Joseph Smith Papers

[Suzie]

I wish I could quote....everytime I do, my reply for some reason gets inside the quote itself no matter what I do...

[Jane_Doe]

1 minute ago, Suzie said:

I wish I could quote....everytime I do, my reply for some reason gets inside the quote itself no matter what I do...

Weird.  Could you copy and paste your comments to be outside the quote?

[Suzie]

I do that too...but remains inside no matter what.

[Suzie]

I can understand @Blossom76point of view as an investigator. Most of the time, I try to focus on what is being asked rather than cherry-pick whatever "tone/intentions" etc I "feel" posters are using because if I do that two things happen...one, the topic gets lost (which defeats the purpose of the discussion) and second who wants to keep adding people on their "ignore" list?

Edited February 10, 2018 by Suzie

[Maureen]

38 minutes ago, Suzie said:

I wish I could quote....everytime I do, my reply for some reason gets inside the quote itself no matter what I do...

The quote should be in a box. You would add your reply outside of that box. Do those quotes come up in a box? 

M.

[Suzie]

Hi Mauren, the quote is in the box. But when I write my reply OUTSIDE the box, when I post...it appears inside the quote box.

[Maureen]

6 minutes ago, Suzie said:

Hi Mauren, the quote is in the box. But when I write my reply OUTSIDE the box, when I post...it appears inside the quote box.

You should see if @rpframe can check that out for you.

M.

[paracaidista508]

1 hour ago, NeedleinA said:

That solidifies it for me then. Anonymous messages from fearful members.  You win. Enjoy your night. 

I think needleina needs to quit being a jerk

[Anddenex]

On 2/8/2018 at 9:21 PM, Blossom76 said:

 

In all seriousness, I am just trying to find the right church to belong to so I can worship God in a way that is acceptable to him, in the best way I possibly can.  In order to do that I need to do research.  The LDS church claims to be the only true and living church on the face of the earth, it also claims to be the only church with the authority to perform valid baptism.  Now, while I would love to just believe that on face value, its just not going to happen, I need to convince myself that these claims are true.  And if they are true, then there should be no need for all this hostility.  I am not attacking the church at all, if my honest questions offend someone to the point where they get defensive because they find the issue uncomfortable, then that is a reflection on their personal faith, not mine.

For such big claims there ought to be some sort of solid evidence for it, for example the lines of authority and what is and is not scripture and what the early church did or did not do or did do and said they didn't - that stuff matters to me, because it establishes character.   Claims like the LDS church make are going to attract attention, they are going to cause people to go 'that's excellent news, I'd like to learn more', is everyone going to read the history of the church in that quest for knowledge? Probably not, but that does not mean that those who do should be treated as insincere.  This is not fun for me, this is a very very serious issue, my eternal soul is at the centre of all this, I won't just take big claims on face value, I will look into it, my soul is worth it.

PS this is by no means meant negatively on @Jane_Doe or @Just_A_Guy it was just a good example to explain to you all where I am coming from.

My apologies if someone has already responded to some aspects in these two paragraphs; however, if so, I am adding a second witness. For a short history, I am the second son (sorry, no special powers as I am not the seventh son of a seventh son) of two converts. My mother was a Methodist before joining the Church, and my father was Atheist. At a young age I knew the whole story of my mother's conversion, and didn't know the whole story of my father's conversion until I was on my mission when I received a two page letter from him detailing his conversion.

The emphasized portions are the points I hope to clarify and to make clear if not already done so, and if done so, adding a second witness. The first emphasized portion creates a catch 22 of sorts.

1) How do we honestly "convince ourselves" something coming from a spiritual nature is true?
2) How do we honestly "convince ourselves" something coming from a spiritual nature is not true?
3) Whose responsibility is it to convince or testify of truth?
4) What is our responsibility in knowing truth?

If we seek to convince ourselves of a spiritual truth it is then very easy to -- at some point -- reject what was given through "logical" means. This is human wisdom which doctrine can be easily changed as the waves of the sea going hither one direction and then thither in another direction through shifts of mighty winds (wind can equal politics, changing times and season, progressiveness, etc....)

Before Saul became Paul, what convinced him that he was wrong? It wasn't his personal study. It wasn't the history of Jesus. It was an experience from God that he could not deny. He "convinced himself" that all of Jesus Christ's followers were to be killed. If you want to know the Church and Joseph Smith are what they say they are, read the Book of Mormon and then ask God. It will be by the power of the Holy Ghost that you will know this is true.

Take a moment to think upon Christ's life. Who was he? What was said about him? He surely made a big claim through scripture. What solid evidence did he have for it? One could say, "He performed miracles!" Another could say, "So did prophets but that didn't make them the Son of God!" One could say, but he raised a person from the dead!" Another could say, "So did a prophet in the Old Testament, but that didn't make him the Son of God, the Messiah!" When he started his ministry didn't people just say he was Joseph's son, no one special. What then convinced people of who he was? The Book of Mormon and the New Testament speak of the same source, "Father in heaven testifies to us!" Peter did not convince himself that Jesus was the Messiah because of Christ's history. It was not flesh and blood -- history -- that convinced Peter of who Jesus was. It was the Father, our Heavenly Father.

The scriptures make a big claim that Jonah was swallowed by a whale! What solid evidence besides the Bible do we have of this event? The scriptures make a big claim that a flood covered the earth! What solid evidence do we have of this flood, by which many modern scientist claim this wasn't so! Without such evidence how then do we know that a flood did occur? How then do we know that Jonah was indeed swallowed by a whale? The Bible even speaks of an "ass" (I am quoting scripture don't hate me ) speaking! What evidence do we have to convince us of such a huge claim that a "ass" was able to speak? None, zip, zilch, notta! How then do we know? I know by the Holy Ghost, who reveals all truth, that this is true!

What "character" established are you looking for? Imagine living during Moses time. One history says, "Moses was a murderer." Another history says, "Moses protected and acted in defense of a brother. He was no murderer." Which do you believe? Let's look at the Book of Mormon. All the children of Laman and Lemuel and other were taught a different history than the Nephites were taught. They taught their children, Laman and Lemuel, to hate the Nephites because their brother sought to rule over them. What was true, and how did King Lamoni come to realize this? It was not by "solid" evidence -- temporal evidence -- which you speak of. It was through spiritual manifestation from God to Lamoni! It is the only way we know what is true when it pertains to God, spiritual enlightenment.

I know Joseph Smith was a prophet, not because I convinced myself, but because God revealed the truth of it unto me. I remember the first time I learned how many wives Joseph Smith had. It took me back for a moment, and then the Spirit said to me, "It is true." I didn't need any solid evidence to convince myself of his character. The Spirit spoke to me and I knew. When I read history, that is bits and pieces from different sources, when the Spirit has already spoken to me the truth I will wait for other things to be revealed. Imagine for a moment if someone only had bits and pieces of quotes from you and from people who hated you and sought your destruction. How would they know the full context of what really happened? Thus a common statement I will make, when I see Brigham, when I see Joseph, when I see other past prophets and servants (i.e. Amulek, I will have some questions for him) I will ask them then. Not only that, think about Alma the Younger, and his history and character before he was changed through a visit from an angel from God (Ya I know, wouldn't that be nice in so many ways). How many people if they tried to convince themselves through character and history would they have joined? I am not excusing bad behavior. I am recognizing that God is in control. I am recognizing that God is the source of all truth, His truth, and I don't need to convince myself through history.

Excellent! This should be serious. This shouldn't be taken lightly! Everyone hear applauds you for this concept. No one hear expects you to take anything said for "face value." We only expect what the Lord has always expected from his children: to act with an sincere heart asking him to reveal the truth unto you and that you (general) act with real intent when the answer is given.

But you ask regarding solid evidence? There is solid evidence -- The Book of Mormon. It is the main source of solid evidence of Joseph Smith's calling as a prophet. If the Book of Mormon is true, then Joseph Smith is a prophet of God! If the Book of Mormon is true, then all other canonized scripture is true! If true, then we need to be patient with Church history, what we have, and wait upon the Lord, while ignoring Pharisees in our lives who seek to take away our peace.

