Comments on: Mormon Wrestling

By: queuno

queuno — Thu, 17 Jul 2008 21:54:29 +0000

My daughter and her boyfriend were also talking about the Hardy ex-ing. This appears to be a hot topic with the early 20s crowd. They don’t see a problem with the calendar and think the Church over-reacted.

I guess I should be comforted that the early-20s crowd isn’t running the Church.

By: hawkgrrrl

hawkgrrrl — Wed, 16 Jul 2008 00:47:01 +0000

I like to keep you guys on your toes!

By: Ray

Ray — Tue, 15 Jul 2008 23:32:47 +0000

“And it is way too expensive.”

Didn’t see that one on the horizon, hawkgrrrl.

By: hawkgrrrl

hawkgrrrl — Tue, 15 Jul 2008 22:30:50 +0000

I read the link. The contrarian (out, damned contrarian!) in me would like to say that on the downside, if Hardy was keeping his non-LDS business partner in check as he says (e.g. not selling “missionary position” tee shirts, keeping the pics less racy), then it’s a shame if that spirals downward. OTOH, “it could have been a lot worse” isn’t the best defense in any court, but probably even less in a church court. It’s akin to: “I may have sold sex, but less than I could have.” But in fairness, Marriott should be questioned about hotel porn, IMO. And it is way too expensive.

By: Ray

Ray — Tue, 15 Jul 2008 21:35:28 +0000

Please pardon the spelling errors. I’m rushing and didn’t go back and check.

By: Ray

Ray — Tue, 15 Jul 2008 21:34:17 +0000

#41 – Intersting read of self-serving crap. The inconsistencies and narcicism are amazing.

If we can’t excommunicate members who 1) don’t want to belong and 2) say they a) don’t accept the authority of the Priesthood leaders, b) effectively left the Church years ago, c) only remain to engage in social experiments when they know the outcome, d) express surprise when excommunicated, e) explain away the excommincation as good men doing what they felt they were being forced to do, etc., we can’t excommunicate anyone.

By: Steve

Steve — Tue, 15 Jul 2008 21:33:07 +0000

I like Steve #43′s name ;=)

Steve Graham

By: Steve Evans

Steve Evans — Tue, 15 Jul 2008 21:09:22 +0000

I endorse this new Steve’s #42.

By: Steve

Steve — Tue, 15 Jul 2008 20:49:44 +0000

This issue of who get to be called Mormon is odd. We’ve been told of late that we shouldn’t refer to ourselves as Mormons, yet we wish to deny someone else that right. Second, I believe a 20th century General Authority was the first to call them fundamentalist Mormons. Finally we wish to be known as Christians, yet other denominations cry foul.

I understand that we wish not to be confused with them. However, it seems to me that they have grounds for wanting to be known as fundamentalist Mormons.

Odd.

Steve

By: david knowlton

david knowlton — Tue, 15 Jul 2008 04:34:48 +0000

If any one is interestedhere are Hardy's comments from RfM on the disciplinary council mentioned by Ben.