Huckabee questions Mormons' belief

I'm assuming you meant me in your post #340 rather than tru-stu. Poor tru. Let me ask you a question here shall we hmmmm? Was OJ executed? Was he ever about to face execution? Was Clinton executed? Was he ever in any danger of execution? Did either of them issue a 'confession' knowing they were about to be executed???? Kind of destroys your thesis using OJ and Clinton as examples on the credibility of court room confessions don't it? (Not to mention this was a 19th century courtroom not infested with politically correct 20th century liberals as was the case with your 2 rather dubious examples but I digress).

Now please enlighten all of us why exactly someone who is about to face his maker would need to "LIE" in a confession just to protect BY??? Be honest - would YOU? I thought not, so thank you very much for proving this event with your babbling. I'll stand by my sources thank you very much along with the other historians based on the overwhelming evidence in this particular case to the contrary, and you can continue to wallow in your comfortable little world where fear is the motivator for never, ever, questioning anything the LDS ever in any way says or does. OH GOSH, heavens no - the LDS would NEVER EVER cover-up its questionable past from anybody would they? OH my no -- oh no --- its always the anti-mormons isn't it never the Church lying to YOU? tsk tsk tsk. Yeah anti-mormons are so evil we have the audacity to actually show you direct quotations complete with source citations that your own leaders have actually SAID. (This is done not bash but to present truth). But hey if you don't like the quotes and sources we post seems to me your problem isn't with us -- its with the LDS. So my dear if you don't like what you see -- why are you STILL LDS?

I give up. I'm rather reminded of a rabid jihadist faced with the truth of Mohammed and starts yelling death to the infidel for daring to question his prophet. So go ahead and sit in your comfy corner. And while you're there don't forget to put a blindfold over your eyes, cover your mouth with your hands, stick cotton in your ears and hum after me LA LA LA LA LA LA LA as loud as you can. Meanwhile I'll happily take comfort in the obvious reality that I've struck a nerve here and pray the real Lord of Heaven and Earth will open your eyes to truth.

There's a more fundamental problem when it comes to events in Missouri and Illinois, and earlier Ohio ~ the records are insufficient, AND, there was a falling out in Ohio over money, doctrine, and "where's the gold". That latter problem is still there ~ few years back someone got killed concerning a gold dagger related to a breakaway Mormon group (circa 1836) in Ohio ~ guy wrote a book about it. Found it quite intriguing since even he was not able to identify exactly what the pre-Mormon religious identities of that group was.

I don't think the main body of LDS in Utah has any more information regarding those times than the rest of us. Even the handful of Authorities who post here have expressed surprise that there was a COTFB in existence before Smith was born ~ and right there in that part of New York, and in Rhode Island, and so forth. Kind of changes the complexion of what little information anyone has about those days.

Too often Mormon bashing consists of little more than someone coming up with a little documented personal event involving someone in the hierarchy and then demanding the Authority provide more information or suffer the consequences of folks conjuring up evil plots and conspiracies.

Absent a time machine no one can fill in all the gaps in America's history of Westward movement before 1860. Sometimes it's simply "dark".

“He COULDN’T avoid it. It’s been the basis for most of the attacks on him by the southern ‘holier-than-thou’ Evangelicals.”

JFK handled it without going into beliefs, and theology.
Mitt could have gone that route, but he didn’t.
Instead his speech was designed to sound like mormonism isn’t much different than christianity. Well, that isn’t entirely up front - there are huge differences.

Catholics are used to this type of an attack, but respond to them differently.

If Huck had said...”don’t catholics believe they are really eating the true body and blood of Christ at communion?”....the response from catholics would have been “yes, we do!”

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.