Question About Joseph Smith Iii

[Jenda]

Dawn....I have already explained to you my position about the "rebaptisms". They were simply a voluntary affirmation of the covenants they had made with their Lord. Also...because baptismal records had been lost or destroyed during the persecution of the Saints...as well as during the exodus. Also...in some instances...the ordinance had never been recorded to begin with...so this afforded an official record to be made.

randy

Randy, Randy, Randy,

I know for a fact that records were not "lost" during the persecution of the saints. C'mon, I am not stupid. That is just urban legend to cover up for something that they wanted to accomplish. It's OK to admit that the church isn't everything you've been taught it was. You've been given a white-washed version of church history. We all have been.

[Amillia]

Originally posted by Jenda@Nov 10 2004, 07:04 PM

Zion, today is not in the LDS church. In fact, I have never heard any LDS person talk about Zion, let alone state that it is important to them today. Once I brought up the topic of Zion on this discussion board, and the whole thread was 3 or 4 posts long. It was shrugged off. Temple ordinances are of much more importance to the LDS than Zion. Whereas, for the RLDS, that is what the church is all about. Zion is the number one priority in the RLDS church because that is what the restoration was called to establish. To that end, the RLDS gathered to Independence, within the same generation, and worked for the first 100 years (or so) to specifically follow those commandments that the Lord laid down regarding the gathering and acquiring lands, etc., to begin to build up Zion. Where are the LDS? They are just now beginning to gather in any number to Independence, and many have said that the Lord changed His mind (something I don't believe the Lord does), and made SLC Zion.

Oh, BTW, we sing that song every time the prophet receives a revelation and it is approved and placed in the D&C. B)

Oh, if you didn't hear it spoken of from the LDS, then it doesn't exist in the LDS church. Good one. And this forum definitely must represent the whole of the LDS church right?

You really don't know what you are talking about when it comes to the LDS church. Did you happen to listen to the LDS conference this last October? I thought not.

[Snow]

Originally posted by Jenda@Nov 10 2004, 06:04 PM

They are just now beginning to gather in any number to Independence, and many have said that the Lord changed His mind (something I don't believe the Lord does), and made SLC Zion.

Apparently Jenda doesn't believe the Bible (Ex.32:14). Regardless, I spotted this straw man at a distance of 30 paces.... because Jenda believes that Mormons don't interpret gathering to Zion the same way Jenda thinks it ought to be interpreted - therefore Mormonism means that God changes his mind.

You're going to have have to do much, much, did I mention much?, better than that my little illogical friend.

[Randy Johnson]

Originally posted by Jenda@Nov 10 2004, 10:21 PM

Dawn....I have already explained to you my position about the "rebaptisms". They were simply a voluntary affirmation of the covenants they had made with their Lord. Also...because baptismal records had been lost or destroyed during the persecution of the Saints...as well as during the exodus. Also...in some instances...the ordinance had never been recorded to begin with...so this afforded an official record to be made.

randy

Randy, Randy, Randy,

I know for a fact that records were not "lost" during the persecution of the saints. C'mon, I am not stupid. That is just urban legend to cover up for something that they wanted to accomplish. It's OK to admit that the church isn't everything you've been taught it was. You've been given a white-washed version of church history. We all have been.

Dawn,

How do you know records were not lost or destroyed??? The fact of the matter is...the "rebaptisms" were voluntary...and were motivated out of wanting to show the Lord, that given all they had been through...they were recommitting themselves to him and his work. Thats all...nothing sinister about it. Just a reaffirmation of the covenants they had made.

I find it telling...that that was the only paragraph you chose to comment on.

If you would...share with us how you know its a "fact" that no records were lost or destroyed during either the constant moving of the Saints during their persecution...or especially during the exodus west.

I dont think your other comments came from your "stronger side" so I will not bother to comment on them. I will assume that perhaps you are having a hard nite.

randy

[Jenda]

Originally posted by Randy Johnson+Nov 10 2004, 09:49 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Randy Johnson @ Nov 10 2004, 09:49 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin--Jenda@Nov 10 2004, 10:21 PM

Dawn....I have already explained to you my position about the "rebaptisms". They were simply a voluntary affirmation of the covenants they had made with their Lord. Also...because baptismal records had been lost or destroyed during the persecution of the Saints...as well as during the exodus. Also...in some instances...the ordinance had never been recorded to begin with...so this afforded an official record to be made.

randy

Randy, Randy, Randy,

I know for a fact that records were not "lost" during the persecution of the saints.  C'mon, I am not stupid.  That is just urban legend to cover up for something that they wanted to accomplish.  It's OK to admit that the church isn't everything you've been taught it was.  You've been given a white-washed version of church history.  We all have been.

