An RC friend was talking to me today about the church. I know far more about his religion than he knows about the LDS, thanks to many reasons.

Anyway, he said,

"It said in the paper that X [local politician] is a Mormon 'stakeholder'"

I corrected him. Stake President...

"It sounds like a business or some kind of Ponzi scheme," he says.

I then went onto explain to him how his church was not really that different. Parishes are LDS wards. Dioceses are LDS stakes. Archdioceses are LDS areas. And for priest, bishop and archbishop read bishop, stake president and area president. For cardinal read General Authority...

Anyway, he did make it sound funny when he said "stakeholder". Must remember that one. He also referred to our local LDS leadership as a presidium, which had me chuckling too. It's great how a small shift can make a title sound ridiculous...

I think I will use these Mormon leadership titles, in the future. Since leaving, I have refused to use any priesthood titles, and if I have to write them descriptiely, I refuse to use capital letters, such as "the Bishop".

I'm curious if the Mormons capitalize the position of "Minister", in reference to what used to be Home Teachers.

I was also taught that once a man is a bishop, or a stake president, then for the rest of his life he is to be called Bishop Smith. His highest position is to be used, so if he becomes a stake presidennt, he is to be called "President Smith," then "Apostle Smith", if he reaches that rank. My relative became the first counselor to the prophet, but was called President, again."

Mormon titles make no sense. I asked a close friend, who was the wife of a temple president, what her title was. She said, "Matron." Oh yeah, how telling. "President and sister Smith, is what they are called.

Stakeholder Smith, Presidium Smith. Elder Dallin Oaks--what's that about? False humility? I guess they have to have titles, because they aren't real human beings. I guess there aren't any "high priests" anymore, anyway. Their titles and ranks and priesthood hierarchy levels are constantly changing, and make no logical sense--yet when we were Mormons, we were supposed to be conscious of decorum. As a California child, I never could bring myself to call my friends' parents "Brother and Sister Smith. They were not my siblings. They were older people, Mr. and Mrs.Smith, and I was just a little kid. It seemed arrogant and weird to assume equality and intimacy with grownups. In public, it would be like rudely broadcasting to everyone that we were Mormons (or quakers or Amish). Mormons love to call attention to themselves.

I would cringe in the office, if I heard someone in the hallway say, "Hello, there, Bishop Smith!" Puh-leeze.

"Bishop" has a whole different level of cachet among RCs. Our bishops are the equivalent of a parish priest, since we have massive priestly inflation. The LDS has more priests than active members, I'm still technically one.

He used "presidium" to refer ro presidency. He said he would inform fhe local presidium about some anti-Mormon things I said years ago.

Yes, the terminology was very confusing when I first came here. "Ward" reminded me of a hospital ward, or a ward of the state. It was odd to me that so many Mormon males hold the priesthood, and that the ward's bishop has no education or training for the role. Mormonism definitely has a unique terminology.

summer Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Yes, the terminology was very confusing when I
> first came here. "Ward" reminded me of a hospital
> ward, or a ward of the state.

At least they're prosaic with area and region. Stake and ward are plain weird. "Ward" is also a political subdivision in some parts of the world.

It was odd to me
> that so many Mormon males hold the priesthood, and
> that the ward's bishop has no education or
> training for the role. Mormonism definitely has a
> unique terminology.

Sometimes it's not unique, it's just they use it in bizarre ways - bishop, priest, elder, minister, home teacher, Sunday School (a kids' class in most churches).

I should add another one my Catholic friend came up with - the Aramaic Priesthood! Wow! He sure knows how to mangle these terms. He got Melchizedek right though, which I would have thought was more of a mouthful than Aaronic.

> Stake and ward are plain weird

I feel a disturbance in the Force...

How or why would someone who grew up in the church write and mean that sentence?

elderolddog Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> > Stake and ward are plain weird
>
> I feel a disturbance in the Force...
>
> How or why would someone who grew up in the church
> write and mean that sentence?

I spent my teens and some of my twenties in the church. I didn't come up through primary, nor was I bap'd at eight or nine. I hung around long enough to be endowed, but I refused to go on a mission. I have been back occasionally since but it's never held me in.

I also grew up in an area where the vast majority of people weren't Mormon, so I came to lead a dual life - Mormon World, Rest of World. As soon as I was out of the church door, I often wouldn't see Mormons until I went back in... Well sort of. I had friends in the church and still do, but I rarely bump into any members accidentally except missionaries.

