selek Posted December 20, 2012 Report Share Posted December 20, 2012 Before Kloud's thread was closed, I asked Sweetpea81 some very basic questions- questions she did not (in my opinion) get a chance to answer.One of the assumptions in the last thread was that we were dealing with a sockpuppet who conveniently echoes Kloud's talking points.There is quite a bit of evidence to support that interpretation- but the proof is in the pudding. This has been nagging at me most of the day, and I want Sweetpea81 to have a fair and equitable chance to engage in a rational discussion of these matters, and to explain her reasoning (if she can).Given the worth of a soul, I think it absolutely essential that she be given the opportunity to make an informed decision, rather than be misled by the derisive and noxious voices of the Great and Spacious building- and I ask the moderator's indulgence in allowing this thread to proceed.One of the first charges Sweetpea81 leveled was the following:Your church was built on a bunch of lies.I challenged her to name three "lies" upon which the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints was founded.In the interests of lowering the bar, I will broaden the challenge to include things that we teach which are demonstrably false.You have made a number of statements that are counter-intuitive, at best.They are as follows:I was always by myself so I would sing to myself and pray. I asked God what it would take to truly be happy. His reply was "you wont truly be blessed until you are sealed." I saw an angel when I was five and I know the words of the lord when I hear him. At the time, I thought I needed to be sealed to my husband. I know more about the church and I disagree with it. I also think maybe God's intention was for Kloud to leave because information that we have found out about the church. How do you reconcile these disparate statements?You received what you recognized as "the words of the Lord"- but now claim that his guidance is now trumped because you "disagree" with the LDS church?How does "you will not be happy until you are sealed" translate into "your husband needs to preemptively deny you the one thing that will make you happy".To put it mildly, there is a sharp and notable disconnect between those statements.Could you please explain how you arrived at your conclusion?In the interests of fostering a thoughtful and reasoned discussion, I would ask those who choose to participate in this thread to limit themselves to factual and/or doctrinal matters, and that they address Sweetpea81's statements rather than her suspected identity.(In other words, please tackle the argument made, not the poster). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sweetpea81 Posted December 20, 2012 Report Share Posted December 20, 2012 (edited) Edited December 20, 2012 by skippy740 clarified image link Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
selek Posted December 21, 2012 Author Report Share Posted December 21, 2012 Thank you Skippy740 for fixing the image. While the disfunctional link was perhaps more accurate (in purely Freudian terms), the image itself is equally revealing of the respondant's actual aims and intentions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sweetpea81 Posted December 21, 2012 Report Share Posted December 21, 2012 I am not going to explain anything because I have already been warned that I would get banned by an admin. I just don't want to deal with that or with you. I really think you are either just wanting to argue or are having doubts yourself. I am not going to help you either way. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
estradling75 Posted December 21, 2012 Report Share Posted December 21, 2012 I am not going to explain anything because I have already been warned that I would get banned by an admin. I just don't want to deal with that or with you. I really think you are either just wanting to argue or are having doubts yourself. I am not going to help you either way.You were warned because you broke the rules... If you can't explain yourself without breaking the rules... Then no you can't. But that would be a personal limit that you must know for yourself. We do have people on this site that disagree with us and they can and do explain themselves quite clearly within the limits of the rules. The choice is yours Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sweetpea81 Posted December 21, 2012 Report Share Posted December 21, 2012 As you said within the rules! My problems with the church start with Joseph Smith and end with the church here in Muskogee. I really can't explain it without breaking the rules. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sweetpea81 Posted December 21, 2012 Report Share Posted December 21, 2012 Really I wish you would end this thread! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bytebear Posted December 21, 2012 Report Share Posted December 21, 2012 I agree. It's one thing to bring up a topic for discussion based on the comments of another person. It's another to put someone on the spot and cherry pick quotes to justify your superior argument. I don't like it when they do it to Joseph Smith or Brigham Young, and I don't like it here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pam Posted December 21, 2012 Report Share Posted December 21, 2012 Thread closed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts