Comments on: Christian vs. Mormon (or Tit for Tat) https://www.ourthoughts.ca/2006/08/30/christian-vs-mormon-or-tit-for-tat/ Thought-provoking commentary on life, politics, religion and social issues. Fri, 01 Sep 2006 22:28:17 +0000 hourly 1 By: Larry https://www.ourthoughts.ca/2006/08/30/christian-vs-mormon-or-tit-for-tat/comment-page-1/#comment-14742 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?

]]>
By: Johnna https://www.ourthoughts.ca/2006/08/30/christian-vs-mormon-or-tit-for-tat/comment-page-1/#comment-14725 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.

]]>
By: Larry https://www.ourthoughts.ca/2006/08/30/christian-vs-mormon-or-tit-for-tat/comment-page-1/#comment-14657 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.

]]>
By: Steve EM https://www.ourthoughts.ca/2006/08/30/christian-vs-mormon-or-tit-for-tat/comment-page-1/#comment-14653 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.

]]>
By: Kim Siever https://www.ourthoughts.ca/2006/08/30/christian-vs-mormon-or-tit-for-tat/comment-page-1/#comment-14650 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. :)

]]>
By: Larry https://www.ourthoughts.ca/2006/08/30/christian-vs-mormon-or-tit-for-tat/comment-page-1/#comment-14648 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.

]]>
By: Kim Siever https://www.ourthoughts.ca/2006/08/30/christian-vs-mormon-or-tit-for-tat/comment-page-1/#comment-14645 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.

]]>
By: Larry https://www.ourthoughts.ca/2006/08/30/christian-vs-mormon-or-tit-for-tat/comment-page-1/#comment-14644 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.

]]>
By: Kim Siever https://www.ourthoughts.ca/2006/08/30/christian-vs-mormon-or-tit-for-tat/comment-page-1/#comment-14636 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.

]]>
By: Johnna https://www.ourthoughts.ca/2006/08/30/christian-vs-mormon-or-tit-for-tat/comment-page-1/#comment-14633 Wed, 30 Aug 2006 20:05:57 +0000 http://www.ourthoughts.ca/2006/08/30/christian-vs-mormon-or-tit-for-tat/#comment-14633 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.

]]>