David Koresh Rose from the Dead

[Rhea]

When a shortened reference is needed, the terms “the Church” or the “Church of Jesus Christ” are encouraged. The “restored Church of Jesus Christ” is also accurate and encouraged.

“The Church.” LOL. The arrogance. The bald-faced arrogance. Doods. That was already taken long before you were born.

When referring to Church members, the terms “members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints” or “Latter-day Saints” are preferred. We ask that the term “Mormons” not be used

When referring to gays, the terms “people” and “humans” are preferred. We ask tha tthe term “abomination” not be used.

When referring to atheists, the terms “people” and “humans” are preferred. We ask that the terms “unbeliever,” “darkness” and “wicked” not be used.


You first, y’all.

 

[blastula]

Do either of you have other witnesses beside yourselves? No disrespect to your new religions... Joseph Smith and Mohammed for example, had similar 'lonesome' experiences - lonesomly writing their doctrines. The bible :requires' several witnesses, which is actually an advantage, having several authors, despite the old debating rhetoric that erroneously suggested... that having many writers in the bible is problematic.

The Bible has several writers. Writers does not mean witnesses.

 

[Learner]

When a shortened reference is needed, the terms “the Church” or the “Church of Jesus Christ” are encouraged. The “restored Church of Jesus Christ” is also accurate and encouraged.

“The Church.” LOL. The arrogance. The bald-faced arrogance. Doods. That was already taken long before you were born.

Was "arrogance" the punch line in your response? You some how at least, got a big LOL out of it. LOLs I find are mocking responses when one is being riled up.

When referring to Church members, the terms “members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints” or “Latter-day Saints” are preferred. We ask that the term “Mormons” not be used

When referring to gays, the terms “people” and “humans” are preferred. We ask tha tthe term “abomination” not be used.

That's fine...put it out there. I call gays, people and humans, straight up, no LOL.

When referring to atheists, the terms “people” and “humans” are preferred. We ask that the terms “unbeliever,” “darkness” and “wicked” not be used.


You first, y’all.

That's fine too. We can agree on terms of use between us, per thread or topic, like for instance. Believing People or PwB for short, and non-believing people NBP or somwthing similar. What say you?

 

[Learner]

Do either of you have other witnesses beside yourselves? No disrespect to your new religions... Joseph Smith and Mohammed for example, had similar 'lonesome' experiences - lonesomly writing their doctrines. The bible :requires' several witnesses, which is actually an advantage, having several authors, despite the old debating rhetoric that erroneously suggested... that having many writers in the bible is problematic.

The Bible has several writers. Writers does not mean witnesses.

Direct 'word equivalence' was not my claim.

There were about 40 authors of the bible that corroborate with each other. Some are reports of events, which includes the reporting of witnesses to certain events, and some were direct witness reports of having attended certain events or meetings with individuals .

 

[bilby]

They would like people to cease from calling them Mormons.

No problem, I usually just drop the second "m" anyway.

 

[Rhea]

When a shortened reference is needed, the terms “the Church” or the “Church of Jesus Christ” are encouraged. The “restored Church of Jesus Christ” is also accurate and encouraged.

“The Church.” LOL. The arrogance. The bald-faced arrogance. Doods. That was already taken long before you were born.

Was "arrogance" the punch line in your response? You some how at least, got a big LOL out of it. LOLs I find are mocking responses when one is being riled up.

Yes, I did get a big LOL out of one of the most modern sects of Christianity wanting people to refer to them as “The Church.” It would be like Ave Maria University wanting to be called, “The University.” That doesn’t strike you as funny?

Especially when they follow it up with, “and we’d like it if you’d call us all ‘saints,’ too.” Sure, Bob. And I’d like you to call me “Empress.”

When referring to Church members, the terms “members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints” or “Latter-day Saints” are preferred. We ask that the term “Mormons” not be used

When referring to gays, the terms “people” and “humans” are preferred. We ask tha tthe term “abomination” not be used.

That's fine...put it out there. I call gays, people and humans, straight up, no LOL.

When referring to atheists, the terms “people” and “humans” are preferred. We ask that the terms “unbeliever,” “darkness” and “wicked” not be used.


You first, y’all.

That's fine too. We can agree on terms of use between us, per thread or topic, like for instance. Believing People or PwB for short, and non-believing people NBP or somwthing similar. What say you?

Are you saying that you are LDS and you speak for all LDS and that no LDS will ever call a gay person abomination based on the instructions in their book, nor will they call an atheist an “unbeliever” nor ever quote the verse, “Don’t be unequally yoked with unbelievers, for what fellowship do righteousness and iniquity have? Or what fellowship does light have with darkness?”