My parents took me along to many denominations when I was small (except RC & Orthodox) so I got a good idea of what other churches were like.

Hopefully that answers your question.

> I also grew up in an area where the vast majority
> of people weren't Mormon, so I came to lead a dual
> life - Mormon World, Rest of World. As soon as I
> was out of the church door, I often wouldn't see
> Mormons until I went back in... Well sort of. I
> had friends in the church and still do, but I
> rarely bump into any members accidentally except
> missionaries.

Compare that to what Jordan wrote in August 2011. He tells us that that is not the same Jordan, but time and again he echoes his earlier posts.

"There are quite a few Mormons in Lethbridge. It's also the nearest big city to the Mormon south (Cardston, Taber, Raymond etc.) so you run into them a lot there. I think it would be harder to escape the Mormons than here in Calgary. There's quite a few here too - 6 stakes of them, but in a city of over a million, it's a lot easier to pretend they don't exist."

We have already been through this. Someone calling themselves by the same user name, posted this a number of years ago. It appears (and I did do a search) that said person didn't post much else - certainly not very recently when I started using the name after being told to use one name .

Why don't you do a search for posters called Sarah or Bob or Chad? You'll probably find different posters under those same names.

You are extremely intrusive when it comes to trying to determine what ward I was in. I don't do the same to you. It defeats the point of anonymity.

You certainly have one or two little secrets on here. LogicalCanuckExmo is one of them.

Hopefully it comforts you to think you talked your way out of it.

And what about my recollection of you recalling for us that you are still a priest? Most males mention their highest priesthood level attained, but now you've mentioned being endowed...

I'd explain what I'm getting at but you have to know already!

elderolddog Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Hopefully it comforts you to think you talked your
> way out of it.
>
> And what about my recollection of you recalling
> for us that you are still a priest? Most males
> mention their highest priesthood level attained,
> but now you've mentioned being endowed...
>
> I'd explain what I'm getting at but you have to
> know already!

I haven't sent in a resignation letter if that's what you're meaning. I'm technically an elder, if you must know. I never became an HP since that seems to go to married people.

The reason I mentioned "priest" is because you have to remember it sounds so strange to a Roman Catholic who has a very differenr understanding of that term. In LDS terms of course it means nothing. Nearly every LDS man from adolescence to senescencw is a priest of some sort. Outside the temple, they don't wear vestments (unless you count TGs). The training I received for my oriesthood is minimal compared to the training a Catholic priest gets. And when I did get endowed, I was told practically nothing by the church and suddenly I'm in there pledging everything I own to them!

FWIW, there are several areas of Mormonism that still bewilder me. Certain callings are AP and others are MP - I never quite got the hang of which were which. Obviously the teenage boys serving sacrament are AP, but a lot of the other AP/MP stuff is hazy and I would have to look some of it up to confirm which was which.

I could tell you the names of all the church presidents as well, but I would have to think about some of them - Joseph Fielding and Joseph F are two I muddle up. Some presidents are memorable - David O. McKay or Lorenzo Snow for example, others like Howard W. Hunter or Harold B. Lee don't bring much to mind for me.

Sorry, man...still feeling a disturbance in the Force.

Also getting a whiff of dungpoopery.

You went through the temple got your endowments and you don't know the difference between the LDS Aaronic and Melchizedek priesthood??? Now I have more doubts about your history in the church.

Finally Free! Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> You went through the temple got your endowments
> and you don't know the difference between the LDS
> Aaronic and Melchizedek priesthood??? Now I have
> more doubts about your history in the church.

What is this?

This is the token of Jordan being well aware of the main differences, but I am come here to converse with you. But if you asked me whether an SP was an AP/MP calling or a bishop was AP/MP, then that's where I get confused.

That is correct. You may now enter.

>"But if you asked me whether an SP was an AP/MP calling or a bishop was AP/MP, then that's where I get confused."

There's no way an endowed member wouldn't know what type of priesthood a bishop or a stake president would need to hold to attain that calling. I'm not buying it.

Finally Free! Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> >"But if you asked me whether an SP was an AP/MP
> calling or a bishop was AP/MP, then that's where I
> get confused."
>
> There's no way an endowed member wouldn't know
> what type of priesthood a bishop or a stake
> president would need to hold to attain that
> calling. I'm not buying it.

Really? Did they ever ask YOU that when you took an interview?

It was all "do you"? Yes. "Do you?" No. Nothing about this subject. Both of us wanted to get it over with as quickly as possible, and I learned very quickly not to go into details about belief levels or chastity. Once I told a bishop I had doubts, and I had to visit with him for weeks. The only thing I couldn"t wrigfle out of was tithing, because it was all down on the page.

There is one thing that is guaranteed. Both of these people will be endowed and hold the MP regardless of whether it is AP or MP.

It actually raises some questions for me...

In the 1980's you were old enough to be giving Lech Walesa.

At that time period, normally, you would only get your endowments right before a mission (which you didn't go on) or right before getting married, in the temple. Otherwise, most Bishops would wait until later, often into the 30's for single/not temple married people to get their endowments. Maybe that's just my experience, but I thought that was pretty common.

I'm not saying your not telling the truth, but that it seems to be a bit of an outlier. Maybe you're leaving some details out to keep your anonymity.

Seriously? He just said he was only a priest but went through the temple. Is there any way that is not a fabrication?

This man has a consistent record of dishonesty. I understand your desire to give him the benefit of the doubt, but at some pointe. . .

I just read the priest thing. I sometimes skim to fast, I'm supposed to be working after all ;)

His timeline doesn't add up at all. There's no way he wouldn't know what priesthood level he attained, especially if he was endowed. He would have had to have attended meetings for some time in order gain worthiness to get endowed as an non-missionary/un-temple married man in the 70's or 80's. The class he attended alone would have been repeated each week telling him what his priesthood level was, and it wasn't priest, not if he went to the temple.

Yeah, that's my thinking. I am deeply skeptical of his stories about his cousin, Lech Walesa, as well.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 07/03/2019 06:06PM by Lot's Wife.

I told you that you wouldn't believe the Lech Walesa story... I don't believe the story Orson Welles tells about meeting Hitler before he was famous either. I was a lot younger at the time! He isn't the only significant person I've ever come into contact with, but I'm not a collector of celebrities. Surprisingly I've met only a handful of GAs.

Truth is sometimes stranger than fiction...

Lot's Wife Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Seriously? He just said he was only a priest but
> went through the temple. Is there any way that is
> not a fabrication?
>
> This man has a consistent record of dishonesty. I
> understand your desire to give him the benefit of
> the doubt, but at some pointe. . .

Ah, Jeez Louise! An elder is a type of priest in the LDS. It's not just the spotty boys who are in the priesthood, but the Quorum of the Twelve who are technically "priests" as well. (In fact, if you recall the endowment, you'll find the word "priestesses" used as well. True dat.)

The reference to "priest" is in relation to Roman Catholicism, where it has an entirely different meaning.

If I had no connection to the LDS, then you would not find me here. Forgive me if I'm cagey about certain aspects of my LDS background, you will find most people here are, except perhaps Steve Benson and I don't even think he is active here anymore.

p.s. The phrase is <<en pointe>>.

Jordan Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Forgive me if I'm cagey about
> certain aspects of my LDS background, you will
> find most people here are, except perhaps Steve
> Benson and I don't even think he is active here
> anymore.

I'm not and I know SLCabbie isn't and he was never baptized not to mention all the non-never-were-Mormons here. In fact, many people aren't "cagey" about their backgrounds specifically because this site is for them. There is a place to lay it all out in words.

The only people who have to keep a lower profile are those not outed as not being mentally Mormon anymore....hmmmm.

Oh, I believe you were LDS. I also believe you are an inveterate liar who doesn't keep his stories straight. And forgive me, but I don't think there was anything at all Lech Walesa could have learned from you--I don't even think the dates match up.

Regarding your later observation, I understand not only "en pointe" but its usage as well. So if I misuse it, an astute reader would look to see whom I am making fun of rather than seeking to correct something that doesn't require correction.

I doubt I even exchanged more than a couple of sentences with Lech Walesa. It's a very long time ago, and in my stupidity I thought he was a lot less significant than he was and so I gave it no thought. How wrong I was! Our meeting could have been counted in seconds, and it was only years later that I was reminded of the meeting.

On the rare occasions I do see someone who is famous and I know to be famous, I tend to leave them alone. I once passed Johnny Depp on the sidewalk - or at least I thought it was him, he was in town at the time - but I had no desire to accost him. (He's mixed up in some crazy things - Marilyn Manson is a close friend I believe)... I saw Princess Diana being driven past when I was visiting London many years ago, and I've seen Hollywood actors in Manhattan and LA... I don't even wave at such people... What's the point?

You remember details about a chance meeting with someone even though you didn't consider them to be of importance at the time.