Dawn,

How do you know records were not lost or destroyed??? The fact of the matter is...the "rebaptisms" were voluntary...and were motivated out of wanting to show the Lord, that given all they had been through...they were recommitting themselves to him and his work. Thats all...nothing sinister about it. Just a reaffirmation of the covenants they had made.

I find it telling...that that was the only paragraph you chose to comment on.

If you would...share with us how you know its a "fact" that no records were lost or destroyed during either the constant moving of the Saints during their persecution...or especially during the exodus west.

I dont think your other comments came from your "stronger side" so I will not bother to comment on them. I will assume that perhaps you are having a hard nite.

randy

Actually, I wasn't/am not having a bad night.

The LDS have been fed a white-washed version of church history just as much as the RLDS, just in different areas. We white-washed Nauvoo, you all have white-washed the period from the death of Joseph till the time BY died, or so. You see it through rose-colored glasses, just as we completely ignored the fact that Nauvoo even happened. But we have opened our eyes. When are you going to take your rose-colored glasses off?

What is the first thing that you think of when you hear about the MMM? or the Danites/Avenging Angels? I already know, but go ahead and say it.

The reason I know that no records were lost is that they conveniently found them all, locked away in a vault in the basement of some church building, and started releasing them back in the late 70's.

[Jenda]

Originally posted by Snow+Nov 10 2004, 09:45 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Snow @ Nov 10 2004, 09:45 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin--Jenda@Nov 10 2004, 06:04 PM

They are just now beginning to gather in any number to Independence, and many have said that the Lord changed His mind (something I don't believe the Lord does), and made SLC Zion.

Apparently Jenda doesn't believe the Bible (Ex.32:14). Regardless, I spotted this straw man at a distance of 30 paces.... because Jenda believes that Mormons don't interpret gathering to Zion the same way Jenda thinks it ought to be interpreted - therefore Mormonism means that God changes his mind.

You're going to have have to do much, much, did I mention much?, better than that my little illogical friend.

Huh???

Exodus 32:14 And• the LORD repented• of the evil which he thought to do unto his people.

What does this have to do with anything?

[Snow]

Originally posted by Jenda@Nov 10 2004, 06:11 PM

Ray, the only people who broke off of BY's group are those who have broken off since they got to Utah.

Not true.

Zenas H. Gurley, who ordained JS III to prophethood in the RLDS was a "Brighamite" but splintered off on the way to Utah and BEFORE he got to Utah.

In ordaining JS III, Gurley was joined by William Marks, who in the ordination of Smith III functioned as the most senior Prophet, Priest and King on earth. How did Marks come to be the most senior Prophet, Priest and King on earth? Prior to ordaining JS III he, upon the death of JS, followed the Rigdon organization until 1846. He then joined James Strang and the Strangites where he served as counselor from 48 to the mid 50's. Marks then abandoned Strang and joined Charles B. Thompson's Jehovah's Presbytery of Zion and became the First Chief of the Quorum of Traveling Teachers. After that Marks joined another organization along with John Gaylord and John Page. The next year leaders of that group defected from it and founded the RLDS Church where Marks was the most senior Prophet, Priest and King on earth for JS the 3rd ordination.

At the time Marks left the Church in his church shopping escapades, he held no calling in the Church - that is, he had no authority to ordain anybody.

[Snow]

Originally posted by Jenda@Nov 10 2004, 10:12 PM

Huh???

Exodus 32:14 And• the LORD repented• of the evil which he thought to do unto his people.

What does this have to do with anything?

What on earth do you mean what does that have to do with anything.

You claim that God doesn't change his mind. Ex 32:14 says that God was going to harm his own people but then changed his mind.

[Snow]

Originally posted by Jenda@Nov 10 2004, 06:11 PM

And just so you know, your church broke off from mine, and you are apostate.

I know you are joking but the joke is factually untrue. The Church of Jesus Christ was formed 2 and a half decades prior to your Church. Your Church was even formed a decade after the Church had it's succession crisis. Your group is not even a splinter and it was formed from scratch.

