To: SkyPilot; Elsie; metmom; Godzilla; Zakeet; greyfoxx39; Tennessee Nana; MHGinTN; Osage Orange
THAT is a new low for even you.
My exact words were "Anyone who thinks that you can ordain someone to an office in the priesthood and not have or be talking about the priesthood is either mistaken or lying, I prefer to give people the benefit of the doubt..."
Please explain how when faced with two alternatives, I give they guy the benefit of the doubt is a new low? I guess you must think my posts so far have been really high?
2,697 posted on
07/19/2008 12:09:25 AM PDT by
DelphiUser
("You can lead a man to knowledge, but you can't make him think")
To: DelphiUser; Elsie; metmom; Godzilla; Zakeet; greyfoxx39; Tennessee Nana; MHGinTN; Osage Orange
Come on DU. Stop with your games.
The man is an ex-Mormon who was in the Bishopric, wed in the Los Angeles temple, went to BYU (along with his wife), did a stint as a Mormon missionary, served as a home teacher in the LDS church, also served as an elder's quorum president, and the Stake High Council.
He isn't "mistaken" or a "liar."
The 3rd alternative (which perhaps you don't want to face) is that he is telling the truth about the LDS church, and the truth about his new relationship with Jesus Christ.
2,703 posted on
07/19/2008 5:37:04 AM PDT by
SkyPilot
("I wasn't in church during the time when the statements were made.")
To: DelphiUser
Please explain how when faced with two alternatives, I give they guy the benefit of the doubt is a new low? I guess you must think my posts so far have been really high? It's the third alternative...that you fail to see.
And you wonder why Christians oppose mormonism, and you.
2,714 posted on
07/19/2008 8:21:21 AM PDT by
Osage Orange
(Hillary's heart is blacker than the devil's riding boots...............)
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson