Romney Loss - Evangelicals "Again" Stayed Home

We talked at great length, and no one tried to kill me.

- - - - - -

No, because they thought they could still convert you.

Frankly you are not worthy in their eyes of blood atonement because you are just a gentile. It is their own and apostates like me that the Danites killed and that get the death threats, not ‘gentiles’ like you.

Telling Mormons they are Christians or letting them think that, brings no honor to Christ either.

Show me where I lied??!! You are the one bearing false witness which means you are serving the father of lies, not me.

“It is their own and apostates like me that the Danites killed and that get the death threats, not ‘gentiles’ like you.”

Hmmm...better tell that to the victims of the Mountain Meadows Massacre. They were not apostates.

“Show me where I lied??!!”

You continue to rant that the Mormons may kill you:

“It is their own and apostates like me that the Danites killed and that get the death threats, not ‘gentiles’ like you.”

“However, you make like of the fact about being murdered, many of us in ministry to the LDS DO receive death threats from active, faithful Mormons. Also, there are several cases of Mormons murdering their own and apostates as a result of blood atonement doctrine...I don’t fear Mormons at all, nor do I fear death (even being martyred) by a Mormon or anyone else.”

Yet you KNOW that the LDS Church is not going to have you murdered, and you know that has not been a doctrine supported by the LDS for many, many years. It WAS taught and practiced in the 1800s - that was real - but then, they practiced polygamy back then, too.

Some weirdo nutjob might harm you in Utah, but you know full well they would be acting against the wishes of the Mormon church, which would NOT be happy about the controversy that would follow.

Yet you pretend you are in danger, as Gentile travelers WERE in danger in the 1800s, because of the Mormon church. You are lying.

This isn’t disputable. Back in the late 70s, I knew every Baptist in Cache Valley. It wasn’t hard. There weren’t that many of us. Yet none of us were threatened with death. A lot of us were shunned, but no one put out a contract on us.

Y’all are either psychotic or liars. Maybe a bit of both. You remind me of Sheriff Dupnik, blaming the shooting of Gabby Giffords on conservatives and Sarah Palin. You allow your bitterness to overcome rational thought and honesty.

they practiced polygamy back then, too.
______________________________________

Polygamy was practiced way into the 1900s...

The last polygamist president/prophet of the Mormons died in 1945..

Woodruff the guy who made the supposed “proclamation’ from their mormon gods in 1890 remained a polygamist as did the other Mo0rmon leaders

and they continued to marry more wives into the early 1900s which caused further proclamations for years later...

doctrines and covenants 132 the Mormon doctrine on polygamy is still on the books and was never recinded...

The Mormons believe that their Mormon god was a polygamist with children and their mormon jesus was a polygamist with children...

and that when their Mormon jesus returns to Missouri he will order them to practice polygamy again...

Their Mormon jesus was married to Mary Magdalene, and Mary and Martha the sisters of Lazarus and others...

their holy ghost was not a polygamist because he had not earned a fleshly body like their Mormon god and their Mormon jesus did...

Hmmm...better tell that to the victims of the Mountain Meadows Massacre. They were not apostates.

- - - - - -
No, but there were other factors and one of them was that the LDS were told they killed LDS apostle Parley P Prat and were involved in the death of Joseph Smith.

Most people in ministry to Mormons receive death threats, blood atonement was taught way past 1880’s to 1930’s from the pulpit and blood atonement still happened clear up to the 1980’s with a few cases suspected since then. Additionally, the doctrine lived on in the Utah death penalty choice of firing squad because that was the only way to atone for sin.

I never said the LDS church sent me death threats, but individual members have doing what they believe their church wants. You are right they wouldn’t be happy about controversy, but there is also a lot of coverup for LDS inc in Utah - just look at the sexual abuse scandals. Protect the LDS church at all costs.

I’m not pretending I’m in danger, I have gotten threats and one other close friend had their house bombed by a Mormon. I’m not lying in the least no am I psychotic. While it may be rare, it happens.