[Snow]

Originally posted by Jenda@Nov 10 2004, 07:16 PM

You might also wish to remind Ray that BY had everyone re-baptized once they got away from Nauvoo, thus creating a new organization

My handy "bull" detector just went off. I don't even know what you are talking about but I know it fails the smell test.

Explain how re-baptism (if there is a thing such as you claim) = a new organization. Who's mangy dog invented that rule?

[Randy Johnson]

Originally posted by Jenda@Nov 10 2004, 10:21 PM

Dawn....I have already explained to you my position about the "rebaptisms". They were simply a voluntary affirmation of the covenants they had made with their Lord. Also...because baptismal records had been lost or destroyed during the persecution of the Saints...as well as during the exodus. Also...in some instances...the ordinance had never been recorded to begin with...so this afforded an official record to be made.

randy

Randy, Randy, Randy,

I know for a fact that records were not "lost" during the persecution of the saints. C'mon, I am not stupid. That is just urban legend to cover up for something that they wanted to accomplish. It's OK to admit that the church isn't everything you've been taught it was. You've been given a white-washed version of church history. We all have been.

Dawn,

Just a quick thought before I go nite nite.

I was thinking of the book your friend has written or is writing about the "Court cases" and my thought is this....it will be interesting to see if he can explain how:

1) A civil court can adjudicate in ecclesiastical/doctrinal disputes, and thus be able to render any kind of legitimate "opinion or judgement".

2) Explain how the RLDS church could rely upon the "Oliver Cowdery" deed that allegedly states that Oliver and Elizibeth had 3 children that died in infancy. Their geneology shows clearly these children NEVER existed. The RLDS church has tried to prove a chain of title through these "non-existant" children. However, having said that...this is where Judge Phillips made one of his several collossal errors...because he in fact, accepted at face value, without evidence..that the "Cowdery deed" was legitimate. The RLDS church lost the suit...but, this is just one of the incredibly huge errors he made.

3) Explain how any "judgement" rendered...either favorable or not...could be binding upon The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints? This knowing the LDS church was never made a party to either Court case.

4) Explain how..since all of the official records of the Church went west....that there was never at any time any discussion at the highest levels of church leadership any talk of ever sponsoring or submitting any plans for a "reorganization" of the "Church" at any general or local conferences.

5) Explain and give evidence as to why the RLDS church repudiates the contents of the official records that went west. IMO...the records indicate clearly that there was no sense of "disorganization"...nor any usurptation of power....and thus, no need for a "reorganization".

6) Explain the RLDS unique claim of "disorganization" after the death of JS....when the evidence in both court cases demonstrated clearly that there was absolutely NO evidence to show or prove that the original church ceased to hold general and local conferences, or that the original church discontinued the practice of submitting the names of the presiding officers to the membership regulary for approval or rejection as called for by church law.

7) Explain the testimony of the RLDS witnesses in the Indep.Temple lot case...that what became "disorganized" was NOT The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, but various groups of EX MEMBERS who had withdrawn and separated from the original Church and who had refused to accept the duly authorized and recognized leadership of the original church.

Again....I REALLY want to take a look at your friends work. If you are in contact with him....try to get permission for me to contact him.

randy

[Snow]

Originally posted by Jenda@Nov 10 2004, 09:17 PM

The church voted to sustain the quorum of twelve in their calling. Scriptural support lists 2 qualification to that type of leadership. Well, three, if you want to be specific. The one that is so often disregarded in that scripture is that the quorum of seventy is of equal authority as the quorum of 12. But the two that I was thinking of originally was that it stipulates that the quorum of twelve must be both complete and unanimous. It doesn't state full or unanimous, but that doesn't matter, because it was neither full or unanimous. During the short period of time that it was full, it was not unanimous, so BY took care of that and excommunicated a couple of apostles, but then it wasn't full. So, at no time was the quorum of twelve able to fulfill that calling.

I don't even have to bother with the doctrinal interpretation. Every single member of the Church hierarchy save Rigdon, William Smith, Wright and Page disagreed with that interpretation. The reason that the Church has a leadership hierarchy is so that they can lead. You, and lay members like you/us don't set the rules of the Church.

