templelady

LCM does know that we are talking 423+ years difference between these two events, right??? Of all the lame excuses for teaching outright falsehood....

Not living together--Hmm that was never a problem when I was in. My marriage to my second husband was while I was in The way. Had It at another couples house--nice ceremony just a few friends. The thing I remember most was how different my wedding was to the couple who lived in the Limb coordinators house (live in help--although that isn't what it was called) and another couples held that same year. For their weddings all the believers got together and made Hor d'ourves and did silk flowers etc. my wedding, I did my own flowers, (mind you I'd done all the flowers for one of the other weddings) and it was a simple cake with cheese and crackers on the side that I paid for, the couple in whose house it was held bought the Champagne. I'd already had a few run-ins with leadership--so their displeasure was made manifest in the most tangible of ways

OM I think the phrase "sold out to the adversary" pretty well covers that as well as "no longer standing on the word" I mean you aren't really suggesting that TWI taught that even if you left TWI you kept all your sonship rights are you??? And , if that is the case, please post the letter, teaching or whatever, where that was taught or said.

I would be the first to agree that works will not righteousness grant--The LDS Church teaches that works are the manifestation of being a follower of Jesus Christ "by their fruits shall ye know them" But there is a much more subtle message here "We have only to believe God's word to manifest our free, God-given righteousness." and "As many as freely claim his gift by confessing Jesus as lord and believing God raised him from the dead" This is TWI's linchpin--the foundation that permitted the sexual misconduct, the yelling, the prying the control. Per them "Righteous" was a gift, given like a birthday present--and, although it is never stated as such, a get out of jail free pass for any conduct. How many times did we hear, "God does't condemn You" "claim your sonship rights". "Right Behavior" is a form of works, and we didn't need works, and since works didn't gain righteousness, the unspoken message was they couldn't loose it either unless you left TWI of course--In which case you were no longer a "son" Subtle and devilish And by taking "works"away as the proof of being a follower of Christ and substituting SIT--they finished the circle

Standing and clapping for a bishop Nope First, and formost you are in the HOUSE OF GOD not a football stadium Secondly, said bishop is another Son of God--no geater than you no less than you, just a servent of Jesus Christ.

"important reason for keeping him free" I always got the sense talking to Sharon, those days when we were in the same house after RU's arrest, that this was an ongoing thing for a very long time --the homosexuality I mean-(probably the pedophilia too--but I can't speak to that except for the cases I know about.) I do know RU was active duty Air Force-- putting it all in the "Open" would have cost him his career. I think getting a caretaker for Sharon was pretty high up on TWI's to do list. I never knew why--never understood why someone with her health issues was allowed to go Corps in the first place. Maybe it didn't have so much to do with who RU was as it did with who Sharon was--A lot of secrets there--a lot of skirting around issues. You always had the sense, or at least I did, that there was a whole wellspring of data that was always just on the tip of Sharon's tongue, there were a couple of times when I thought she was going to open up--But Sharon was tough--she'd survived a loveless marriage of convenience and kept up the facade. That carried a high price tag emotionally but she stuck it out. The actual whys and wherefores of TWI and their early decisions vis-a-vis Sharon and Richard are probably lost forever--Doubt the Urquharts will ever talk and the original decision makers are probably long gone or entrenched in denial. Taken as a whole The Urquhart mess was just one more blimp on the TWI radar--important to those of us caught up in it but just one more brush fire in the over all picture.

That's a fine hair you are splitting OM What I think is that TWI Leaders INTENTIONALLY wanted to maintain the status quo INTENTIONALLY wanted to Cover up any wrongdoing by Corps or those associated with TWI who had any sort of responsibility INTENTIONALLY wanted to continue to whitewash events for many years on an ongoing basis They may not have INTENTIONALLY wanted these things to happen ----But they INTENTIONALLY made sure that nothing was done to prevent them from happening ion the future. The first "error" is a mistake--allowing said "error" to continue by shielding the guilty and continuing to provide a setting for "error" to be repeated is criminal. And yes I say the same about it happening in ANY church.