Because until you all rip those pages out of your bibles, we haven’t “agreed on terms of use.” The fact that one LDS says they will no longer quote their bible does not, in any way, provide cover for the LDS church to declare that they do not have a big honking log in their eye.

So I’m not sure what your point is here. Are you trying to say they don’t have a log in their eye because you agree to tear those pages out of your book and never quote them again, and they can go on with their effort to point out the speck in ours?

 

[BH]

LDS do believe they are the one true church Jesus founded, at least i get that impression talking to them. The Book of Mormon says the devil would create false churches with damnable doctrines.

Interesting side note. I was raised Church of Christ (Campbellite). The Church of Christ claims to be the one true church but the nonfounder founder Alexander Campbell started it in the early 1800s and it can be argued the Church of Christ did not doctrinally form its particular doctrines till around 1900 when it split from what became the Christian Church Disciples of Christ . Anyway , there was a Church of Christ preacher named Sidney Rigdon back in Campbells time who jumped ship and joined the Mormons. Alexander Campbell and other religious leaders thought Rigdon actually wrote the Book of Mormon because it has so much Church of Christ err Campbell doctrine in it. Joseph Smith later threw Rigdon out and I wonder why. Hmmm. It may not be proven but there is enough truth to the claim to make it credible in my opinion.

Examples:

baptism must be by immersion for the forgiveness of sin
the church name is Church of Christ
the local congregation has elders and deacons
other denominations are churches Satan started and are false.

I could go on but it has been a long time since I read the Book of Mormon.

Remember the good Lord has his ways and he is omnipotent, omnibenevolent, and omniscient. If he wants to raise David Koresh from the dead he can do so and doesn't have to prophesy he would no more than he had to have a prophecy he would appear to Paul on Damascus road. Also, if God in his wisdom can supposedly use verses taken out of context to prophesy Christ in the Od Testament he can do it with David Koresh too or even Joseph Smith.

 

[Learner]

I'm DK, still dead, but my spirit lives like Sauron. The women are unclean infidels. My time has not yet come.

Prove me wrong.

Do either of you have other witnesses beside yourselves? No disrespect to your new religions... Joseph Smith and Mohammed for example, had similar 'lonesome' experiences - lonesomly writing their doctrines. The bible :requires' several witnesses, which is actually an advantage, having several authors, despite the old debating rhetoric that erroneously suggested... that having many writers in the bible is problematic.

Who witnessed the Bible writers write the Bible? People can lie and make up stories with made up eyewitnesses to made up events events. The whole city of Uruk went out to watch Gilgamesh and Enkidu beat the crap out of the bull of heaven.

As I mentioned in a previous post ... there were forty writers for the bible, corroborating with each other. The comparison I was making was the number of writers, backing up their individual narratives between the different faiths.

The Book of Mormon records King Benjamin giving a speech to his people in a large tower so he could to be seen by all and arrows fired by bad people miraculously miss him. In another event witnesses saw a cloud fly down from heaven and refresh the righteous when they were exhausted by their enemies. And of course Jesus appeared to many witnesses in America .

I would for example 'hope that when anyone mentions 'many witnesses in America', you're not implying that automatically, "you can't
doubt it", which could be about anything. The bible does not say "Thou shalt believe anything that mentions Jesus.."

Its eyewitness testimony according to a book so you cant doubt it.

Accepting truth claims depends really on the information, just like the above, I would wonder whether or not this was a technical "you can't doubt it" since there's not much contextual info here. I mean... I would need to know the details of the witnesses claims? The specific cases. Are they lone individuals or groups who were witnessing the very same appearance?

I would need to make a judgment.

We are expected to accept truth claims of supposed witnesses to the empty tomb of Jesus and even the events at Sinai by the Jews a thousand years earlier so it is only logical witness testimony proves the story of Gilgamesh true and the American Jews in the Book of Mormon too.

I would think its logical at least, to compare, and 'not be too hasty to accept any notion willy nilly'. We have the stories of Egyptian pharaohs, which is widely accepted as containing historical events; the mentioning of names and places, battles and victories etc. - and the religious aspects that include gods and worship, merge together into a single narrative.

If the last two can just be stories about eyewitness events invented by the author then the first two can be too. And many Mormons died for their beliefs so they got the martyr card to play too.

Yes that could be a possibility, with thorough investigation.