Besides which, you are overlooking the fact that the D&C, in other words, revelation from God, (in section 43) gives the prophet the ability to designate who is to lead the church after him.  And if, as you say, he designated, or blessed, or wrote letters for David Whitmer, Oliver Cowdery, Hyrum Smith, JS III, David Hyrum Smith, Samuel H. Smith as well as laying the foundation for succession claims of Sidney Rigdon, William Smith, Lyman Wright, William Marks, James L. isn't-that-Strang, and Alpheus Cutler, he didn't do so for the quorum of twelve, unless you can dig me up a letter of designation.  While I have read of other designations, letters, etc., for some of the others, I have never heard of one for the quorum of twelve.  So please substantiate your claim with a reference.  Thanks.

Don't try and mislead people into thinking that I said that Smith wrote a letter designating the Twelve as he may have for Strang (probably not) or others. You know full well (having just read what I wrote) that I did not say that. I said that he laid the foundation for their succession claim.

[ST:DS9]

Originally posted by Jenda+Nov 10 2004, 11:04 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Jenda @ Nov 10 2004, 11:04 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>

Originally posted by -Randy Johnson@Nov 10 2004, 09:49 PM

<!--QuoteBegin--Jenda@Nov 10 2004, 10:21 PM

Dawn....I have already explained to you my position about the "rebaptisms". They were simply a voluntary affirmation of the covenants they had made with their Lord. Also...because baptismal records had been lost or destroyed during the persecution of the Saints...as well as during the exodus. Also...in some instances...the ordinance had never been recorded to begin with...so this afforded an official record to be made.

randy

Randy, Randy, Randy,

I know for a fact that records were not "lost" during the persecution of the saints.  C'mon, I am not stupid.  That is just urban legend to cover up for something that they wanted to accomplish.  It's OK to admit that the church isn't everything you've been taught it was.  You've been given a white-washed version of church history.  We all have been.

Dawn,

How do you know records were not lost or destroyed??? The fact of the matter is...the "rebaptisms" were voluntary...and were motivated out of wanting to show the Lord, that given all they had been through...they were recommitting themselves to him and his work. Thats all...nothing sinister about it. Just a reaffirmation of the covenants they had made.

I find it telling...that that was the only paragraph you chose to comment on.

If you would...share with us how you know its a "fact" that no records were lost or destroyed during either the constant moving of the Saints during their persecution...or especially during the exodus west.

I dont think your other comments came from your "stronger side" so I will not bother to comment on them. I will assume that perhaps you are having a hard nite.

randy

Actually, I wasn't/am not having a bad night.

The LDS have been fed a white-washed version of church history just as much as the RLDS, just in different areas. We white-washed Nauvoo, you all have white-washed the period from the death of Joseph till the time BY died, or so. You see it through rose-colored glasses, just as we completely ignored the fact that Nauvoo even happened. But we have opened our eyes. When are you going to take your rose-colored glasses off?

What is the first thing that you think of when you hear about the MMM? or the Danites/Avenging Angels? I already know, but go ahead and say it.

The reason I know that no records were lost is that they conveniently found them all, locked away in a vault in the basement of some church building, and started releasing them back in the late 70's.

Ya, so what I see is that the records were lost and then found over 100 years later. Which means, you guessed it, they were lost to the saints who went to Utah.

[Jenda]

Originally posted by Snow+Nov 10 2004, 10:14 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Snow @ Nov 10 2004, 10:14 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin--Jenda@Nov 10 2004, 06:11 PM

Ray, the only people who broke off of BY's group are those who have broken off since they got to Utah.

Not true.

Zenas H. Gurley, who ordained JS III to prophethood in the RLDS was a "Brighamite" but splintered off on the way to Utah and BEFORE he got to Utah.

In ordaining JS III, Gurley was joined by William Marks, who in the ordination of Smith III functioned as the most senior Prophet, Priest and King on earth. How did Marks come to be the most senior Prophet, Priest and King on earth? Prior to ordaining JS III he, upon the death of JS, followed the Rigdon organization until 1846. He then joined James Strang and the Strangites where he served as counselor from 48 to the mid 50's. Marks then abandoned Strang and joined Charles B. Thompson's Jehovah's Presbytery of Zion and became the First Chief of the Quorum of Traveling Teachers. After that Marks joined another organization along with John Gaylord and John Page. The next year leaders of that group defected from it and founded the RLDS Church where Marks was the most senior Prophet, Priest and King on earth for JS the 3rd ordination.

At the time Marks left the Church in his church shopping escapades, he held no calling in the Church - that is, he had no authority to ordain anybody.

Snow, you can put whatever spin on it you want that makes you feel better, more important, whatever. That doesn't change the truth of what happened and why it happened.