*****WARNING THE FOLLOWING STATEMANT MAY CAUSE ACUTE HEART RELATED SYMPTOMS READ WITH CARE************* I agree with Oldies and Allen W

And If you look at the time line it took almost 15 YEARS before anything was done about Rich Urquhart. And yes, Urquhart was both homosexual and a pedophile--got that directly from the one who would know--His wife. That is why TWI had them get married, Sharon needed someone to look after her with her health problems and Rich needed the "cover" of a wife. Again straight from Sharon to me. BTW Sharon was Corps 10th I believe--but I might have that wrong. So it is safe to say that TWI knew about the "homo" menace for AT LEAST Fifteen years before they decided to "Do something" Somehow, I'm not impressed And no, I don't think LCM was interested in children at all--but I Think there was a good deal of AC mixed with the DC

{deleted} OH, why should I bother

I think God speaks to all his children--but most of us aren't listening

My solution get the Spawn of debul spurts naked have him grab that little wee wee of his and get it hard lop off whatever hangs over the end of his hand tell him to run for the nearest medical facility if he makes it he lives if he doesn't, well bears are omnivorous they'll take care of the problem Oh did I mention that the spot selected for this "rite" is 600 miles form the nearest medical facility?????

The following is an actual case heard by the Idaho Supreme Court in 1901. Compare the law then to the law now. Oh BTW the plaintiff Charles ZIENKE is my Great great grandfather on my birth mothers side. So how say my fellow Grease-spotter's how would my ancestor fair today with the same circumstances?? {italics mine} The Supreme court Yesterday handed down a decision in the case of Charles ZIENKE, respondent vs. Northern Pacific Railroad Company appellant. Opinion by Justice STOCKSLAGER. The case was appealed from Kootenai {Bonner} county. ZIENKE, who was a carpenter in the employ of the railroad company, was injured while so employed and in the lower court was awarded $1995. the Supreme court reversed this decision and sends the case back for re-trial on the ground that the injuries were received through the carelessness of a fellow servant, and the law therefore holds the employer not responsible in damages. The facts as stated in the opinion show that the complaint alleges that the plaintiff is a carpenter and was employed in July 1896, by the defendant at work upon the trestles across Lake Pend'Orielle that said trestles are narrow and crossed by a single track and that plaintiff was run over by a hand car which one John HOLSTROEM, foreman of the work and and employee of the company, was managing, and that plaintiff could in no manner avoid the accident. That the plaintiffs right leg was permanently injured by the accident. Then follow allegations that the defendant should have furnished a safe place for working and a timely system for warning of danger, that defendant was negligent and careless, that it was defendants duty to employ only careful and sober men and that the said John HOLSTROEM was addicted to drunkenness and unfit for the position of foreman, that plaintiff was, at that time, ignorant of HOLSTROEM's unfitness; that plaintiff at the time of injury was a strong healthy man and since has been incapacitated from work and injury was caused without any negligence on plaintiff's part. To the complaint a demurer was file, which was overruled and an answer made, denying all the principal allegations of the complaint. The court then reviews the evidence at length and sums up as follows: With this statement of the pleadings, and the evidence, should the motion for a non-suit have been sustained? If so it is wholly unnecessary for us to pass on a number of questions presented by the record. The plaintiff testifies that he was an experienced bridge man having been engaged in that class of work for a number of years, that he was familiar with the dangers connected with the class of work in which he was engaged at the time of the accident. He testifies that the accident was attributable to the carelessness and negligence of one John HOLSTROEM in pushing a hand car against his leg with such force as to cause the injury, and that said HOLSTROEM was an employee of the defendant in a capacity superior to him. On cross examination he testifies, that one McAULIFFE was the foreman of the gang at work on the bridge, or