At the same time, you don't remember the difference between the Aaronic and Melchizedek priesthoods and how it applies to bishops and stake presidents, something that would have come up on a regular basis for the years you claim to have been a member.

"you don't remember the difference between the Aaronic and Melchizedek priesthoods"

The basic details yes, more complex details no. And there is a lot of really weird obscure stuff - people of Jewish descent can become bishops without marrying, if I recall rightly and I never saw that happen, although we did have a handful of people with Jewish backgrounds.

The MP can basically do everything that the AP can do, and more. Younger males gradually work up the AP ranking until they get the MP, get endowed and work up the next series of ranks up to HPG.

"and how it applies to bishops and stake presidents, something that would have come up on a regular basis for the years you claim to have been a member."

I attended classes where all this was discussed. I was never once quizzed on this, although I was exec sec, FHC and various other callings.

I was that guy who sat at the back of the class and barely said anything.

One thing can be said about the LDS. Their gospel is not beautifully simple and simply beautiful, it is fiendishly complicated from start to finish.

Everything you're posting could be easily googled or found with a bit of background research on the church. And that's the reason why you won't get me to trust you.

>"The MP can basically do everything that the AP can do, and more. Younger males gradually work up the AP ranking until they get the MP, get endowed and work up the next series of ranks up to HPG."

Again, anyone who attended long enough to get an endowment would know more than this. No one would say "The Melchizedek Priest", ever. Everything reads like someone who read about the Church, not lived it.

I won't go into the rest of the problems with this, because I like watching you dig your hole.

Tell me where I said "the Melchizedek Priest"? Oh wait, you can't... MP is an abbreviation for Melchizedek PriestHOOD (or mission president!).

So claiming I said "the Melchizedek Priest" is actually a blatant lie, even though I'm the one here accused of never having been a member!

In your post above you say:

Edited to change my answer, I stand corrected (see I can admit it when I'm wrong) the sentence can be read "The Melchizedek Priesthood can basically do everything that the Aaronic Priesthood can do". I originally read your abbreviation to be "Melchizedek Priest" as I thought that fit your wording better, but it could go either way. So, I'll give you that.

Or do really you walk around saying the letters "MP" when referring to the instead of Melchizedek Priesthood? In which case, Mormons do say the letters "MP" but usually not in reference to Melchizedek Priesthood... I'll let you guess when that is.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 07/03/2019 08:00PM by Finally Free!.

No, I would use MP and AP only in writing. It saves space. Ditto SP, SS, SM, TR, TGs, HTs, VTs etc, I would say LDS and YSA in speech, but they're some of the few exceptions to the rule.

I have no idea what your connection to the LDS church is, at this point, I don't think I'd trust any answer you'd give.

You sound like someone who has been caught in a lie and is trying to cover their mistake. Pointing out all the different uses of "priest" in the LDS church, regardless of how people actually call themselves who have lived long enough in that culture to know when and how those terms are used.

I guess all those manuals I had to work through didn't stick then.

What details would you like? Sacrament bread that tasted of hand cleaner? Men from fifty upwards with huge pot bellies, even though they don't drink? Hearing children singing about popcorn on apricot trees? That's a weird one. Since I didn't spend my early childhood in the church, I never understood the significance of that. Endless firesides which I can barely remember. Endless conference talks which blended into one another. People going on about how much they love President [whoever it is this year]...

I could also mention how we rarely stayed in the same room for long. EQ wandered around that building like the ancient Israelites. Split up, brought together. Fifth Sunday. Nepotism. Certain families making up the core of the ward. That slightly insane woman who never missed a chance at F&T but was never invited to do a talk. Children running up to their parents on the stand. Barely articulate children bearing their testimony...

There is a lot to remember. I couldn't remember it all even while an active member, just as I always needed a hymn book in front of me, and someone told me that I should have them all memorized!

what part of "I don't think I'd trust any answer you'd give" didn't you understand.

And honestly Jordan, I don't care if you are telling the truth, except that it's pretty sad that if you are lying (and to me it sounds like you are) it's a pretty sad that you feel the need to come to a recovery board to do it. You and your opinions just aren't important or valuable enough to worry about, except to point out when there's a problem to keep people from thinking that everyone on the board agrees with your type of thinking.

I'm not sure why you're determined to try and convince me anyway. It feels like you protest too much.

Nothing that you've posted above couldn't be gleaned by reading even just a few days worth of recent posts on this board. I'd even say that some of them even sound very similar to other people's posts in the last week which, honestly, feels like a weird coincidence.