And you didn’t prove I was lying. Fail on your part.

Mormons are deluded, Mormonism is EVIL.

...but then, they practiced polygamy back then, too.

I wonder why they don't now?

After all; it's still on the books:

The Doctrine and Covenants

Section 132

Revelation given through Joseph Smith the Prophet, at Nauvoo, Illinois, recorded 12 July 1843, relating to the new and everlasting covenant, including the eternity of the marriage covenant, and also the plurality of wives (see History of the Church, 5:501–7). Although the revelation was recorded in 1843, it is evident from the historical records that the doctrines and principles involved in this revelation had been known by the Prophet since 1831.

.

.

.

58–66, Laws governing the plurality of wives are set forth.

58 Now, as touching the law of the ^apriesthood, there are many things pertaining thereunto.
59 Verily, if a man be called of my Father, as was ^aAaron, by mine own voice, and by the voice of him that ^bsent me, and I have endowed him with the ^ckeys of the power of this priesthood, if he do anything in my name, and according to my law and by my word, he will not commit ^dsin, and I will justify him.
60 Let no one, therefore, set on my servant Joseph; for I will justify him; for he shall do the sacrifice which I require at his hands for his transgressions, saith the Lord your God.
61 And again, as pertaining to the law of the priesthood—if any man espouse a virgin, and desire to espouse ^aanother, and the first give her consent, and if he espouse the second, and they are virgins, and have vowed to no other man, then is he justified; he cannot commit adultery for they are given unto him; for he cannot commit adultery with that that belongeth unto him and to no one else.
62 And if he have ^aten virgins given unto him by this law, he cannot commit adultery, for they belong to him, and they are given unto him; therefore is he justified.
63 But if one or either of the ten virgins, after she is espoused, shall be with another man, she has committed adultery, and shall be destroyed; for they are given unto him to ^amultiply and replenish the earth, according to my commandment, and to fulfil the promise which was given by my Father before the foundation of the world, and for their exaltation in the eternal worlds, that they may bear the souls of men; for herein is the work of my Father continued, that he may be ^bglorified.
64 And again, verily, verily, I say unto you, if any man have a wife, who holds the keys of this power, and he teaches unto her the law of my priesthood, as pertaining to these things, then shall she believe and administer unto him, or she shall be destroyed, saith the Lord your God; for I will destroy her; for I will magnify my name upon all those who receive and abide in my law.
65 Therefore, it shall be lawful in me, if she receive not this law, for him to receive all things whatsoever I, the Lord his God, will give unto him, because she did not believe and administer unto him according to my word; and she then becomes the transgressor; and he is exempt from the law of Sarah, who administered unto Abraham according to the law when I commanded Abraham to take ^aHagar to wife.
66 And now, as pertaining to this law, verily, verily, I say unto you, I will reveal more unto you, hereafter; therefore, let this suffice for the present. Behold, I am Alpha and Omega. Amen.

Solomon was incredibly rich when God blessed him with wisdom. Simple enough scripture right there. The mistake Solomon made had nothing to do with money. Otherwise he would have been blessed by God and wildly rich at the same time for the rest of his days. He was also charitable BTW as is shown in Proverbs.

Now to address the strongest counter-point: “The love of money is the root of all evil.” — Paul [allegedly]

OK, so lusting after another man’s wife is not evil? Killing Abel is not evil? Neither has anything to do with money. There is something wrong with our English translation of that scripture. And take it from me — it’s a lousy verse to live by.

All of the anti-rich scriptures are taken out of context. My life is screwed up because I believed that I should not love money. Maybe I should sue the universities that twisted the scripture around.

Here’s an oldie: “Easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle ...” There was a narrow pass known as the Eye of the Needle — the merchants had to unload their camels to squeeze them through it. In other words, you should not WORSHIP or LUST for money to the point that you become wicked or a fool. Common sense.

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.