trestle, at the time of the accident, and was present at the time giving orders, that said McAULIFFE employed him to work for defendant in the capacity of a bridge carpenter, that he was assisting in unloading the push car when said HOLSTROEM pushed the hand car against his leg with sufficient force to cause the injury, that HOLSTROEM was also a bridge carpenter. Three witnesses testified that HOLSTROEM was addicted to the use of intoxicating liquors, and that they had frequently seen him intoxicated at Sand Point {Sandpoint} Spokane, and Rathdrum. There is no pretense, however, that he was under the influence of liquor at the time of the accident or that his habits of intoxication were in any way responsible for it, or that he was in the habit of using intoxicating liquors whilst at work. It is urged by respondent's counsel that it was the duty of the defendant to only employ such workman as were reliable and safe in the work in which they were engaged. This is undoubtedly true, but no one testifies that they ever knew HOLSTROEM to be under the influence of liquor when engaged in work for the defendant. It is also urged by counsel for the respondent that HOLSTROEM and ZIENKE, the plaintiff, were not fellow servants, and hence the rule applying to fellow servants cannot be invoked in this case. We cannot agree with this contention. We think the testimony of plaintiff plainly shows that they were fellow servants each employed in the capacity of bridge carpenters by Foreman McAULIFFE. Plaintiff testified that HOLSTROEM stated to him at the time of the accident, that the brake on the hand car was defective. A careful inspection of plaintiff's amended complaint fails to disclose any allegation of defective machinery or defective brake on the hand car. Plaintiff basing his right to recover on the carelessness and negligence of HOLSTROEM whom he alleges was incompetent careless and negligent in handling the handcar, and the discharge of his duties in same capacity over him in the employ of the defendant. The first question is: Was HOLSTROEM a fellow servant with plaintiff or did he occupy a position in any way superior to the plaintiff? We think the evidence is conclusive that they were fellow servants employed as bridge carpenters by the defendant, and we need not look beyond the testimony of the plaintiff to arrive at that conclusion. If they were fellow servants can the plaintiff recover in this action? In DONNALLY vs San Francisco Bridge Co., the court says: That the superintendent and the injured workman as to the act causing the injury were fellow servants, sery.49 Pac. page 559 In BRUNELL vs Southern Pacific R.R. Co, the Supreme court of Oregon a well considered opinion, by Mr. Justice MOORE, says (syllabus) A railroad company is not bound to keep a signal to warn the men on a hand car of the situation of the section men on the track 56 PAc. page 129. That the plaintiff assumed all ordinary risks incident to the work in which he was engaged we think there can be no serious question. See DRAKE vs N.P.R.R. Co. Idaho 453. The Syllabus says: Where a fireman upon a locomotive engine in discharge of his duty with full knowledge of the service he is engaged in, or having the means to be informed by such facts or conditions by the exercise of ordinary care, voluntarily assumes such risks and is thereby injured, and the employer is guilty of no lapses or misconduct unknown to the servant, or which with ordinary care he might have known, he cannot recover for such injury. The learned judge in whose court the case was tried below recognized this rule in his instructions, but they seem to have been entirely ignored by the jury. On this question see: MINTY vs C.P.R.R. 21 Idaho, 437. (21 PAc 660) BRUNELL vs P.R.R.Co (Ore) 56 PAc 129 The defendant assigns 44 errors occurring on the trial of this cause, but in our view of the case, we deem it unnecessary to pass upon a large number of them. With the pleadings as we find them, the testimony as it appears from the record and the law as shown by the authorities above cited, can this judgement stand? We think not. The judgement of the lower court and the order denying defendant a new trial are reversed with costs to the appellant. QUARLES, C.J. and SULLIVAN, J. concur Idaho Daily Statesman (Boise, Idaho) 23 November 1901 (found at www.ancestry.com) The final part about by GG Grandfather having to pay the court costs was, IMO, the icing on the cake