I have no idea what your connection to the LDS church is. I don't know why you post here, other than to feed your own ego. You're certainly not here to help those who are recovering. Scant few of your posts have anything to do with the main mission of the board. Most of your posts appear to be attempts to showcase your "intelligence" or highlight some self perceived anecdote.

I have produced a long list of LDS experiences there which you don't find in books. How would I know about those things? How would I know, for example, that you are not allowed to wear masks in church, even though Halloween is curiously popular? Where would I know that kind of thing from? I know it because I saw someone getting told off for doing so.

I've never been a JW, other than attending a few services. I have visited one of their equivalent of this board, but never posted. Why? Because I'm not a JW, and they too have a forest of verbiage that no one without a long term attendance would ever cut through. I have however, been LDS and do know a number of things that I could only have known hy living it.

As a matter of fact, Roman Catholicism is a much more interesting denomination, although I have never been involved in it (other than attending a few masses, funerals etc - my current girlfriend is a not very devout RC). But do I post on RC boards? No.

Again, because you seem to be having a hard time with the concept, "I have no idea what your connection to the LDS church is, at this point, I don't think I'd trust any answer you'd give."

Why do you care what I think?

And you telling me where you do and don't post will certainly make it easier to believe you, I mean, I can look at all those boards and see you not posting there... Oh wait... I guess I'll have to just trust you? ... Oh wait...

"Why do you care what I think?"

I've honestly no idea. Probably a misguided notion of sticking up for myself.

To a random person you're never likely to meet on in real life, and if you did you wouldn't even know it. To a person who has stated that they don't care either way. Someone who has disagreed with you on multiple occasions and doesn't share your point of view on a lot of topics you seem to care about.

Really, why do you care what I think?

I work for a non-profit. I have completely lost track of titles and what they mean and who they apply to. A friend likes to keep track of all the titles, so when a new one pops up I always send the the email signature. My friends says the job titles are to make people feel important... when a person feels important than they will do anything within a job especially when that job doesn't give back much in lieu of money, respect, self worth, etc.. the title replaces all of the above mentioned.

You see that sometimes in private industry as well. A boss can't give you a raise, so you get an inflated title instead.

And new business cards! Oh, the psychic joy!

Elder = young Mormon unimportant man wandering around looking for converts often walking or on a bike.
Elder = old Mormon important man flying first class around the world talking to Mormons.

I'm still an elder but not suppose to use the title so there is a third class.

Elder = not young anymore Mormon unimportant man unable to be made into a High Priest for a variety of reasons mostly doing with inability to influence leaders to make it so.

So much in a simple word for Mormons.

Jordan, out of interest how long were you an active member?

kentish Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Jordan, out of interest how long were you an
> active member?

Out of interest, what is your real name, your home address and phone number? And the phone number of your local bishop/BP, so I can contact them about you. Sarcasm off.

My level of involvement fluctuated a lot. At times I barely made it into SM, or missed a sunday, and didn't hang around for priesthood or SS. At other times I was in low level callings, paid tithing and was a bit more involved. I did not attend primary, and stayed away from a lot of institute and seminary. At one point I only went to YSA events.

At times I was inactive, semi-active and active. Between the years I was baptized and when I was endowed, I had widely varying levels of activity. I felt pressured in my early adulthood to serve a mission and refused - I do not think my personality would have been compatible with it and I didn't believe in enough of it. This caused a split between me and the church. By the time it subsided, I was too old to go on a mission and they agreed that I could go through the temple. The mission pressure is probably my least favorite memory of the church. It was insane. I told my home teachers that I didn't wish to go on one, and one of them actually PRAYED at the end of the lesson that I would want to go. I nearly threw him out because of that. But for most of my existence in the church I never saw HTs. In fact, there were some companionships who never visited me at all.

That's as much detail as I am willing to give.

Not that you have to tell how long you were a member... How does the length of your membership compare at all to "real name, your home address and phone number? And the phone number of your local bishop/BP"

Do you think there's a searchable database where people can look up lengths of time people were members to identify them with?

I mean, I really do understand keeping your anonymity and I'm not advocating you divulge any more than you want, but this was a weirdly forceful response when you could have just said, "I'd rather not say beyond what I've said".

RfM's own version of Donald Trump. "I never said that! Squirrel!!!"

stillanon Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> RfM's own version of Donald Trump. "I never said
> that! Squirrel!!!"

