False witness?

[dberrie2000]

Originally Posted by alanmolstad View PostI dont really know?...did he ever send husbands who worked for him out of town, and then when they were gone did he come sniffing around their wives?

If he did, then I think we can agree thats the sign that the guy is a sexual pervert correct?

Moving the goalposts won't solve why you ***ociate undergarments as a natural part of being a sexual pervert:

Originally Posted by alanmolstad View Post In my own opinion, the introduction of undergarments by the Mormon leader was just a natural part of his being a sexual pervert...

Since Hanes, along with others-- introduced undergarments--are they also a sexual perverts? Do you wear undergarments? If so--does that implicate you also?

Bump for Alan

[alanmolstad]

Originally Posted by alanmolstad

Never got an answer to my question....

So I ask again,

If the guy did sent husbands who worked for him out of town, and then when they were gone did he come sniffing around their wives, then I think we can agree thats the sign that the guy is a sexual pervert correct?



clearly a sex pervert correct?

I still dont see an answer to this question?>>


Thats odd, you would think that any moral and religious person would be able to answer it right?

There must be something about this question that makes some people.....shall we say, a bit ....uncomfortable?

[dberrie2000]

Originally Posted by alanmolstad

I still dont see an answer to this question?>>Thats odd, you would think that any moral and religious person would be able to answer it right?

There must be something about this question that makes some people.....shall we say, a bit ....uncomfortable?

Straw man arguments are not answerable--and you rarely put forth anything but what seems to be your opinion, IMO--such as this:

Originally Posted by alanmolstad View Post In my own opinion, the introduction of undergarments by the Mormon leader was just a natural part of his being a sexual pervert...

Now that is something we have evidence for.

So--the question remains--since Hanes, along with others-- introduced undergarments--are they also a sexual perverts? Do you wear undergarments? If so--does that implicate you also?

While you are at it--could you please address the OP--and explain to us where you find evidence of your claim:

Originally Posted by alanmolstad View Post"All the Mormon witnesses are as worthless as they are unreliable who recanted their testimony."

[alanmolstad]

so are we to understand that if a guy sends husbands that work for him out of town, and then once they are gone he comes sniffing around their wives, and this is not a sign of a pervert?

What type of religion would have trouble answering this question?


(no religion I want to be part of that is for sure)

[alanmolstad]

Oh,,,and by the way for anyone that might be wondering, the answer is clearly "yes"

Yes, if you are talking about a type of person that sends husbands out of town and then later when the coast is clear come sniffing around the wives, that is clearly the sign that you are dealing with a sexual pervert.

case-closed.

[alanmolstad]

Now I know it may seem like an easy, open and shut question, and yes it is.

Of course if we are talking about a guy who sends husbands out of town and then comes sniffing around the wives you are dealing with a sexual pervert!

This is a very good question to start out asking people that might be going around spreading their religious views door to door too!

I mean, if they agree that such actions are clearly the actions of a pervert, then you can relax and enjoy talking to them about god and religion stuff...have fun.

But as we have seen here, if they seem to stumble on this very easy moral question you got to ask yourself why?......Why would any religion seem to struggle with such a easy morals question?

What are they attempting to hide?

Why are they so uncomfortable simply taking a stand against sexual perversion?

[dberrie2000]

Originally Posted by alanmolstad

Why are they so uncomfortable simply taking a stand against sexual perversion?

That's the question I have asked you, Alan.

So--care to answer to your accusation?

Originally Posted by alanmolstad View Post In my own opinion, the introduction of undergarments by the Mormon leader was just a natural part of his being a sexual pervert...

So--the question remains--since Hanes, along with others-- introduced undergarments--are they also a sexual perverts? Do you wear undergarments? If so--does that implicate you also?

While you are at it--could you please address the OP--and explain to us where you find evidence of your claim:

Originally Posted by alanmolstad View Post"All the Mormon witnesses are as worthless as they are unreliable who recanted their testimony."

Alan?

[alanmolstad]

Originally Posted by alanmolstad

Why are they so uncomfortable simply taking a stand against sexual perversion?

Not really sure why this is so?
They do seem very hard-pressed to come up with any answer at all...

if anyone knows why this is so?...why some religions seem to now want to take a moral stand on what sure seems to me to be an easy question? , feel free to bring me up to speed on the question...

[dberrie2000]

Originally Posted by alanmolstad View PostWhy are they so uncomfortable simply taking a stand against sexual perversion?

Originally Posted by alanmolstad

Not really sure why this is so?

I'm not sure either. Alan--you took a stand against sexual perversion:

Originally Posted by alanmolstad View Post In my own opinion, the introduction of undergarments by the Mormon leader was just a natural part of his being a sexual pervert...

My question about your stand against sexual perversion is this:

Since Hanes, along with others-- introduced undergarments--are they also a sexual perverts? Do you wear undergarments? If so--does that implicate you also?

And I noticed you did not address the OP:

Originally Posted by alanmolstad View Post"All the Mormon witnesses are as worthless as they are unreliable who recanted their testimony."

Alan--you made that statement, and it's the OP. Please reveal to us where you find any testimony of the witnesses themselves--where they "recanted their testimony".

[DrDavidT]

Originally Posted by dberrie2000

I'm not sure either. Alan--you took a stand against sexual perversion:



My question about your stand against sexual perversion is this:

Since Hanes, along with others-- introduced undergarments--are they also a sexual perverts? Do you wear undergarments? If so--does that implicate you also?

And I noticed you did not address the OP:



Alan--you made that statement, and it's the OP. Please reveal to us where you find any testimony of the witnesses themselves--where they "recanted their testimony".

i do not think that smith was a sexual pervert but he was using the magic underwear to help manipulate the people into doing things they do not need nor have to do-- like follow his perverted views

[dberrie2000]

Originally Posted by DrDavidT

i do not think that smith was a sexual pervert but he was using the magic underwear to help manipulate the people into doing things they do not need nor have to do-- like follow his perverted views

More straw man postulations. Could you explain for us how wearing a garment manipulates people into doing things?

Were the people here manipulated?

Matthew 22:11-13---King James Version (KJV)
11 And when the king came in to see the guests, he saw there a man which had not on a wedding garment:
12 And he saith unto him, Friend, how camest thou in hither not having a wedding garment? And he was speechless.
13 Then said the king to the servants, Bind him hand and foot, and take him away, and cast him into outer darkness, there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth.

[alanmolstad]

Originally Posted by dberrie2000

..... Could you explain for us how wearing a garment manipulates people into doing things?

.......

burqa_2247115b.jpg..........




One of the ways you enforce your will over people, and get them to do things that you ask them to do without questioning...is to enforce a standard of dress...

[dberrie2000]

Originally Posted by alanmolstad

burqa_2247115b.jpg..........



One of the ways you enforce your will over people, and get them to do things that you ask them to do without questioning...is to enforce a standard of dress...

Did the Lord enforce His standard here?

Matthew 22:11-13---King James Version (KJV)
11 And when the king came in to see the guests, he saw there a man which had not on a wedding garment:
12 And he saith unto him, Friend, how camest thou in hither not having a wedding garment? And he was speechless.
13 Then said the king to the servants, Bind him hand and foot, and take him away, and cast him into outer darkness, there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth.

[DrDavidT]

Originally Posted by dberrie2000

More straw man postulations. Could you explain for us how wearing a garment manipulates people into doing things?

Were the people here manipulated?

Matthew 22:11-13---King James Version (KJV)
11 And when the king came in to see the guests, he saw there a man which had not on a wedding garment:
12 And he saith unto him, Friend, how camest thou in hither not having a wedding garment? And he was speechless.
13 Then said the king to the servants, Bind him hand and foot, and take him away, and cast him into outer darkness, there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth.

not a strawman but then you are the king of repe***ive posting and ignorance.

wearing the magic underwear is a manipulation in and of itself. it isn't biblical, jesus never taught to do it nor did his disciples. i think smith got a good laugh at his followers when they meekly donned the **** and wore it like he said. he new he could manipulate people because they were gullible and vulnerable.

[dberrie2000]

Originally Posted by DrDavidT

not a strawman but then you are the king of repe***ive posting and ignorance.

wearing the magic underwear is a manipulation in and of itself. it isn't biblical, jesus never taught to do it nor did his disciples. i think smith got a good laugh at his followers when they meekly donned the **** and wore it like he said. he new he could manipulate people because they were gullible and vulnerable.

Again--were those who wore the garments here manipulated? Gullible and vulnerable?

Matthew 22:11-13---King James Version (KJV)
11 And when the king came in to see the guests, he saw there a man which had not on a wedding garment:
12 And he saith unto him, Friend, how camest thou in hither not having a wedding garment? And he was speechless.
13 Then said the king to the servants, Bind him hand and foot, and take him away, and cast him into outer darkness, there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth.

Revelation 3:5---King James Version (KJV)
5 He that overcometh, the same shall be clothed in white raiment; and I will not blot out his name out of the book of life, but I will confess his name before my Father, and before his angels.

Revelation 7:9---King James Version (KJV)
9 After this I beheld, and, lo, a great mul***ude, which no man could number, of all nations, and kindreds, and people, and tongues, stood before the throne, and before the Lamb, clothed with white robes, and palms in their hands;