[Jenda]

Originally posted by Snow+Nov 10 2004, 10:17 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Snow @ Nov 10 2004, 10:17 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin--Jenda@Nov 10 2004, 10:12 PM

Huh???

Exodus 32:14 And• the LORD repented• of the evil which he thought to do unto his people.

What does this have to do with anything?

What on earth do you mean what does that have to do with anything.

You claim that God doesn't change his mind. Ex 32:14 says that God was going to harm his own people but then changed his mind.

You are (purposely?) confusing doctrine the Lord requires us to believe and practice and actions that God does or doesn't take. You can't put us on the same level as God.

Not only does God say He does not change, He also says He is not a respecter of persons. For God to change his mind regarding issues of doctrine makes him, not only a respecter of persons, but it makes him not God (for if I change, I cease to be God.)

[Jenda]

Originally posted by Snow+Nov 10 2004, 10:25 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Snow @ Nov 10 2004, 10:25 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin--Jenda@Nov 10 2004, 07:16 PM

You might also wish to remind Ray that BY had everyone re-baptized once they got away from Nauvoo, thus creating a new organization

My handy "bull" detector just went off. I don't even know what you are talking about but I know it fails the smell test.

Explain how re-baptism (if there is a thing such as you claim) = a new organization. Who's mangy dog invented that rule?

Think about it.

[Jenda]

Originally posted by Snow+Nov 10 2004, 10:37 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Snow @ Nov 10 2004, 10:37 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin--Jenda@Nov 10 2004, 09:17 PM

The church voted to sustain the quorum of twelve in their calling.  Scriptural support lists 2 qualification to that type of leadership.  Well, three, if you want to be specific.  The one that is so often disregarded in that scripture is that the quorum of seventy is of equal authority as the quorum of 12.  But the two that I was thinking of originally was that it stipulates that the quorum of twelve must be both complete and unanimous.  It doesn't state full or unanimous, but that doesn't matter, because it was neither full or unanimous.  During the short period of time that it was full, it was not unanimous, so BY took care of that and excommunicated a couple of apostles, but then it wasn't full.  So, at no time was the quorum of twelve able to fulfill that calling.

I don't even have to bother with the doctrinal interpretation. Every single member of the Church hierarchy save Rigdon, William Smith, Wright and Page disagreed with that interpretation. The reason that the Church has a leadership hierarchy is so that they can lead. You, and lay members like you/us don't set the rules of the Church.

Besides which, you are overlooking the fact that the D&C, in other words, revelation from God, (in section 43) gives the prophet the ability to designate who is to lead the church after him.  And if, as you say, he designated, or blessed, or wrote letters for David Whitmer, Oliver Cowdery, Hyrum Smith, JS III, David Hyrum Smith, Samuel H. Smith as well as laying the foundation for succession claims of Sidney Rigdon, William Smith, Lyman Wright, William Marks, James L. isn't-that-Strang, and Alpheus Cutler, he didn't do so for the quorum of twelve, unless you can dig me up a letter of designation.  While I have read of other designations, letters, etc., for some of the others, I have never heard of one for the quorum of twelve.  So please substantiate your claim with a reference.  Thanks.

Don't try and mislead people into thinking that I said that Smith wrote a letter designating the Twelve as he may have for Strang (probably not) or others. You know full well (having just read what I wrote) that I did not say that. I said that he laid the foundation for their succession claim.

Snow, you have got to be kidding!!! I can't believe you are saying this with a straight face.

The church was set up in a very legalistic manner, with revelations stating what the hierarchy is, how it is supposed to work, how it is supposed to progress in case of a calamity. You can't just throw those things aside and say "Nobody agreed with those interpretations so we did away with them." That is the first cardinal sin of not following God's directions. God gave those revelations, it seems, for just such a case, and you are, in effect, saying, "Forget you, God. We will do it our own way so we get our own way."

I didn't imply that he wrote a letter. You implied that he laid a foundation for their claim of succession, and I am asking you to provide that.

[Jenda]

Originally posted by ST:DS9+Nov 11 2004, 05:35 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (ST:DS9 @ Nov 11 2004, 05:35 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>

Originally posted by -Jenda@Nov 10 2004, 11:04 PM

Originally posted by -Randy Johnson@Nov 10 2004, 09:49 PM

<!--QuoteBegin--Jenda@Nov 10 2004, 10:21 PM

Dawn....I have already explained to you my position about the "rebaptisms". They were simply a voluntary affirmation of the covenants they had made with their Lord. Also...because baptismal records had been lost or destroyed during the persecution of the Saints...as well as during the exodus. Also...in some instances...the ordinance had never been recorded to begin with...so this afforded an official record to be made.

randy

Randy, Randy, Randy,

I know for a fact that records were not "lost" during the persecution of the saints.  C'mon, I am not stupid.  That is just urban legend to cover up for something that they wanted to accomplish.  It's OK to admit that the church isn't everything you've been taught it was.  You've been given a white-washed version of church history.  We all have been.

Dawn,

How do you know records were not lost or destroyed??? The fact of the matter is...the "rebaptisms" were voluntary...and were motivated out of wanting to show the Lord, that given all they had been through...they were recommitting themselves to him and his work. Thats all...nothing sinister about it. Just a reaffirmation of the covenants they had made.

I find it telling...that that was the only paragraph you chose to comment on.

If you would...share with us how you know its a "fact" that no records were lost or destroyed during either the constant moving of the Saints during their persecution...or especially during the exodus west.

I dont think your other comments came from your "stronger side" so I will not bother to comment on them. I will assume that perhaps you are having a hard nite.

randy

Actually, I wasn't/am not having a bad night.

The LDS have been fed a white-washed version of church history just as much as the RLDS, just in different areas. We white-washed Nauvoo, you all have white-washed the period from the death of Joseph till the time BY died, or so. You see it through rose-colored glasses, just as we completely ignored the fact that Nauvoo even happened. But we have opened our eyes. When are you going to take your rose-colored glasses off?

What is the first thing that you think of when you hear about the MMM? or the Danites/Avenging Angels? I already know, but go ahead and say it.

The reason I know that no records were lost is that they conveniently found them all, locked away in a vault in the basement of some church building, and started releasing them back in the late 70's.

Ya, so what I see is that the records were lost and then found over 100 years later. Which means, you guessed it, they were lost to the saints who went to Utah.

In case you didn't recognize it, I was using "lost" and "found" sardonically. They weren't lost, so they didn't need to be found. They just finally admitted they had them and released them for observation and examination.

[Jenda]

Let me repeat what I said before. As far as I am concerned, this thread is closed. There is nothing new being discussed, and all it is doing is engendering hard feelings, which spirit is not of the Lord.

So, I will not reply to anything else that has to do with the succession in the presidency topic but y'all can discuss it amongst yourselves if you choose.

[Randy Johnson]

Originally posted by Jenda@Nov 11 2004, 07:52 AM

Let me repeat what I said before. As far as I am concerned, this thread is closed. There is nothing new being discussed, and all it is doing is engendering hard feelings, which spirit is not of the Lord.

So, I will not reply to anything else that has to do with the succession in the presidency topic but y'all can discuss it amongst yourselves if you choose.

Dawn,

My questions were about the "Court cases". Why cant you attempt to answer those?

"When the going gets tough" you bug out??? Thats not the Dawn I know!

But you know what really chaps my hide about you taking the easy road out of this discussion? It is because when it took place on Center Place discussion board and ya'all had all the calvery poised and at the "ready" against me at the time....I never once heard anyone say..."enough...the topic is closed..its engendering hard feelings"! Not one time did I ever hear that. I was the Lone Ranger there...and ya'all pretty well beat up on me....well, until I wasnt allowed to post any more! LOL!!!!

But...it wasnt because I was ducking the hard questions.

Really....you should answer the questions. There is no hard feelings on my part....and i dont believe there is on anyone else's part either. Dont use that as an excuse to "bug out".

[Jenda]

Originally posted by Randy Johnson+Nov 11 2004, 07:28 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Randy Johnson @ Nov 11 2004, 07:28 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin--Jenda@Nov 11 2004, 07:52 AM

Let me repeat what I said before.  As far as I am concerned, this thread is closed.  There is nothing new being discussed, and all it is doing is engendering hard feelings, which spirit is not of the Lord. 

So, I will not reply to anything else that has to do with the succession in the presidency topic but y'all can discuss it amongst yourselves if you choose.

Dawn,

My questions were about the "Court cases". Why cant you attempt to answer those?

"When the going gets tough" you bug out??? Thats not the Dawn I know!

But you know what really chaps my hide about you taking the easy road out of this discussion? It is because when it took place on Center Place discussion board and ya'all had all the calvery poised and at the "ready" against me at the time....I never once heard anyone say..."enough...the topic is closed..its engendering hard feelings"! Not one time did I ever hear that. I was the Lone Ranger there...and ya'all pretty well beat up on me....well, until I wasnt allowed to post any more! LOL!!!!

But...it wasnt because I was ducking the hard questions.

Really....you should answer the questions. There is no hard feelings on my part....and i dont believe there is on anyone else's part either. Dont use that as an excuse to "bug out".

Randy, I said I needed to talk to someone else to provide that information. I wrote to him, and when he responds, I will post it. I can't discuss it any further without more knowledge about it. You'll just have to learn patience.

When did you ever post on Centerplace.org? I was referring to the fact that the topic is exhausted and the rehashing is just bringing out unpleasant personality traits. Read some of Snow's posts. I have purposely ignored those posts of his that were written merely to reflect his anger. They are the ones that are sarcastic in nature, very easy to spot. I am not going to play that game. Contention and division are not of God, so if the easy road is the high road, then I will take it.

[Amillia]

Originally posted by Snow+Nov 10 2004, 07:33 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Snow @ Nov 10 2004, 07:33 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>

Originally posted by -Amillia@Nov 10 2004, 10:08 AM

Originally posted by -Snow@Nov 9 2004, 07:21 PM

<!--QuoteBegin--Amillia@Nov 9 2004, 10:22 AM

Wouldn't it be interesting to have the CofC admit they have failed to divide Zion and stand?

Starksy,

What does that mean?

You have a fixation for Starsky/peace...as some other males do here. I find it funny.

No

I am not fixated. Simply put, you, Amilia, used to go by the name of Starsky, and before that Peace. That I call you by a name you yourself used does not make me fixated.

You can't get over her can you.

[Randy Johnson]

Originally posted by Jenda+Nov 11 2004, 09:21 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Jenda @ Nov 11 2004, 09:21 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>

Originally posted by -Randy Johnson@Nov 11 2004, 07:28 AM

<!--QuoteBegin--Jenda@Nov 11 2004, 07:52 AM

Let me repeat what I said before.  As far as I am concerned, this thread is closed.  There is nothing new being discussed, and all it is doing is engendering hard feelings, which spirit is not of the Lord. 

So, I will not reply to anything else that has to do with the succession in the presidency topic but y'all can discuss it amongst yourselves if you choose.

Dawn,

My questions were about the "Court cases". Why cant you attempt to answer those?

"When the going gets tough" you bug out??? Thats not the Dawn I know!

But you know what really chaps my hide about you taking the easy road out of this discussion? It is because when it took place on Center Place discussion board and ya'all had all the calvery poised and at the "ready" against me at the time....I never once heard anyone say..."enough...the topic is closed..its engendering hard feelings"! Not one time did I ever hear that. I was the Lone Ranger there...and ya'all pretty well beat up on me....well, until I wasnt allowed to post any more! LOL!!!!

But...it wasnt because I was ducking the hard questions.

Really....you should answer the questions. There is no hard feelings on my part....and i dont believe there is on anyone else's part either. Dont use that as an excuse to "bug out".

Randy, I said I needed to talk to someone else to provide that information. I wrote to him, and when he responds, I will post it. I can't discuss it any further without more knowledge about it. You'll just have to learn patience.

When did you ever post on Centerplace.org? I was referring to the fact that the topic is exhausted and the rehashing is just bringing out unpleasant personality traits. Read some of Snow's posts. I have purposely ignored those posts of his that were written merely to reflect his anger. They are the ones that are sarcastic in nature, very easy to spot. I am not going to play that game. Contention and division are not of God, so if the easy road is the high road, then I will take it.

Dawn,

Waaaaa...waaaaa...my feelings are hurt now!!! I posted on the Center Place board for about a year until I got the boot about a year and a half ago!

We first "met" there! Dont ya remember?? Waaaaa....why I remember it like it was yesterday!! Boo hoo hoo...waaaaaa!

Yes...I remember my "beatings" well! Kathy Widner...Jenda....and others. It was fun. I didnt mind the questions. I found it hard to keep up with all the questions though...just one of me and all of you guys! Kinda like what you have here! LOL!

So...I feel your pain!

[Blessed]

Well if it makes you feel any better, Randy. I remember.

[Randy Johnson]

Originally posted by Blessed@Nov 11 2004, 01:27 PM

Well if it makes you feel any better, Randy. I remember.

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