I'm a lot more intelligent than that ape (or his opponents who seem to think politics only exists in two parties). Also, I may have a tiny fraction of his wealth, but at least I worked for mine.

Finally Free! Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Not that you have to tell how long you were a
> member... How does the length of your membership
> compare at all to "real name, your home address
> and phone number? And the phone number of your
> local bishop/BP"

Because you are asking me a whole load of details on here that would lead to me being personally identified.

> Do you think there's a searchable database where
> people can look up lengths of time people were
> members to identify them with?

If I tell you when I was baptized, what callings I held, where I live roughly, and when I was endowed, then yes, someone might see it and think, "That's X." The biggest giveaway actually is my standpoint on certain issues.

I am still on their books, and if that does happen, I will end up with unwanted attention. Just now, they tend to leave me alone since our ward activity rate was about 10%, meaning that there are a lot of inactives for rhem to deal with - me among them.

> I mean, I really do understand keeping your
> anonymity and I'm not advocating you divulge any
> more than you want, but this was a weirdly
> forceful response when you could have just said,
> "I'd rather not say beyond what I've said".

I apologize for being too forceful, but I suspect that would have garnered a similar response.

> "Because you are asking me a whole load of details on here that would lead to me being personally identified."

Where have I done that? I'll wait while you find any post where I've asked you for any details at all.

> "If I tell you when I was baptized, what callings I held, where I live roughly, and when I was endowed"

I don't see anyone asking you for that information. Perhaps I'm wrong, please feel free to point to the post asking you for personal information.

>"I apologize for being too forceful, but I suspect that would have garnered a similar response."

How do you know? Have you interacted with the person who asked you this? Maybe try being softer in your tone and people will respond to you differently.

Someone (Not even me, mind you) asked how long you were a member. The answer could have been anything from, "I'm not comfortable giving that out, "a few years", "decades", or you could have been specific. None of it would have given away any personal information, yet you chose to react like telling it would have had the missionaries at your door within the hour.

Jordan flat out misused "en pointe" and then failed to dance the humility dance, probably because it's just not in his balletic repertoire. It's a mistake, a pretentious one, but I've made them in the past and all it takes is a quick, "Aw, crap, I goofed up!"

He observed that "ward and stake are plain weird" and has a nifty explanation for still thinking this after spending his teens and young adulthood 'in the church', including taking out his endowments.

He throws out the "I met Lech Walesa" but humbly admits he can't prove it.

Lots of obfuscation going on, which includes pretending to believe that Lot's Wife and I are one and the same and posturing that computer analysis would prove it.

Finally, if there were any substance to the Jordan character, none of his dancing around en pointe would be necessary.

> Finally, if there were any substance to the Jordan
> character, none of his dancing around en pointe
> would be necessary.

Oh no. Please tell me you didn't do that!

Yeah, and in my mind, his arms were in the air and he was languid.

I usually consider myself the lowest of the low when it comes to humor, but then someone like you comes along and shows me how much more I have to learn.

I will never cease to plumb the depths of childish, irreverent humor.

Chang and Eng, or is it Legion? I thought you had to be the same gender to be conjoined...

I'll give you the benefit of the doubt, and use the modern term - NPCs.

There you go again.

I think you are more McDonkie than Badass Adam, but you are clearly in their territory.

You know how much I respect that.

I can't prove the Lech Walesa thing at all. But that's the way things go sometimes. I can't prove I was once caught in gunfire either, but so it goes. Take it or leave it. Neither have direct relevance to Mormonism.

Funnily enough I can't prove I have met Jeffrey R. Holland either, or more recently Terryl Givens, but again neither of these encounters were more than a handshake and a few sentences.

I don't find your story about Walesa credible or incredible. People do bump into the famous from time to time, so I'm agnostic.

But that claim about regretting that you didn't give him more of your time to "help" him advance his revolutionary work strains credulity well past the breaking point. That is purely nonsense and, along with other flights of fancy, undermine your reputation here. The half-baked political silliness has the same effect.

Well I didn't. A BS version of that story would have had him coming along dejected and leaving inspired by something I said, but that never happened. I wish I could even remember anything he said!

I pointed out that ward and stake sound strange to outsiders - which they do - and this is used to spin a narrative (that godawful pomo'ism) that I am a nevermo. Well they do. I told an anecdote of a nevermo talking about Stakeholders, Presidiums and the Aramaic Priesthood... All of which sound like they should be Mormon and aren't... Which I found funny.

Yeah, this is a retreat.

Where'd the goalpost go... I swear it was right here!