Posted on 12/16/2019 8:08:32 AM PST by SeekAndFind
😂🤣😆
Sure, but you are referring to people in cultic mormonism - not Christians.
Well, he's involved in cultic mormonism, so the number of gods is unlimited.
Likely posted that while he was wearing magic underwear too...
Cultic mormon spam.
Meanwhile in cultic Mormonville ...
Ya, another whistleblower.
This question comes up every so often and gets debunked just as often. The books are tight.
Dumb people seem to think that a Prophet should not make a profit to helpwith God’s Work.
It takes good fiscal management to accumulate the money to have large amounts of emergency supplies on hand.
How many airplane loads of emergency relief do you have sitting around ready to send out?
This time it’s an insider with actual documents - and a filed complaint with the IRS.
Joseph Smith was a scammer.
It’s in the DNA of Mormonism.
I think when you mention another FReeper you’re supposed to give him a courtesy ping.
My understanding was that you mention a person by name...
I think you can see the reason for that: to avoid the sort of behind-their-back ridicule which soon causes a discussion forum to devolve into a Mean Gurlz clique. ("Gurlz" of any gender identity.)
If someone can reduce this to a nullity just by by being coy about naming, the whole goal of reasonable common courtesy vanishes.
We should expect more from each other.
And do you have a link to this rule, that I can read?
It's not my understanding, though, that courtesy pings are enforced mandates. (They might be: but I searched with the words "Religion Forum" both titles and in keywords, and didn't get anywhere.) I thought FReepers in the Religion Forum especially, would simply want to do the right thing, courtesy-wise.
If not, well, any further keystrokes on this would be rather a waste. Bye.
If you are in a room, having a conversation with people, but say something specifically to one of them, do you recite the names of everyone, every time??
“ I think you can see the reason for that: to avoid the sort of behind-their-back ridicule which soon causes a discussion forum to devolve into a Mean Gurlz clique. (”Gurlz” of any gender identity.)”
...
So do you believe this should apply to pm communications, as well?
So does divorce, more often than not.
That's per definition outside of the "community".
Like it might be displeasing to Our Lord and corrosive to the individual character, but if the guys on the back porch want to swear and tell dirty jokes, and call the guys in the front parlor $%^%$%#%^'s, common standards would be hard to enforce even informally.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.