Posted on 03/29/2009 2:35:03 PM PDT by Jim Robinson
I understand there is a new anti-freeper site started by disgruntled former and present Mormon FReepers and it is their intention of bankrupting FR during the coming Freepathon by withholding their donations and disrupting our activities. Well, all I can say is, if they feel that badly against FR, by all means they should withhold their donations and drop out of FR. But it they attempt to disrupt our operations I will guarantee they will no longer be members of FR. If that is their wish, so be it.
I'm not going to try to defend FR from their claims of religious persecution, but I will say that Mormons have and always have had free reign to post their threads on FR just as all other religious groups have enjoyed. Free Republic defends the right to freedom of religion and has always welcomed religious discussion and always will. And Mormons have always been welcome here. I have absolutely nothing against Mormons.
If you are one who has left or is leaving, I wish you well, but disruption of FR is not welcome and will not be tolerated.
And this is not the first time such activity has been attempted by groups of disgruntled former FReepers. Good luck with that. There is always some group that feels FR should be bent to their way of thinking and end up saying my way or the highway. Well, I don't know about you, but I'm not changing so I guess it's the highway. Is it Feb 8 yet?
God bless.
You are a liar. And you know it.
++++++++++
You said this
“””””To: fproy2222
Heavenly Father really cares enough to guide us with His Prophet.
He could be leading you wrong. After all, he's only human.
753 posted on Sunday, March 29, 2009 11:26:12 PM by P-Marlowe (LPFOKETT GAHCOEEP-w/o*)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 750 | View Replies | Report Abuse]””””
And now, after you have been caught in you deception, you want to divert attention away from your doings.
I cannot answer your question because you have based them on a lie of your own creation.
His stated purpose was to stir things up and he apparently didn’t care to get his facts correct. A McCarthyist methodology in an effort to intimidate Freepers into silence.
Very well put, ‘zilla.
++++++
he based his who line of questions on his saying that we teach that God is a man.
+++++++++++++
no.
p deceived you with his statement, a statement that has not been taught by a Prophet.
How many times must you be told that what I learned I learned from the writings of your LDS church before you will quit deceiving yourself and inferring that I am a liar?
You semantical game of "The God of the Bible, not the God of the Bible scholars that cannot agree on what God is" is just for distraction.
Let me state this:
When you post "The God of the Bible" as you did, you realize in the context I sent it to you it could ONLY mean the God of the Bible, and not a god that used to be a man.
So if as you state, you believe in the God of the Bible, then you do not believe in a god that used to be a man.
+++++++
I cannot answer the question as stated, it is based on p’s lie and so has no bearing on my believing the teachings of God's prophets. The only conflict is the pretended one created by a lie.
If you continue to lie, I will call you a liar.
Answer the question, don't post something that preceded it and then obfuscate.
Ummm... my wife is over 30, and third generation LDS - lifelong...did a mission several years back in Leeds England, and (I already knew those items to be true and correct - with the exception that polygamy has not been widely practiced/approved since about the early teens - several years after the agreement by Smoot was struck with the Feds)
I read the post off to her, and affirmed more details that I knew (which were not mentioned in that post).
This surprised her, because she did not know that I knew so much about LDS doings and beliefs.
It was similar to her reaction when she was going to describe the temple garments to me - her (non LDS) new husband - and I calmly looked at them, smiled, and identified the embroidered markings over the general area of the nipples on one’s chest as the compass and square from FreeMasonry (I am also NOT a Mason - by choice. I could automatically be one if I wished because of old family ties.), and explained what the traditions were for those markings - as well as the markings on the shorts, and their older and current meanings.
Planet Kolob - check. There is even an old and beloved song in the LDS hymnal about it (cannot cite you the hymn number off the top of my head, but I’ll bet my mother-in-law could give the number, and play accompaniment on piano - she has been Relief Society Pres for two years, the most recent time, having served as such at least twice before) and one line goes, “If you could hie thee to planet Kolob in the wink of an eye...”
Becoming gods (and goddesses) of other planets? Absolutely a belief of the old and new LDS, as well as proxy conversion and baptism of deceased family members, which is considered a necessary ordinance.
Other than making far more brief references, I don’t see where SeahawkFan got anything wrong.
My wife actually came over and read the info in that post over my shoulder, and though she though the details were thin, she did not disagree with any of it (other than noting, as I earlier stipulated, that they do not “do the plural marriage thing anymore.”)
It is one thing to dispute people here as being “anti’s” or “ex-mormons” with an axe to grind.
My wife is a currently practicing, seriously devout, and dedicated LDS gal. She has no “anti” agenda to pursue; in fact, she would be just as happy if I would come to a point where I would see things the way she does and choose LDS myself. She knows this will never happen - not for love, nor money as the expression goes.
I made it clear before we married that she ought not entertain any notions that I would ever become a practicing “good LDS man”.
I said “...but if you can look at me and see that I earnestly desire to serve G_d with all my heart, and to be the husband and father, and man that He would lead me to be, then...”
I would love it if (what I consider to be) the “blinders” would fall from her eyes about LDS doctrine, and she would choose to step out of that milieu.
I pray for her constantly, and I often pray with her. As a man and a husband, I very often lead in our prayers together.
But she has grown up with LDS culture...girl’s camp, young women’s group, her mission, the whole environment, so I try to understand that such a change may be altogether unrealistic, and even if it does come, it most likely will take time.
We have some interesting discussions about the differences between LDS theology and doctrine and Christian theology and doctrine. We are able to be emphatic and passionate in upholding our own beliefs without yelling at, or insulting one another on a personal level.
Maintaining decorum like that is vital to having a happy and fulfilling marriage and family life, and to always having respect with one another. It helps that we are both amiable and reasonable people.
If she can be forthright about her beliefs with me - why can’t we correctly identify LDS beliefs here in this forum.It is not as if there is a lack of direct source material to draw from. Both the Ensign and the Times come to my home by mail regularly, and she often discusses the sermons and teachings from her church with me on Sunday afternoons (as I do likewise with her from my church’s teachings).
I hope this contributes to our dialogue on FR.
A.A.C.
I give P-Marlowe a lot of credit, but he cannot deceive me.
Neither can you.
You continue to say that the prophets did not say what is written in the books in the library of your church.
You continue to deny the words of your own prophets.
That's a good thing though.
It is you that is the liar.
Shame on you for continuing to call a poster a liar when it is you that is lying.
Shame on you.
++++
I need to be careful, I let my anger at p flow over to you.
I was not trying to infer you were lieing.
I was trying to explain that I have found that too many good men have come up with too many different ideas of what God meant in the Bible for me to be willing to guess at which “God of the Bible” people mean when they say that to me.
I did a poor job of explaining that.
Any sane person should know that the only religion who we all need to be afraid of is radical Islam.
I am sorry but I disagree. Radical islam is easy to spot. The danger to the body of Christ are those who claim to be Christian yet spew false doctrine and lead others astray and away from Christ.
Those are who we should be afraid of, and who we should fight.
++++
The wording that is used is straight copy and pasts, or remembered and wrote.
The way it is worded is close, but the way it is said, it is just far enough to be misleading enough to create negative ideas about God's teachings.
Neither can you.
You continue to say that the prophets did not say what is written in the books in the library of your church.
You continue to deny the words of your own prophets.
That's a good thing though.
++++++++++++++=
You seem to have taken up the quest to keep p's twisted deception going?
You will need to start with his first mis statement.
Speaking of God, p said we teach God is a man,
“”Joseph Smith taught that he IS.””
Then he, and now you, want me to answer questions as if this is a true teaching.
p called me a lier and ran off,
what are you going to do?
There are a few that, even after being corrected, are not careful about the truth when teaching others that”
Couldn’t you say this about almost any subject that comes up on FR?
Ignore fred. He makes this accusation quite often yet NEVER proves it. And I don’t recall him actually ever “correcting” either. Just the accusations.
you will not answer the question
++++++++++++
Is there a question not based on his first lie that I could answer for you?
++++++++++++
Yes, it is unconfortable to be reminded that as a Christian you are responsible to get what you teach about others correct.
got to go to bed
And don’t forget Jesus was married AND a SINNER.
Apostle Orson Hyde: “I discover that some of the Eastern papers represent me as a great blasphemer, because I said, in my lecture on Marriage, at our last Conference, that JESUS CHRIST WAS MARRIED at Cana of Galilee, THAT MARY, MARTHA, AND OTHERS WERE HIS WIVES, AND THAT HE BEGAT CHILDREN. (Journal of Discourses, Vol. 2, page 210)
I have never heard of Greg West until he was brought up in this thread. I don't even know if he is a real person or someone’s clever creation to put down Mormons. There are 5 Greg West's on Yahoo People Search. Tell me where Greg West lives. If he is on the list I will call him and ask what is going on.
You say FR is for whatever people want to post. Well, I want to rebut what I consider unfair and distorted attacks on Mormons and Romney. I do not respond to those that are civil and based on correct information unless they seem to be seeking information. If I don't see the attacks, I prefer to be a lurker.
If that is too much for people, I will move on and better spend my time elsewhere.
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.