Not dubious, matters of historical record. You said “NEVER” and I gave examples.The original quote was:
Mormons don’t kill those who disagree with them....Where then you proceeded to list examples like "Blood Atonement". Blood Atonement is a principle....not an event. And has nothing to do with someone "disagreeing" with Mormons.
Blood Atonement is a principle that was practiced. Some of the victims were apostates, those who did not agree anymore with the LDS.
They are not urban legends or fairly tales. Unlike the Book of Mormon.
Just face up to history.
Oh, we get it, Stourme. LDS "prophets" and "apostles" issues these "revelatory" "principles." But then LDS grassroots don't...
...embrace them...
...embody them...
...obey them.
Supposedly, according to you as Mr. Authority--'cause you suddenly certainly speak like a priestholder with self-authority--these concepts like "blood atonement" just bounced around the airy heads of people...bounding in one ear & vacating out the other...never finding a root...or an ounce of obedience.
But I thought you told Godzilla in post #237 that following His commandments are vital to being saved. Are you now announcing to us all that 100% of the saints under Brigham Young during Young's "blood atonement" teaching era were 100% disobedient to the "prophet" of God? Really? Not one single "saint" "event-ualized" blood atonement?
Well, thanks for this admission and confession about the history of the "saints." (Why don't LDS then condemn this disobedient past generations of Mormons again?)