Your soul is definitely worth it.

.........................................................................

On a side note, at times, with all the "hate" we Mormons have received from people who consider themselves Christian, we can be on the defensive when we are seeking only to make a point. Here is a hard item and one that isn't easily detected online. When we are speaking with individuals in person, the intent is more easily understood. Let me point out this, and if repeating what someone else said, I am sorry, then I am adding a second witness.

As Mormons, especially those of us who have entered debates on other forums we often see a lot of the same "history" being passed with the same explanations, and we provide often the same answers. So when someone, we aren't personalized with, begins to share a "common" Anti-Mormon thread, our knee-jerk reaction may get the best of some of us, although we are seeking to be sincere.

For example, when I used to debate with people on youtube, there was a strong anti-Mormon who pretended not to be anti-Mormon because his aunt was Mormon. We had a lengthy conversation. I learned more about him. In that dialogue I cleared up misunderstandings and pointed out errors. I was able then to learn more about other things I was not familiar with at that time. I stopped accessing youtube, and when I got back on I noticed my account had been deleted -- gone. A change had been made and I didn't access my account and it was gone. So I created a new account, and begin to peruse old videos. This was about 2 years later or so. I noticed right away the same guy, as he had the same username. I begin to read his stuff and there he was, sharing the same old anti-Mormon literature and quotes I had previously spoken to him about. He continued to share and bear false witness, while considering himself a Christian and not anti-Mormon. The perfect sign of an anti-Mormon is someone when presented with facts and truth, and yet they keep spreading their falsehoods in hopes to deceive someone who is still learning -- particularly investigators to the Church or new members. They use sophistry at its best.

So, not to give any excuses, and to make it clear I am not considering you anti-Mormon, as I know you are seeking to learn more about the Church. When an anti-Mormon dig is quoted on this site, you may receive quick rebuttals of aspects that have already been answered. These rebuttals may come off hard, might be a bad day for one of us, not because we don't care about you, or are trying to be nasty. We just wish anti-Mormons would actually be the Christians they profess to be, and sometimes that will rub off in "online" text communications without any personal friendship.

Yes, and to reiterate, your "soul" is worth it, for you are of great worth as a daughter of God!

 

Edited February 10, 2018 by Anddenex

[Guest]

On 2/8/2018 at 4:20 PM, Blossom76 said:

Thanks, I'll try to do that, I also posted that without my glasses on lol, if you have looked at it can you please share your feelings and opinion on it with me? I just don't understand why the church was outright denying polygamy when the prophet himself was engaged in the practice at the time.

See the bolded.  Do you understand why that is an incorrect statement?  If not, you haven't been paying attention to MANY posts on this thread.  If you haven't been paying attention to them, I don't see why you'd pay attention to me repeating it.

[NeedleinA]

13 hours ago, paracaidista508 said:

I think needleina needs to quit being a jerk

When the debate is lost, name calling becomes the tool of the loser.

18 hours ago, Blossom76 said:

There is a very strong culture in mormonism of not asking questions and being chastised for it
but it is a large majority and needs to be acknowledged.

Blossom76 wants us, as Mormons, to acknowledge what she claims to be a large problem - correct?
Fine. Before we can acknowledge said problem, we must first be convinced that said problem is as big as she claims, "large majority".
If she can prove it, fine, lets acknowledge it for being so wide spread.
If she can't prove that the large majority exists, then her claim is unfounded and therefore either unfairly or ignorantly stated.

If the only proof that can be provided is her own personal experience plus "many, many, many" other private messages, while sad, this would fall extremely short of some number far greater than 8 million opinions corroborating her claim. Can Blossom76 rightfully claim she and others have felt this way before - sure, absolutely - but to accept at face value the "large majority" claim without valid proof is foolish.
No "large majority" proof =  no acknowledgement
Yes "large majority" proof = need to acknowledge

I belong to a Church that welcomes sincere unloaded questions. To suggest that as a culture we have some kind of very strong deficiency should be easily demonstrated.
I, on the other hand, have observed the opposite, I've seen, taught or been part of:
1. Multiple Q&A sessions with area & General Authorities - last one was Elder Oaks, 45 minutes of his 1.5hr visit was open Q&A, ask any question, people did.
2. Multiple Q&A sessions given by Bishoprics or Stake leaders for 5th Sunday combined adult membership
3. Multiple Q&A sessions given in High Priest or Elders (I don't attend RS that often)
4. Multiple Q&A sessions given for Bishop's Youth Discussion (BYD)
5. Seminary & Institute are overwhelmingly Q&A sessions. Seminary teachers live for questions!
6. Presidency training meetings are great places, break open HandBook 2 and knock yourself out.
7. HT / VTs, ask them a question in advance and see if they don't try to come with an answer
8. Endless training meetings
9. Stake Priesthood meetings, in our area almost always end with Q&A for the last 30 minutes.
10. Schedule an appointment with the Bishop if it is too private.
11. Join MormonHub, a place that is oozing with 1000s of previously asked questions and open to new ones.
12. Use Ask Gramps to submit a question: https://askgramps.org/
13. Use Fair Mormon to submit a question: https://www.fairmormon.org/contact
14. Use Mormon.org to chat with missionaries: https://www.mormon.org
15. Missionaries around the world are more eager than ever to answer questions.
16. LDS.org and other branches of the website fullllll of answers.

example: I'm currently in our Sunday School Presidency. Two of our instructors take shoe boxes each week to youth classes with them. The boxes have slits on the top. Each youth has the chance to ask any question they want anonymously. The class follows the lesson manual each week, but reserves the last 10 minutes of class to address a particular question from the previous week.

So while anyone can claim what they want, I have seen nothing but the opposite in my life as an actual member of the Church, missionary or while my then Catholic wife studied and joined The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints 20 years ago.

 

Edited February 10, 2018 by NeedleinA

[zil]

9 hours ago, Anddenex said:

My apologies if someone has already responded to some aspects in these two paragraphs; however, if so, I am adding a second witness. For a short history, I am the second son (sorry, no special powers as I am not the seventh son of a seventh son) of two converts. My mother was a Methodist before joining the Church, and my father was Atheist. At a young age I knew the whole story of my mother's conversion, and didn't know the whole story of my father's conversion until I was on my mission when I received a two page letter from him detailing his conversion.

The emphasized portions are the points I hope to clarify and to make clear if not already done so, and if done so, adding a second witness. The first emphasized portion creates a catch 22 of sorts.

1) How do we honestly "convince ourselves" something coming from a spiritual nature is true?
2) How do we honestly "convince ourselves" something coming from a spiritual nature is not true?
3) Whose responsibility is it to convince or testify of truth?
4) What is our responsibility in knowing truth?

If we seek to convince ourselves of a spiritual truth it is then very easy to -- at some point -- reject what was given through "logical" means. This is human wisdom which doctrine can be easily changed as the waves of the sea going hither one direction and then thither in another direction through shifts of mighty winds (wind can equal politics, changing times and season, progressiveness, etc....)

Before Saul became Paul, what convinced him that he was wrong? It wasn't his personal study. It wasn't the history of Jesus. It was an experience from God that he could not deny. He "convinced himself" that all of Jesus Christ's followers were to be killed. If you want to know the Church and Joseph Smith are what they say they are, read the Book of Mormon and then ask God. It will be by the power of the Holy Ghost that you will know this is true.

Take a moment to think upon Christ's life. Who was he? What was said about him? He surely made a big claim through scripture. What solid evidence did he have for it? One could say, "He performed miracles!" Another could say, "So did prophets but that didn't make them the Son of God!" One could say, but he raised a person from the dead!" Another could say, "So did a prophet in the Old Testament, but that didn't make him the Son of God, the Messiah!" When he started his ministry didn't people just say he was Joseph's son, no one special. What then convinced people of who he was? The Book of Mormon and the New Testament speak of the same source, "Father in heaven testifies to us!" Peter did not convince himself that Jesus was the Messiah because of Christ's history. It was not flesh and blood -- history -- that convinced Peter of who Jesus was. It was the Father, our Heavenly Father.