 

[Learner]

When a shortened reference is needed, the terms “the Church” or the “Church of Jesus Christ” are encouraged. The “restored Church of Jesus Christ” is also accurate and encouraged.

“The Church.” LOL. The arrogance. The bald-faced arrogance. Doods. That was already taken long before you were born.

Was "arrogance" the punch line in your response? You some how at least, got a big LOL out of it. LOLs I find are mocking responses when one is being riled up.

Yes, I did get a big LOL out of one of the most modern sects of Christianity wanting people to refer to them as “The Church.” It would be like Ave Maria University wanting to be called, “The University.” That doesn’t strike you as funny?

I see ok, I don't see this as funny as you do, but 'the church' wouldn't be the name I'd choose for myself.

Especially when they follow it up with, “and we’d like it if you’d call us all ‘saints,’ too.” Sure, Bob. And I’d like you to call me “Empress.”

When referring to Church members, the terms “members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints” or “Latter-day Saints” are preferred. We ask that the term “Mormons” not be used

When referring to gays, the terms “people” and “humans” are preferred. We ask tha tthe term “abomination” not be used.

That's fine...put it out there. I call gays, people and humans, straight up, no LOL.

When referring to atheists, the terms “people” and “humans” are preferred. We ask that the terms “unbeliever,” “darkness” and “wicked” not be used.


You first, y’all.

That's fine too. We can agree on terms of use between us, per thread or topic, like for instance. Believing People or PwB for short, and non-believing people NBP or somwthing similar. What say you?

Are you saying that you are LDS and you speak for all LDS and that no LDS will ever call a gay person abomination based on the instructions in their book, nor will they call an atheist an “unbeliever” nor ever quote the verse, “Don’t be unequally yoked with unbelievers, for what fellowship do righteousness and iniquity have? Or what fellowship does light have with darkness?”

No, I was born as a Methodist, but I just call myself Christian, and I was really speaking for myself and not for the LDS.

I never thought about the use of the term abomination, which seems to be addressing evil acts and evil intentions of the heart, shown in the verses I quickly copied and put below. This does not necessarily mean the person, who could be forgiven anyway.

Not that this will make any difference, but you could point it out, if its the case, as shown below, and tell them, biblically they're using the term wrongly.


Proverbs 11:20
The perverse in heart are an abomination to the Lord,
But the blameless in their walk are His delight.

Proverbs 11:1
A false balance is an abomination to the Lord,
But a just weight is His delight.

Proverb 21:7
The sacrifice of the wicked is an abomination to the Lord,
But the prayer of the upright is His delight.

Proverbs 21:27
The sacrifice of the wicked is an abomination,
How much more when he brings it with evil intent!

Proverbs 17:36
Evil plans are an abomination to the Lord,
But pleasant words are pure.

Proverbs 17:15
He who justifies the wicked and he who condemns the righteous,
Both of them alike are an abomination to the Lord.


Proverbs 12:22
Lying lips are an abomination to the Lord,
But those who deal faithfully are His delight.


People can use words in any way they fancy I suppose, which eventually becomes convention.

Because until you all rip those pages out of your bibles, we haven’t “agreed on terms of use.” The fact that one LDS says they will no longer quote their bible does not, in any way, provide cover for the LDS church to declare that they do not have a big honking log in their eye.

Should I still address you as atheist for the time being? Dawkins and Hitchens proudly called themselves atheist, which didn't seem to offend them.

So I’m not sure what your point is here. Are you trying to say they don’t have a log in their eye because you agree to tear those pages out of your book and never quote them again, and they can go on with their effort to point out the speck in ours?

The verses below means to keep away from evil "influences", those who who don't believe in Abrahams God, the worshippers ( believers of a different kind), who worship idols and Belial (satan) the contrast to light with darkness, and righteousness with lawlessness. Jesus mixed with the sinners and gentiles.

2 Corinth: 14- 16

14: Do not be unequally yoked together with unbelievers. For what fellowship has righteousness with lawlessness? And what communion has light with darkness? 15:And what accord has Christ with Belial? Or what part has a believer with an unbeliever? 16:And what agreement has the temple of God with idols? For you are the temple of the living God. As God has said:

 

[blastula]

Direct 'word equivalence' was not my claim.

There were about 40 authors of the bible that corroborate with each other. Some are reports of events, which includes the reporting of witnesses to certain events, and some were direct witness reports of having attended certain events or meetings with individuals .

Says you.

 

[Rhea]

Especially when they follow it up with, “and we’d like it if you’d call us all ‘saints,’ too.” Sure, Bob. And I’d like you to call me “Empress.”

When referring to Church members, the terms “members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints” or “Latter-day Saints” are preferred. We ask that the term “Mormons” not be used

When referring to gays, the terms “people” and “humans” are preferred. We ask tha tthe term “abomination” not be used.

That's fine...put it out there. I call gays, people and humans, straight up, no LOL.

When referring to atheists, the terms “people” and “humans” are preferred. We ask that the terms “unbeliever,” “darkness” and “wicked” not be used.


You first, y’all.

That's fine too. We can agree on terms of use between us, per thread or topic, like for instance. Believing People or PwB for short, and non-believing people NBP or somwthing similar. What say you?

Are you saying that you are LDS and you speak for all LDS and that no LDS will ever call a gay person abomination based on the instructions in their book, nor will they call an atheist an “unbeliever” nor ever quote the verse, “Don’t be unequally yoked with unbelievers, for what fellowship do righteousness and iniquity have? Or what fellowship does light have with darkness?”

No, I was born as a Methodist, but I just call myself Christian, and I was really speaking for myself and not for the LDS.

I never thought about the use of the term abomination, which seems to be addressing evil acts and evil intentions of the heart, shown in the verses I quickly copied and put below. This does not necessarily mean the person, who could be forgiven anyway.

Not that this will make any difference, but you could point it out, if its the case, as shown below, and tell them, biblically they're using the term wrongly.


Proverbs 11:20
The perverse in heart are an abomination to the Lord,
But the blameless in their walk are His delight.

Proverbs 11:1
A false balance is an abomination to the Lord,
But a just weight is His delight.

Proverb 21:7
The sacrifice of the wicked is an abomination to the Lord,
But the prayer of the upright is His delight.

Proverbs 21:27
The sacrifice of the wicked is an abomination,
How much more when he brings it with evil intent!

Proverbs 17:36
Evil plans are an abomination to the Lord,
But pleasant words are pure.

Proverbs 17:15
He who justifies the wicked and he who condemns the righteous,
Both of them alike are an abomination to the Lord.


Proverbs 12:22
Lying lips are an abomination to the Lord,
But those who deal faithfully are His delight.


People can use words in any way they fancy I suppose, which eventually becomes convention.

Because until you all rip those pages out of your bibles, we haven’t “agreed on terms of use.” The fact that one LDS says they will no longer quote their bible does not, in any way, provide cover for the LDS church to declare that they do not have a big honking log in their eye.

Should I still address you as atheist for the time being? Dawkins and Hitchens proudly called themselves atheist, which didn't seem to offend them.

So I’m not sure what your point is here. Are you trying to say they don’t have a log in their eye because you agree to tear those pages out of your book and never quote them again, and they can go on with their effort to point out the speck in ours?

The verses below means to keep away from evil "influences", those who who don't believe in Abrahams God, the worshippers ( believers of a different kind), who worship idols and Belial (satan) the contrast to light with darkness, and righteousness with lawlessness. Jesus mixed with the sinners and gentiles.

2 Corinth: 14- 16

14: Do not be unequally yoked together with unbelievers. For what fellowship has righteousness with lawlessness? And what communion has light with darkness? 15:And what accord has Christ with Belial? Or what part has a believer with an unbeliever? 16:And what agreement has the temple of God with idols? For you are the temple of the living God. As God has said:

I’m leaving the whole quote in because, again, what was your point?

You quoted where the Mormon are asking not be called something they don’t want to be called.
I replied, essentially, “yeah, good luck with that request, you fucking hypocrites.”
And you came back with all this stuff about how you will comply with my analogy, but you want to change it a bit and and they aren’t really hypocrites, because even though they call someone an abomination, they are really just calling their actions abominable and unbelievers are wicked, but… and can we just agree to that? And people can use words anyway they like, but you took the trouble to quote Mormons asking people to not use the words they like…
And…


What was your point when you relied to my (paraphrased,)
“yeah, good luck with that request, you fucking hypocrites.”
What was your point? Please use a short sentence, with no more than one single sub-clause, and no more than two commas.

 

[Learner]

Especially when they follow it up with, “and we’d like it if you’d call us all ‘saints,’ too.” Sure, Bob. And I’d like you to call me “Empress.”

When referring to Church members, the terms “members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints” or “Latter-day Saints” are preferred. We ask that the term “Mormons” not be used

When referring to gays, the terms “people” and “humans” are preferred. We ask tha tthe term “abomination” not be used.

That's fine...put it out there. I call gays, people and humans, straight up, no LOL.

When referring to atheists, the terms “people” and “humans” are preferred. We ask that the terms “unbeliever,” “darkness” and “wicked” not be used.


You first, y’all.

That's fine too. We can agree on terms of use between us, per thread or topic, like for instance. Believing People or PwB for short, and non-believing people NBP or somwthing similar. What say you?

Are you saying that you are LDS and you speak for all LDS and that no LDS will ever call a gay person abomination based on the instructions in their book, nor will they call an atheist an “unbeliever” nor ever quote the verse, “Don’t be unequally yoked with unbelievers, for what fellowship do righteousness and iniquity have? Or what fellowship does light have with darkness?”

No, I was born as a Methodist, but I just call myself Christian, and I was really speaking for myself and not for the LDS.

I never thought about the use of the term abomination, which seems to be addressing evil acts and evil intentions of the heart, shown in the verses I quickly copied and put below. This does not necessarily mean the person, who could be forgiven anyway.

Not that this will make any difference, but you could point it out, if its the case, as shown below, and tell them, biblically they're using the term wrongly.

Proverbs 11:20
The perverse in heart are an abomination to the Lord,
But the blameless in their walk are His delight.
Proverbs 12:22
Lying lips are an abomination to the Lord,

Because until you all rip those pages out of your bibles, we haven’t “agreed on terms of use.” The fact that one LDS says they will no longer quote their bible does not, in any way, provide cover for the LDS church to declare that they do not have a big honking log in their eye.

Should I still address you as atheist for the time being? Dawkins and Hitchens proudly called themselves atheist, which didn't seem to offend them.

So I’m not sure what your point is here. Are you trying to say they don’t have a log in their eye because you agree to tear those pages out of your book and never quote them again, and they can go on with their effort to point out the speck in ours?

The verses below means to keep away from evil "influences", those who who don't believe in Abrahams God, the worshippers ( believers of a different kind), who worship idols and Belial (satan) the contrast to light with darkness, and righteousness with lawlessness. Jesus mixed with the sinners and gentiles.

2 Corinth: 14- 16

14: Do not be unequally yoked together with unbelievers. For what fellowship has righteousness with lawlessness? And what communion has light with darkness? 15:And what accord has Christ with Belial? Or what part has a believer with an unbeliever? 16:And what agreement has the temple of God with idols? For you are the temple of the living God. As God has said:

I’m leaving the whole quote in because, again, what was your point?

You quoted where the Mormon are asking not be called something they don’t want to be called.
I replied, essentially, “yeah, good luck with that request, you fucking hypocrites.”
And you came back with all this stuff about how you will comply with my analogy, but you want to change it a bit and and they aren’t really hypocrites, because even though they call someone an abomination, they are really just calling their actions abominable and unbelievers are wicked, but… and can we just agree to that?nd people can use words anyway they like, but you took the trouble to quote Mormons asking people to not use the words they like…
And…
What was your point when you relied to my (paraphrased,)

“yeah, good luck with that request, you fucking hypocrites.”

What was your point? Please use a short sentence, with no more than one single sub-clause, and no more than two commas

The initial post about the LDS 'not wanting be called Mormons' was a response to steve-banks post. It was meant to be a tongue-in-cheek response, purposely highlighting the name 'Jesus Christ' in their name title.
Not actually a point I was trying to establish!

This went further because you were trying to expand this, which became a major point for you, which I'll put down to a "misreading" from you (and those who liked your post too ) to the relating post, also.. I replied to you, making clear I wasn't an LDS church member.

What it is with LDS I do agree with, is their 'faith statement' which states 'Jesus Christ is saviour etc.' (and emphasising to be Christlike).

So there... I haven't contradicted with anything I've said in my previous post. No point, no points, nice try.

 

[Rhea]

The initial post about the LDS 'not wanting be called Mormons' was a response to steve-banks post. It was meant to be a tongue-in-cheek response, purposely highlighting the name 'Jesus Christ' in their name title.
Not actually a point I was trying to establish!

This went further because you were trying to expand this, which became a major point for you, which I'll put down to a "misreading" from you (and those who liked your post too ) to the relating post, also..

Got you.

You added to the discussion that people who follow the book of Mormon don’t want to be called Mormons, and you thought we’d all notice from that how often you used the term Jesus Christ and that it was somehow meaningful, and also humorous, and when no one noticed, it was our “misreading.”

Thanks for clearing that up.

Although I wish you’d been able to follow instructions. Your sub-clauses are excrutiating.