The Homo purges--one of my favorites If you look at the list of Active corps who were dropped in 1994 you find on the list Sharon and Richard Urquhart-- "dropped" for being inactive So we have a time line circa 1981 Richard Urquhart molests the son of a believer in the TWIG he attends in Ohio. He and Sharon are married at the behest of TWI and he transfers to Alaska where he is given the position of TWIG coordinator by TWI who has 1) stopped the parents of the molested child from going to the authorities by assuring them TWI would handle it 2) given Urguhart a position which is guaranteed to bring him into contact with new victims 1988 Richard Urquhart, TWI TWIG coordinator, is tried and convicted in Alaska for Molesting little boys :) circa 1991 released from jail and , courtesy of TWI , sent back to Ohio, where a TWIG coordinator is ordered by his leadership to take Richard and Sharon into his home . TWI, exhibiting extreme intelligence and due diligence considering the magnitude of Richard Urquharts criminal offenses , places the Urquharts in the home of the TWIG coordinator who has, as members of his TWIG, the family of the boy who Richard molested in circa 1981. This causes large quantities of bovine excrement to be accelerated through the atmosphere by mini turbines. 1994 The Urquharts are dropped for being inactive The speed and alacrity with which VPW and LCM instituted a "homo Purge" has always astounded me in light of this situation I have said it before and I will say it again It is MY OPINION that the "homo rant" was because LCM's activities were not confined to the female gender--and someone threatened to expose him. "the Rant" was nothing more than a ploy to deflect attention from himself and to give himself a ready cover if exposure was forthcoming ---you know the drill ---"Now that I and this great ministry have taken a stand against the debil spurt possessed homos who are bringing the Adversary into our midst, they are attacking me, your MOG, with baseless accusations...."

Socks I hereby give you my old, solid gold, engraved soapbox with the velvet cushion to be yours now and forever for use here at the cafe so you may expound in style and comfort

So , in other words, Jesus Christ's value lies in the fact that he said Scripture, "the Word", is what is important from God. I notice that they carefully steer around the issue that Jesus Christ = The word

Naw, it's not us they are after--It's all the people who have been scared away from TWI by coming here and other sites and "doing their homework" Twi has figured out that denying the past isn't working so all they can do is put out the equivalent of an "under new management" sign and try again to woo the reluctant

***TL cautiously raises her head above the parapets*** Amen It is the Right of every Christian--and since it is a right no one has the authority to tell you how to live your life while doing it. They can not agree, they can go about it differently , but how you do it is between you and God and you are answerable to Him

Having never been to one, I think I wouldn't mind trying it once

ME!!! devisive amd Annoying???? ME????

That puts it all nicely in perspective doesn't it?

So pray tell how does one get off the Mark and Avoid list if the people that have to Undue the mark and Avoid refuse to communicate with the Marked and Avoided because they are to avoid them because they are marked??? Say I write to HQ and say I Maureen Dilley wish to become Unmarked and Unavoided. HQ worker: ARGHHHHHHHH it's from that Dilley Person HQ worker2: ARGHHHHHHHHH we are to avoid her HQworker 3: Quick toss that Debil spurt influenced letter in the trash Enter RR: What is all the noise about Workers: That MAureen DIlley ............. RR: NOT ANOTHER WORD!!!! SHe is Marked and Avoided--You need to renew your minds to the present prevailing truth. It is clearly your lack of believing that allowed that letter to be delivered to this building in the first place........... So WGB how about having who ever is running a Fellowship here in Anchorage call 907-278-7844 and invite me over some night. I'll be waiting for that call

I think this is where all of us Intermediate class grads who left before we took the advanced class should be extremely thankful-- Now when they start sending out letters that say-- To all you Intermediate Class Grads who never got to take the Advanced Class due unfortunate circumstances, Not the Fault of TWI, here is your opportunity Come to beautiful New Knoxville Ohio , where you will be welcomed back to take the Advanced class and once again join the ranks of True believers.... That will be cause for rejoicing because when that happens the day of TWI's demiss is surre to be close at hand

Sorry as a knitter myself I would never disparage my fellow yarn addicts

Allen--Just where in my post did I refer to the LDS Church?--This Isn't About the LDS church-- But since you asked --- ANYONE is welcome at an LDS church service and that means ANYONE. You see no one is ever going to ask you when you walk through the door if you are LDS. They will ask "Are you new Here?" to which a response to "just visiting/looking/ wanted to see what it was like ", will be - "well Welcome, We are glad to have you--enjoy the Service" Oh, and the Bishop will be told you are there--Why? so he can personally come over and introduce himself and meet you and bid you welcome. Don't be surprised when other members seeing an unfamiliar face walk over to shake hands and Say Hi and welcome either--that's how we do things. In my ward we have a member married to an agnostic--the agnostic attends regualrly with his family and often helps out with activities, such as youth night , picnics etc. The agnostic is respected and well liked , of course we would like said agnostic to become a believer--but turn said person away because they are agnostic -- NEVER HAPPEN