The scriptures make a big claim that Jonah was swallowed by a whale! What solid evidence besides the Bible do we have of this event? The scriptures make a big claim that a flood covered the earth! What solid evidence do we have of this flood, by which many modern scientist claim this wasn't so! Without such evidence how then do we know that a flood did occur? How then do we know that Jonah was indeed swallowed by a whale? The Bible even speaks of an "ass" (I am quoting scripture don't hate me ) speaking! What evidence do we have to convince us of such a huge claim that a "ass" was able to speak? None, zip, zilch, notta! How then do we know? I know by the Holy Ghost, who reveals all truth, that this is true!

What "character" established are you looking for? Imagine living during Moses time. One history says, "Moses was a murderer." Another history says, "Moses protected and acted in defense of a brother. He was no murderer." Which do you believe? Let's look at the Book of Mormon. All the children of Laman and Lemuel and other were taught a different history than the Nephites were taught. They taught their children, Laman and Lemuel, to hate the Nephites because their brother sought to rule over them. What was true, and how did King Lamoni come to realize this? It was not by "solid" evidence -- temporal evidence -- which you speak of. It was through spiritual manifestation from God to Lamoni! It is the only way we know what is true when it pertains to God, spiritual enlightenment.

I know Joseph Smith was a prophet, not because I convinced myself, but because God revealed the truth of it unto me. I remember the first time I learned how many wives Joseph Smith had. It took me back for a moment, and then the Spirit said to me, "It is true." I didn't need any solid evidence to convince myself of his character. The Spirit spoke to me and I knew. When I read history, that is bits and pieces from different sources, when the Spirit has already spoken to me the truth I will wait for other things to be revealed. Imagine for a moment if someone only had bits and pieces of quotes from you and from people who hated you and sought your destruction. How would they know the full context of what really happened? Thus a common statement I will make, when I see Brigham, when I see Joseph, when I see other past prophets and servants (i.e. Amulek, I will have some questions for him) I will ask them then. Not only that, think about Alma the Younger, and his history and character before he was changed through a visit from an angel from God (Ya I know, wouldn't that be nice in so many ways). How many people if they tried to convince themselves through character and history would they have joined? I am not excusing bad behavior. I am recognizing that God is in control. I am recognizing that God is the source of all truth, His truth, and I don't need to convince myself through history.

Excellent! This should be serious. This shouldn't be taken lightly! Everyone hear applauds you for this concept. No one hear expects you to take anything said for "face value." We only expect what the Lord has always expected from his children: to act with an sincere heart asking him to reveal the truth unto you and that you (general) act with real intent when the answer is given.

But you ask regarding solid evidence? There is solid evidence -- The Book of Mormon. It is the main source of solid evidence of Joseph Smith's calling as a prophet. If the Book of Mormon is true, then Joseph Smith is a prophet of God! If the Book of Mormon is true, then all other canonized scripture is true! If true, then we need to be patient with Church history, what we have, and wait upon the Lord, while ignoring Pharisees in our lives who seek to take away our peace.

Your soul is definitely worth it.

Amen!

[zil]

1 hour ago, NeedleinA said:

Blossom76 wants us, as Mormons, to acknowledge what she claims to be a large problem - correct?
Fine. Before we can acknowledge said problem, we must first be convinced that said problem is as big as she claims, "large majority".
If she can prove it, fine, lets acknowledge it for being so wide spread.
If she can't prove that the large majority exists, then her claim is unfounded and therefore either unfairly or ignorantly stated.

If the only proof that can be provided is her own personal experience plus "many, many, many" other private messages, while sad, this would fall extremely short of some number far greater than 8 million opinions corroborating her claim. Can Blossom76 rightfully claim she and others have felt this way before - sure, absolutely - but to accept at face value the "large majority" claim without valid proof is foolish.
No "large majority" proof =  no acknowledgement
Yes "large majority" proof = need to acknowledge

I belong to a Church that welcomes sincere unloaded questions. To suggest that as a culture we have some kind of very strong deficiency should be easily demonstrated.
I, on the other hand, have observed the opposite, I've seen, taught or been part of:

...

So while anyone can claim what they want, I have seen nothing but the opposite in my life as an actual member of the Church, missionary or while my then Catholic wife studied and joined The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints 20 years ago.

Amen!  This has been my experience as well.  For that matter, it's been my experience in my professional life as well - accusations coming from a default position of "You're guilty until you prove yourself innocent" are never received easily (except by the best of people, of which there are very few on the planet); whereas "There appears to be a problem here, can we discuss it?" are always taken well (except by arrogant jerks who hate everyone, of which there are too many, but they generally get weeded out quickly).

Edited February 10, 2018 by zil

[zil]

I just want to say, if I could build a neighborhood and pick my neighbors, these are the people I would want living in the houses closes to mine (in no particular order, except that I started my list with people who I feel like I understand well and appreciate, but who others are choosing to be offended at rather than getting to know them well enough to appreciate¹ - something that is unfortunate for said offendees; and that's part of my point - these are good, solid people who could be a blessing in your life, if you'd let them, but who are no more likely that I am to tolerate getting walked on, or to coddle to one's drama / over-sensitivity to rational commentary):

• @Vort
• @Carborendum
• @NeedleinA
• @Anddenex
• @mordorbund
• @NeuroTypical
• @Just_A_Guy
• @Grunt
• @person0
• @MormonGator and @LadyGator
• @LiterateParakeet (our politics would never agree, but we'd have a weekly meeting with @anatess2 and @NeuroTypical where we'd try each others' pens and ink)
• @pam
• @Sunday21 (though our politics would never agree, and I'd have to hide the guns when she comes to visit, and leave them at home when I go to visit)
• @prisonchaplain (who would make sure we were all remembering to be Christian as well as Mormon)
• @Jane_Doe (even though she'd probably make me look kinda dumb)
• @estradling75 (but just so the rest of us could give him a hard time by walking on his lawn)
• @mirkwood (but maybe several houses down, so he wouldn't have to see me coming and going with my fountain pens)
• @The Folk Prophet (though we would probably argue a lot before realizing we agreed with each other - it's unfortunate he was driven away from here by a member not willing to work through that)
• @Traveler (though we'd probably annoy each other quite often)
• @askandanswer (but only so we could regularly dose his property with Noodler's Bay State Blue)

NOTE: If you're not on the list, try not to be offended.  It's possible you're a victim of my poor memory.  It's also possible I'd add you to the list if I knew you better.  It's also possible you wouldn't like living next to me any more than I'd like living next to you.  (Apparently I can be quite blunt.)  And I seriously doubt my feelings toward / memory of you is something worth getting offended over.

¹IMO, this is the best reason to participate in a wide variety of threads, including those about trivial things - it lets you get to know other people's personalities, which makes it easier to appreciate them as humans rather than as posters.  (ETA: It also lets other people get to know you.)

Robotically Yours,

zil

Edited February 10, 2018 by zil

[Guest MormonGator]

7 minutes ago, zil said:

If you're not on the list, try not to be offended.

And if you are on the list, be more offended. 

Edited February 10, 2018 by MormonGator

[paracaidista508]

12 minutes ago, zil said:

I just want to say, if I could build a neighborhood and pick my neighbors, these are the people I would want living in the houses closes to mine (in no particular order, except that I started my list with people who I feel like I understand well and appreciate, but who others are choosing to be offended at rather than getting to know them well enough to appreciate¹ - something that is unfortunate for said offendees; and that's part of my point - these are good, solid people who could be a blessing in your life, if you'd let them, but who are no more likely that I am to tolerate getting walked on, or to coddle to one's drama / over-sensitivity to rational commentary):

• @Vort
• @Carborendum
• @NeedleinA
• @Anddenex
• @mordorbund
• @NeuroTypical
• @Just_A_Guy
• @Grunt
• @person0
• @MormonGator and @LadyGator
• @LiterateParakeet (our politics would never agree, but we'd have a weekly meeting with @anatess2 and @NeuroTypical where we'd try each others' pens and ink)
• @pam
• @Sunday21 (though our politics would never agree, and I'd have to hide the guns when she comes to visit, and leave them at home when I go to visit)
• @prisonchaplain (who would make sure we were all remembering to be Christian as well as Mormon)
• @Jane_Doe (even though she'd probably make me look kinda dumb)
• @estradling75 (but just so the rest of us could give him a hard time by walking on his lawn)
• @mirkwood (but maybe several houses down, so he wouldn't have to see me coming and going with my fountain pens)
• @The Folk Prophet (though we would probably argue a lot before realizing we agreed with each other - it's unfortunate he was driven away from here by a member not willing to work through that)
• @Traveler (though we'd probably annoy each other quite often)
• @askandanswer (but only so we could regularly dose his property with Noodler's Bay State Blue)

NOTE: If you're not on the list, try not to be offended.  It's possible you're a victim of my poor memory.  It's also possible I'd add you to the list if I knew you better.  It's also possible you wouldn't like living next to me any more than I'd like living next to you.  (Apparently I can be quite blunt.)  And I seriously doubt my feelings toward / memory of you is something worth getting offended over.

¹IMO, this is the best reason to participate in a wide variety of threads, including those about trivial things - it lets you get to know other people's personalities, which makes it easier to appreciate them as humans rather than as posters.

Robotically Yours,

zil

Thanks I'm not on it...after all who wants to live on the same street as someone (zil) who lies on a forum about what you said?

[Sunday21]

@zil. How lovely! Think how much fun our local Relief Society would be! I would have to skip the RS target shooting practice! 

[Vort]

14 hours ago, paracaidista508 said:

I think needleina needs to quit being a jerk

Wow, Needle, you really suck. Are you related to Carb?

[Vort]

10 minutes ago, paracaidista508 said:

Thanks I'm not on it...after all who wants to live on the same street as someone (zil) who lies on a forum about what you said?

Wow, zil, you really suck. Are you related to Needle and Carb?

We should all get together for an extended family reunion.

[zil]

3 minutes ago, Vort said:

Wow, zil, you really suck. Are you related to Needle and Carb?

We should all get together for an extended family reunion.

I think we should all meet at Needle's house!

[Sunday21]

10 minutes ago, zil said:

I think we should all meet at Needle's house!

It will do you good to leave the compound!

[mirkwood]

2 hours ago, NeedleinA said:

 

example: I'm currently in our Sunday School Presidency. Two of our instructors take shoe boxes each week to youth classes with them. The boxes have slits on the top. Each youth has the chance to ask any question they want anonymously. The class follows the lesson manual each week, but reserves the last 10 minutes of class to address a particular question from the previous week.

 

 

 

Derail alert!

That is fantastic.  I am the SS President and I am going to implement this if my bishop gives me the okay.

[Guest MormonGator]

1 minute ago, mirkwood said:

 

Derail alert!

That is fantastic.  I am the SS President and I am going to implement this if my bishop gives me the okay.

The wards are very lucky to have you guys in it. That's a great thing to do. Both you and @NeedleinA should be proud. 

[mirkwood]

53 minutes ago, zil said:

 

• @LiterateParakeet (our politics would never agree, but we'd have a weekly meeting with @anatess2 and @NeuroTypical where we'd try each others' pens and ink)
• @askandanswer (but only so we could regularly dose his property with Noodler's Bay State Blue)

 

Crack addicts I tell ya...crack addicts.

[mirkwood]

57 minutes ago, zil said:

 

• @Sunday21  I'd have to hide the guns when she comes to visit, and leave them at home when I go to visit)

Oh heavens no.  We will get her to attend Br. Mirkwood's shooting activity instead!