Please use a short sentence, with no more than one single sub-clause, and no more than two commas

This went further because you were trying to expand this,

which became a major point for you,

which I'll put down to a "misreading" from you

(and those who liked your post too )

to the relating post, also..​

 

[Learner]

The initial post about the LDS 'not wanting be called Mormons' was a response to steve-banks post. It was meant to be a tongue-in-cheek response, purposely highlighting the name 'Jesus Christ' in their name title.
Not actually a point I was trying to establish!

This went further because you were trying to expand this, which became a major point for you, which I'll put down to a "misreading" from you (and those who liked your post too ) to the relating post, also..

Got you.

You added to the discussion that people who follow the book of Mormon don’t want to be called Mormons, and you thought we’d all notice from that how often you used the term Jesus Christ and that it was somehow meaningful, and also humorous, and when no one noticed, it was our “misreading.”

Thanks for clearing that up.

Added ? If you want to go added, then that's what it is.

All the above then, was an added tongue-in-cheek with the main discussion. That was the intention. I think you got yourself actually... me clearly getting you.

Although I wish you’d been able to follow instructions. Your sub-clauses are excrutiating.

Please use a short sentence, with no more than one single sub-clause, and no more than two commas

This went further because you were trying to expand this,

which became a major point for you,​

which I'll put down to a "misreading" from you​

(and those who liked your post too )​

to the relating post, also..​

Pardon me for that to your 'added" non-argument I'm sure you do find me excruciating.

 

[steve_bank]

Jesus was a tongue in cheek kind of guy.

 

[Rhea]

Pardon me for that to your 'added" non-argument I'm sure you do find me excruciating.

No, I do not find you excrutiating. I did not say that (go look). You are interesting.

But your multiple sub clauses with copious commas that do not follow your original thought make it an excrutiating effort to try to figure out what your point is. I try. I really do try. And I’m pretty good at this, as it happens. I’ve spent quite a few years grading elementary school english papers. And my son talks in multiple level subordinate clauses - but he maintains fidelity to object and subject throughout. I read your posts twice and then a third time slowly, trying to figure out whether the new subordinate clause goes with the original main object or a newly introduced object in a previous subordinate clause. It takes a lot of work.

Making your sub-clauses excrutiating.
Please don’t twist my words into something that makes you feel like a martyr. I know Christians like to do that, but it is eye-rollingly self-serving. I was quite clear and exquisitely concise. Your sub-clauses are excrutiating. Don’t make up a different meaning than that.

 

[ideologyhunter]

I haven't had to mark compositions since 2007, but the compulsion is still there.

It's excruciating.

 

[Rhea]

Got you.

I think you got yourself actually... me clearly getting you.

Also, for clarity, when I wrote “got you,” it was in the sense of, “oh, I understand you now.” Sorry for the confusion.

 

[Learner]

Pardon me for that to your 'added" non-argument I'm sure you do find me excruciating.

No, I do not find you excrutiating. I did not say that (go look). You are interesting.

That was my assumption of you, asserted from your responses or reactions to my posts in the past. Admittedly, I did 'twist' the angle of the dialogue a little, a use of the double meaning if you will - not with any disengenous intention, just a play on the wording to imply the assumption.

But your multiple sub clauses with copious commas that do not follow your original thought make it an excrutiating effort to try to figure out what your point is. I try. I really do try. And I’m pretty good at this, as it happens. I’ve spent quite a few years grading elementary school english papers. And my son talks in multiple level subordinate clauses - but he maintains fidelity to object and subject throughout. I read your posts twice and then a third time slowly, trying to figure out whether the new subordinate clause goes with the original main object or a newly introduced object in a previous subordinate clause. It takes a lot of work.

Pardon me again for the trouble. I do see you putting a bit of effort in highlighting this in the above like the previous posts as well, in what seems like an emerging "new interest topic line".

I suppose then we can at least say... the LDS discussion has reached its course and is settled?

Please don’t twist my words into something that makes you feel like a martyr. I know Christians like to do that, but it is eye-rollingly self-serving. I was quite clear and exquisitely concise. Your sub-clauses are excrutiating. Don’t make up a different meaning than that.

From the look of your 'usual' response style to many of my posts highlighted in the bold above. Are you sure you don't find me excruciating?

 

[Rhea]

I suppose then we can at least say... the LDS discussion has reached its course and is settled?

Yes. We agree that by asking to be called a specific name and not be called another one that they don’t like, the Mormons are fucking hypocrites. And that you bringing up that topic is a perplexing derail. That is settled.