to me and it definitely wasn't the sort of thing a good friend would say.

[john doe]

I still consider my old bishop to be a bishop. I think he still carries confidences and considers it his calling to do so. I heard it taught that a bishop was a bishop for all eternity.

A former bishop does not continue to attend training and leadership meetings. He is considered out of the loop when it comes to new stuff coming out. And I hope he is not hearing new confidences, because that would be out of his scope. The current bishop holds the keys to revelation for your ward, and does not share them with your old bishop. If someone tries to tell him things as a bishop, he should be responsible enough to point that out.

Just wonder why you called Peace your old friend and then proceeded to state things like this: Your accusatory finger-pointing and use of "EVIL" . It wasn't nice to say to me and it definitely wasn't the sort of thing a good friend would say.

Was it nicer than the way you used those things toward Snow?

Maybe I was being generous in claiming that Peace is a friend, we have been in the same places at the same time before and have butted heads. Her style of dealing with questioners of her word was to call you evil and mean. It was/is her way of trying to duck the real reasons for her outbursts. And why are you now obsessed with her? If you don't know her, then the issue is dead. She apparently took her marbles and left here when she was last exposed. Unless you are another incarnation of her?

[Snow]

Originally posted by Amillia@Sep 5 2004, 09:37 PM

I would call all of Snows responses to me, personal and attacking.

Perhaps if you gave me an example of how I have been too personal or attacking Amelia I could better understand what you are talking about. Did you have any particular example in mind?

And on another note, when you say I am stupid, braying and evil, is that in the personal category or the attacking category Amelia?

By the way, I appreciate how you clarified that President Hinckley is not actually evil himself, he is just the author of evil policies. I can rest easy tonight.

[Snow]

Originally posted by Amillia@Sep 5 2004, 10:30 PM

No I don't know anyone called Peace. Old friend? I have been lurking for a couple of months and only started posting a little a few weeks ago. If Peace is an old friend, why do you believe I am Peace?

And I don't believe it is unsubstantiated when it comes from a Bishop.

Starksy/Peace,

Oh, It's you. That explains everything. I had the impression that Amillia was some 21 year old supercillious fruitcake that labored under the mistaken impression that she knew something about the Church that she didn't - you know how I attracted to the egotistical types.

Anyway - being you, I am kinda losing interest. No offense, you have always been nice to me and I honestly like you, I just am not interested in many of your topics when viewed through whatever lens focuses and bends the information you promulgate - that, and liking you as I do, I don't want to bug you unneccesarily.

Welcome back Peace, please play nice.

PS. It didn't come from a bishop. It came from someone who said that the bishop said it. That is a far cry from what Elder Featherstone might actually have meant.

[Amillia]

Originally posted by Snow+Sep 6 2004, 11:20 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Snow @ Sep 6 2004, 11:20 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin--Amillia@Sep 5 2004, 10:30 PM

No I don't know anyone called Peace. Old friend? I have been lurking for a couple of months and only started posting a little a few weeks ago.  If Peace is an old friend, why do you believe I am Peace?

And I don't believe it is unsubstantiated when it comes from a Bishop.

Starksy/Peace,

Oh, It's you. That explains everything. I had the impression that Amillia was some 21 year old supercillious fruitcake that labored under the mistaken impression that she knew something about the Church that she didn't - you know how I attracted to the egotistical types.

Anyway - being you, I am kinda losing interest. No offense, you have always been nice to me and I honestly like you, I just am not interested in many of your topics when viewed through whatever lens focuses and bends the information you promulgate - that, and liking you as I do, I don't want to bug you unneccesarily.

Welcome back Peace, please play nice.

PS. It didn't come from a bishop. It came from someone who said that the bishop said it. That is a far cry from what Elder Featherstone might actually have meant.

Okay. If you say so. You are so strange.

[Amillia]

Originally posted by john doe@Sep 6 2004, 10:13 AM

I still consider my old bishop to be a bishop. I think he still carries confidences and considers it his calling to do so. I heard it taught that a bishop was a bishop for all eternity.

A former bishop does not continue to attend training and leadership meetings. He is considered out of the loop when it comes to new stuff coming out. And I hope he is not hearing new confidences, because that would be out of his scope. The current bishop holds the keys to revelation for your ward, and does not share them with your old bishop. If someone tries to tell him things as a bishop, he should be responsible enough to point that out.

Just wonder why you called Peace your old friend and then proceeded to state things like this: Your accusatory finger-pointing and use of "EVIL" . It wasn't nice to say to me and it definitely wasn't the sort of thing a good friend would say.

Was it nicer than the way you used those things toward Snow?

Maybe I was being generous in claiming that Peace is a friend, we have been in the same places at the same time before and have butted heads. Her style of dealing with questioners of her word was to call you evil and mean. It was/is her way of trying to duck the real reasons for her outbursts. And why are you now obsessed with her? If you don't know her, then the issue is dead. She apparently took her marbles and left here when she was last exposed. Unless you are another incarnation of her?

Well John you have been the more sane, if I were to judge betwixt thee and Snow, but I haven't posted on this board much because of the contentious ignorance of many of the posters.

I will now go back into lurking mode and not as Peace, because I don't understand what makes me so like your not old friend or what he/she did to make you all crazy, but I am not him/her.

I was hoping to get some input on a topic that was too much for you to handle.

[john doe]

I was hoping to get some input on a topic that was too much for you to handle.

LOL! Oh, I think we handled the topic just fine. Evidently asking where an unknown policy originated is offensive to you. Sorry. If there is actually such a policy as you contend, we just want to know where it came from because it is news to us.

[Guest curvette]

With temple attendance down so much, I'm not sure I believe that this information is correct. If it is, I wonder why they would make this policy. If you hear any more details, please let us know.

[Faerie]

curvette, is your husband still a bishop?

[Guest bat]

Just ask Amillia if she believes that people live on the moon. That should settle it.

[shanstress70]

Originally posted by john doe@Sep 5 2004, 11:07 PM

Personally, I think that 17 is usually too young for a girl to recieve her endowment without getting married. Was your friend unusually mature and have an unusually strong testimony of the gospel?

But 17 is not too young is she's getting married?

[shanstress70]

Originally posted by Kevin@Sep 5 2004, 09:43 PM

I don't think its wise or incumbant upon you to question those decisions. Let the Lord run his church the way he ses fit - he'll deal with any mistakes made by leaders.

Yeah, you should never question anything done by the leaders of your church. It doesn't matter that you pay 10% of your income to it, or that you give many hours in service to it.

This kind of thinking scares me!

And I don't think this is Starsky.....because....she....only.... types.... with....ellipses! I can recognize her anywhere. I guess she could have changed her style, but I really don't think it's her.

[yaanufs]

Very amusing thread this. Keep it up.

I look forward to the next exciting installment when we can read the words of the current bishop.