User Profile: rx4nv


Member Since: January 03, 2012


123 To page: Go
  • [16] January 19, 2015 at 11:12am

    Should we expect anything more from the NFL? You cheat and all you get is a lost draft pick, you murder and you get suspended a game. You abuse your wife and get a game suspension. Why do you think these players are the way they are? No accountability. Strip them of the win, send the Colts to the superbowl and strip the Patriots of any playoff berth for the next 5 years. That’s what will make teams think twice about cheating. Who wants to play for a team that has no chance of going to the superbowl for 5 years?

  • [1] January 16, 2015 at 2:42pm

    I hope this doesn’t sound condescending Patriot as I correct your post. I only do this because if I don’t, someone else will take what you say as truth and perpetuate it.

    The missionaries would have invited you to get baptized at one of their local church buildings (or meeting house). You do not get baptized in their temples. The only baptism that takes place in their temples are for those that have passed on (or what they call “baptisms for the dead”).

    Just wanted to clarify.

  • [2] January 16, 2015 at 2:12pm

    We know what most people think is a cult, as demonstrated above, but do not know the definition of cult (Thanks Veev for actually giving a definition).

    In response to the definition Veev has given:
    1)all religions
    2)all religions
    3)all religions
    4)unrelated to topic at hand
    5)all religions

    So all religions fit into at least one of the definitions of cult as listed. So if Mormons are a cult, so are Catholics, Protestants, Evangelists, Jews, Buddhists…

  • [3] January 16, 2015 at 1:01pm

    Lanceintx: Just because you say “you cannot believe the Bible and believe the Book of Mormon.” does not make it true. That is your opinion. Last I checked, your opinion does not constitute a fact. The fact is, millions of people do believe both the Bible and the Book of Mormon at the same time.

    Going back to your argument about Christ born in Bethlehem (Bible) and Christ born at Jerusalem (Book of Mormon). Let me ask you this: when you go to meet your maker, will God deny entrance to his kingdom because you believed Jesus was born at Jerusalem instead of in Bethlehem, or New York City for that matter? Or will God deny you entrance because you did not get baptized or keep His commandments? The translation of the exact location of Christ’s birth on this earth is of no importance to your salvation. However, your belief in the Gospel that Christ taught and your efforts to follow it to the best of your abilities is your salvation.

    Maybe we need to clarify the challenge, as you seem to only be able to find “typos” or “contradicting historical geography” or “inconsistent weather patterns of the day”: Find one doctrine/commandment/practice referred to in the Book of Mormon that contradicts one taught in the Bible. And using Jehovah instead of JHVH or Yehowah falls in the realm of not important for our salvation. As does how far Joseph and Mary got in their travels before they realized Christ was not with them, but at the Temple.

  • [3] January 16, 2015 at 11:12am

    Mormons do not shun families that leave. Have you seen those black suit and tie guys that won’t stop knocking on doors? They have a list of who has left the church and they constantly track them down and invite them to return.

    The shunning occurs when someone lives in a community of Mormons and decides they do not have the same beliefs and morals, therefore, THEY “leave” the Church. The Church did not leave them. Who is the one shunning?

  • [3] January 16, 2015 at 11:10am

    The Church will never loosen up on gays. The difference with blacks and the priesthood and gays is that Hamm was cursed and lost a privilege. Privileges can be earned back. Homosexuality has always been a sin and will always be a sin.

  • [1] January 16, 2015 at 11:04am

    It’s really not that easy to break a contract you made with God. Becoming a member of God’s Church is not like getting married in Vegas. Where you can go downtown and get a divorce as soon as you are bored of your partner.

  • [2] January 16, 2015 at 11:01am

    Are we deceived to think that there is even a tight-rope? I don’t believe you can stand in the middle of good and evil. You have to pick a side!!!

  • [1] January 16, 2015 at 10:59am

    That’s funny that you say he is just as well known as “the woman who was excommunicated for speaking against not ordaining women”. If they are that well known, why did you not use her name instead of a description of her? Probably because she is not well known enough to be recognized by her name either.

  • [6] January 16, 2015 at 10:56am

    ROBB: Before this John character was ever born, it was well known that the Mormons practiced polygamy. John had nothing to do with forcing the Church to admit anything. Just because the information was new to you does not mean it was not known to millions of other people already.

    John is not a well known Mormon!!! He might be well known by people in the anti-Mormon world, but 99% of Mormons have no clue who he is.

  • [11] January 15, 2015 at 7:02pm

    Funny how people throw the term Cult around without actually knowing what it means.

    Responses (6) +
  • [17] January 15, 2015 at 6:59pm

    First of all “Well Known Mormon” is inaccurate, as I bet 99% of Mormons do not know who this man is.

    Second of all, the Mormons do not say that you cannot know what the Bible truly says because the real Bible has been translated and revised so many times. They believe that you can understand the Gospel of Jesus Christ by reading the Bible, but some areas are perceived, interpreted or read differently than Christ intended.

