Comments on: Christian vs. Mormon (or Tit for Tat) http://www.ourthoughts.ca/2006/08/30/christian-vs-mormon-or-tit-for-tat/?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=christian-vs-mormon-or-tit-for-tat Thought-provoking commentary on life, politics, religion and social issues. Wed, 08 Feb 2012 12:27:38 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v= By: Larry http://www.ourthoughts.ca/2006/08/30/christian-vs-mormon-or-tit-for-tat/comment-page-1/#comment-14742 Larry Fri, 01 Sep 2006 22:28:17 +0000 http://www.ourthoughts.ca/2006/08/30/christian-vs-mormon-or-tit-for-tat/#comment-14742 At least I'm blue, my favourite colour. Perhaps 30lbs oveweight. Does that look good on a Shih Tzu? At least I’m blue, my favourite colour. Perhaps 30lbs oveweight. Does that look good on a Shih Tzu?

]]> By: Johnna http://www.ourthoughts.ca/2006/08/30/christian-vs-mormon-or-tit-for-tat/comment-page-1/#comment-14725 Johnna Fri, 01 Sep 2006 18:13:05 +0000 http://www.ourthoughts.ca/2006/08/30/christian-vs-mormon-or-tit-for-tat/#comment-14725 Larry, you're a blue Shih Tzu. Larry, you’re a blue Shih Tzu.

]]> By: Larry http://www.ourthoughts.ca/2006/08/30/christian-vs-mormon-or-tit-for-tat/comment-page-1/#comment-14657 Larry Thu, 31 Aug 2006 00:28:54 +0000 http://www.ourthoughts.ca/2006/08/30/christian-vs-mormon-or-tit-for-tat/#comment-14657 I'm not a technician, but I guess we can pretty well call anybody anything and be on target. I’m not a technician, but I guess we can pretty well call anybody anything and be on target.

]]> By: Steve EM http://www.ourthoughts.ca/2006/08/30/christian-vs-mormon-or-tit-for-tat/comment-page-1/#comment-14653 Steve EM Wed, 30 Aug 2006 23:55:25 +0000 http://www.ourthoughts.ca/2006/08/30/christian-vs-mormon-or-tit-for-tat/#comment-14653 Yeah, our church is silly with that we're the only Mormons nonsense. Moreover, the almost denial of our polygamist history is silly and a bit less than candid. I think we should be honest about polygamy and say we abandoned the practice after the church leaders prayed regarding the continued practice vs compliance with US law, and recieved revelation to stop. Later that monogamy policy was extended church wide, even in nations that permit polygamy. After all, had Jeff's church practiced polygamy with some modern sensibilities, like no "marriages" under age 18 and no abandoning male children, etc, we wouldn't even know about them. Voluntary polygamy isn't a big deal and there's no reason to be embarrassed by our history. Yeah, our church is silly with that we’re the only Mormons nonsense. Moreover, the almost denial of our polygamist history is silly and a bit less than candid. I think we should be honest about polygamy and say we abandoned the practice after the church leaders prayed regarding the continued practice vs compliance with US law, and recieved revelation to stop. Later that monogamy policy was extended church wide, even in nations that permit polygamy. After all, had Jeff’s church practiced polygamy with some modern sensibilities, like no “marriages” under age 18 and no abandoning male children, etc, we wouldn’t even know about them. Voluntary polygamy isn’t a big deal and there’s no reason to be embarrassed by our history.

]]> By: Kim Siever http://www.ourthoughts.ca/2006/08/30/christian-vs-mormon-or-tit-for-tat/comment-page-1/#comment-14650 Kim Siever Wed, 30 Aug 2006 23:11:05 +0000 http://www.ourthoughts.ca/2006/08/30/christian-vs-mormon-or-tit-for-tat/#comment-14650 Even Jewish if you really want to get technical. :) Even Jewish if you really want to get technical. :)

]]> By: Larry http://www.ourthoughts.ca/2006/08/30/christian-vs-mormon-or-tit-for-tat/comment-page-1/#comment-14648 Larry Wed, 30 Aug 2006 22:34:13 +0000 http://www.ourthoughts.ca/2006/08/30/christian-vs-mormon-or-tit-for-tat/#comment-14648 In reality, since a Disciple of Christ is a Protestant denomination, I can actually call him anything I choose and be on target - including a Catholic, since all Protestants are a breakaway of the Catholic faith. In reality, since a Disciple of Christ is a Protestant denomination, I can actually call him anything I choose and be on target – including a Catholic, since all Protestants are a breakaway of the Catholic faith.

]]> By: Kim Siever http://www.ourthoughts.ca/2006/08/30/christian-vs-mormon-or-tit-for-tat/comment-page-1/#comment-14645 Kim Siever Wed, 30 Aug 2006 22:03:38 +0000 http://www.ourthoughts.ca/2006/08/30/christian-vs-mormon-or-tit-for-tat/#comment-14645 Or rather a Disciple of Christ. Or rather a Disciple of Christ.

]]> By: Larry http://www.ourthoughts.ca/2006/08/30/christian-vs-mormon-or-tit-for-tat/comment-page-1/#comment-14644 Larry Wed, 30 Aug 2006 21:53:42 +0000 http://www.ourthoughts.ca/2006/08/30/christian-vs-mormon-or-tit-for-tat/#comment-14644 I guess that makes Jim Jones a Southern Baptist then. I guess that makes Jim Jones a Southern Baptist then.

]]> By: Kim Siever http://www.ourthoughts.ca/2006/08/30/christian-vs-mormon-or-tit-for-tat/comment-page-1/#comment-14636 Kim Siever Wed, 30 Aug 2006 20:15:56 +0000 http://www.ourthoughts.ca/2006/08/30/christian-vs-mormon-or-tit-for-tat/#comment-14636 Good question, Johnna. Good question, Johnna.

]]> By: Johnna http://www.ourthoughts.ca/2006/08/30/christian-vs-mormon-or-tit-for-tat/comment-page-1/#comment-14633 Johnna Wed, 30 Aug 2006 20:05:57 +0000 http://www.ourthoughts.ca/2006/08/30/christian-vs-mormon-or-tit-for-tat/#comment-14633 <p>Huh. I didn't know the church was insisting "Mormon" couldn't be anyone other than an LDS. What else do you call all those splinter groups that claim allegiance to the Book of Mormon?</p> <p>But I see the church issued a press release on <a href="http://www.lds.org/newsroom/showrelease/0,15503,4044-1-2045,00.html">13 September 2000</a>. </p> Huh. I didn’t know the church was insisting “Mormon” couldn’t be anyone other than an LDS. What else do you call all those splinter groups that claim allegiance to the Book of Mormon?

But I see the church issued a press release on 13 September 2000.

]]>