    For example, Christ’s Baptism. The Bible speaks of it, but many religions teach baptism of infants and baptism by sprinkling while others teach of baptism at the age of accountability and by immersion. Who is right? Where can we go for clarification on this question? Can you give me a book in the Bible that will settle this debate? No, because each side of the debate will use the same Bible.

    Why is it so hard to believe that by using another set of scriptures, this debate could be clarified? Don’t we use the Book of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John to get a more complete history of Christ’s ministry? Why don’t we just toss out 3 of the 4 and count the one as enough and the others false? Because the other Books support and clarify and even give some new details not covered in the other Books. Does that mean that each of those men wrote false books? Is it so hard to believe that men of God wrote scripture in the American continent too?

    Finally, name one thing that the Book of Mormon contradicts in the Bible.

    Responses (1) +
  • [12] January 15, 2015 at 6:43pm

    Obviously you have no understanding of the Mormons. Someone has been drinking from the proverbial punch without actually making an effort to learn for yourself what a Mormon is, or what a Mormon believes.

    That’s the problem with the world today. Everyone wants to sit on the cough (which they got from a government handout) and wait for someone else to do the work and then feed them, so they just have to burp and spit up all day long.

    I challenge you to actually get off your butt and talk to a Mormon about their beliefs. You will be shocked to find out what you have been fed, is just mush and does not even come close to the rich values and morals they have.

    Responses (2) +
  • [12] January 15, 2015 at 6:39pm

    The reason for ex-communication is not because his support of homosexuality is “an immoral conviction”. It is that he is actively supporting people who are attacking and going against the Church’s doctrine. One can love and be friends with homosexuals without going against Church doctrine. One cannot participate in homosexual behaviors, nor give a platform for such to fight against the Church. Why should he care if he is ex-communicated if he does not even believe the Church doctrine?

  • January 12, 2015 at 9:54pm

    Makingout: That goes to my other question, If this company took such liberty to alter the photo, did they also do it to other photos? I can see a problem with the company if there are other photos that have been retouched, but as of yet, this is the only one reported. Why, of the hundreds of kids, would the company only thin or photo shop or retouch this one specific photo? Maybe all the other photos have been altered in this same way due to a software program that inserts the pictures into the template for the yearbook. We really don’t know, because we only have one person reporting one side of the story. Still too many unanswered questions to accuse her of lying or the company of altering a picture without permission. Sorry, that’s my opinion.

  • January 12, 2015 at 5:44pm

    NJBILLT: So would you say, from your professional experience, that this image was altered on purpose to make her appear thinner, or could some program they used have automatically altered the 4% variation and a poor auto enhancing feature been used incorrectly?

  • January 12, 2015 at 5:21pm

    Displaced: Agreed. but sometimes you have a closer shot of one person and not as much with the others, so you have to adjust the size of the picture to get their head in proportion with the rest of the heads (just cropping won’t get the job done), so it doesn’t appear big, fat and sticking out when you open the page. A possible explanation? Just trying to rule in or out as much as I can to make an informed decision. Kupo is on the case and doing a good job helping gather more info (see Kupo’s recent post).

  • [1] January 12, 2015 at 4:49pm

    Kupo: Thanks for that info (I do not own a photo editing program that would let me do that). Did it seem to be a stretching of the photo at all? Meaning when the height from bottom to top match up, from side to side is narrower. Or Do they match up top to bottom and side to side, but the neck only is narrower or from one cheek to the other is narrower. This would indicated editing the photo to get a slimmer look, rather than an overall narrowing due to changing photo dimensions. Now we are getting somewhere.

  • [1] January 12, 2015 at 3:13pm

    OhioRifleman: I will give you that it is not just the size difference. There are some color tone differences too. Something the click of the auto enhance button could account for. Now the auto enhance could have darkened the hair which would then cause the appearance of the neck and jaw line to become smaller, no photoshop involved. I see this all the time on my home photos, you auto enhance the photo to get a softer or more dramatic tone to match that of the other photos around it and all of a sudden your cheekbones are a little more or a little less prominent. Was it the intention to do that, no. Most photographers mess with the color/tone to get the best quality looking picture, that’s why you hire them.

    Now, if this company really did photo shop this pic, why? Is there anyone else in that yearbook that thinks their pic was photo shopped? If there isn’t, why would the company pick one pic of probably hundreds to photo shop and no others? I’m not calling her a liar or the company guilty or guilt free, because all the questions I have, have not been answered. If 5, 10, 50 other kids stepped up and presented their pics as photo shopped in the same yearbook, we may have something. If we could hear the printers side of the story, we may have something. Don’t judge until you have all the facts. So far, this story is one sided and I feel there are some obvious possible explanations that do not involve photo shopping. JUST MY OPINION

  • [-1] January 12, 2015 at 2:48pm

    Kupo: 20/20 as reported by ophthalmologist 2 months ago.

123 To page: Go