Who says Mormons aren't Christians?

Oct 12, 2011 | Posted by: roboblogger | Full story: CNN

Editor's note: Dean Obeidallah is an award-winning comedian who has appeared on TV shows such as Comedy Central's "Axis of Evil" special, ABC's "The View," CNN's "What the Week" and HLN's "The Joy Behar Show." He is executive producer of the annual New York Arab-American Comedy Festival and the Amman Stand Up Comedy Festival.

Comments
18,921 - 18,940 of 32,001 Comments Last updated Jul 25, 2014

“Good day to you!”

Since: Oct 08

Earth

#19898 Feb 5, 2013
Dana Robertson wrote:
<quoted text>
They did read the Bible, and in it Jesus said those who've seen him, have seen the Father. It also says there is only one God.
Oh, I forgot one of the best lies he stated according to your one God belief. That was when he rose from the dead and when Mary saw him and wanted to touch him, God said she couldn't touch him because he hadn't risen to see himself yet. That was a great one liner lol.

“Good day to you!”

Since: Oct 08

Earth

#19899 Feb 5, 2013
Dana Robertson wrote:
<quoted text>
You are the last person to be talking about judging anything or anyone. The same for the LDS church.
I didn't judge him. Smurf like you leaves anyone open to repeating what it is you do. No one has to judge to repeat what one actually has done.
Smurf has judged many people of many religions in these threads. That's a fact. So when he claims he hasn't he has made himself his own liar, not I.

“Good day to you!”

Since: Oct 08

Earth

#19900 Feb 5, 2013
Dana Robertson wrote:
<quoted text>
I think what most people want is for the LDS church to take responsibility for what happened. Mormons still make excuses today blaming everything and everybody but the church. The LDS church is responsible for what happen because of what the leaders were preaching at the time. If you don't know much about the Mormon reformation of the 1850's, you should look into it.
The Catholic church has offered apologies for the Spanish inquisition, and the Southern Baptist church has offered apologies for their racists teachings in the beginning, supporting slavery. But the Mormon church won't take responsibility for anything.
That's like saying Americans today want the Japanese people of today to offer an official apology for pearl Harbour. I saw a special just lately. A tv crew was recording the experiences of a world war two vet that fought the Japanese. At one point the reporter asked the vet if he still hated the Japanese for the war they brought to America. He gave the reporter a puzzled look and said, "Why would I hate a people that had no involvement in that war?"
Here's the facts.
It's an opinion without any facts that Young commanded the massacre.
It's a fact that Mormons of the Cedar City area did plan and carry out the MM massacre.
It's a fact that when Young found out what happened, he did his best to hide the facts that his own elders had committed the massacre.
It's a fact the hearing was a joke and the trials for the guilty were jokes.
If Young is guilty of anything it's being an accessory to murder after the fact. But Peter attempted murder on an innocent man so not a lot to speak of there.
The Mormon church offered what it believed it should offer by way of an apology to an incident that no one for over a century had anything to do with.
Personally, I think living people demanding apologies from other living people for things they never did is about as looney tunes as any one can get be it a person or an organization. Have native Indians apologized for the wagon train massacres their ancestors committed? Have native Americans apologized for the Custer massacre? How many Americans today print apologies in newspapers for the enslavement of American natives and blacks?
Where do we take this apology thing to? When do you quit with it?
As Jesus said, let the dead bury the dead and I'll add, let the dead forgive the dead.
Father overtime

United States

#19903 Feb 6, 2013
Touch me not for I have not ascended to the father sums it up. 1+1=2.

“Too much LDS in the 60's”

Since: Sep 10

Marysville, CA

#19905 Feb 6, 2013
No Surprise wrote:
<quoted text>
I didn't read any stories like that either. But Jews by law in the time of Jesus could marry five wives.
He couldn't have married 5 women who were already married.
So what Jesus did or didn't do regarding matrimonial relationships, it's still in the earth or possibly on one of the five miles of shelves in the Vatican archives.
That burden would be on you to prove.
Either way, I think God would follow his own laws as he commanded us to follow them, including commandments for relationships, it just makes sense. He factually had a bevy of women followers and it obviously disturbed Judas. If Jesus was so anti-marital relationship as many like you believe he was, don't you think instead of it being an opinion of Paul, Paul would have stated the Lord commanded that those weak to the flesh should marry but it was better to be faithful and single? Don't you think Jesus would have made sure all his disciples were single or divorced with no wish to remarry for his church offices? If Jesus was so against marriage don't you think it would have been written to be a bishop or deacon one must be single and never married?
It was written they were to have only one wife, and there is zero record of Jesus ever having been married. Paul also wrote that you should marry only if you couldn't control your lust. That single people can serve the Lord better. No one has said Jesus was anti marriage, only that he taught against eternal marriage, and that he had better things to do then get married.
The RCC fathers that set forth what was in the NT, they made sure marriage was not an important item except in two cases. They made sure polygamy was never mentioned in a single verse after it's existence in Jewish writings for 4000 years. They made sure not to include 'marriage stories' as are contained through out the OT.
Paranoia will destroy ya. We have copies of most of the gospels written before the Church put them together in one collection. They show no tampering. Failed again.

“Too much LDS in the 60's”

Since: Sep 10

Marysville, CA

#19906 Feb 6, 2013
No Surprise wrote:
<quoted text>
That leaves you to explain some things that need logical answers as you think it's logical that there was just one God with three personages/personalities.
Jesus said there was only one God the Father. Jesus said there was one greater than himself. How can Jesus be greater than himself if he is God the Father? Hmm? God is God according to you and a single being. There fore it would be a lie for God to claim another part of himself was more powerful than the sum of his self as being a single being.
Than we have what we call purposeful deceit. While being baptised in the river Jordan by John and upon his coming up out of the water, according to your one God belief, God wanted those there to witness his baptism, including his cousin, to believe that God was a voice from heaven, a bird descending and Jesus stating a loud and for some joking purpose, this is me in whom I am well pleased.
Me thinks your one God belief has a lot of problems.
No more than the LDS belief that God today was once a man. If true, he didn't create the heavens and the earth. Some other God would have had to do that. Add to that where God said said there were no God's before him, and there will be none after and the LDS teaching is now total BS.

“Too much LDS in the 60's”

Since: Sep 10

Marysville, CA

#19908 Feb 6, 2013
No Surprise wrote:
<quoted text>
That's like saying Americans today want the Japanese people of today to offer an official apology for pearl Harbour. I saw a special just lately. A tv crew was recording the experiences of a world war two vet that fought the Japanese. At one point the reporter asked the vet if he still hated the Japanese for the war they brought to America. He gave the reporter a puzzled look and said, "Why would I hate a people that had no involvement in that war?"
Here's the facts.
It's an opinion without any facts that Young commanded the massacre.
It's a fact that Mormons of the Cedar City area did plan and carry out the MM massacre.
It's a fact that when Young found out what happened, he did his best to hide the facts that his own elders had committed the massacre.
It's a fact the hearing was a joke and the trials for the guilty were jokes.
If Young is guilty of anything it's being an accessory to murder after the fact. But Peter attempted murder on an innocent man so not a lot to speak of there.
The Mormon church offered what it believed it should offer by way of an apology to an incident that no one for over a century had anything to do with.
Personally, I think living people demanding apologies from other living people for things they never did is about as looney tunes as any one can get be it a person or an organization. Have native Indians apologized for the wagon train massacres their ancestors committed? Have native Americans apologized for the Custer massacre? How many Americans today print apologies in newspapers for the enslavement of American natives and blacks?
Where do we take this apology thing to? When do you quit with it?
As Jesus said, let the dead bury the dead and I'll add, let the dead forgive the dead.
Still full of it, and making excuses for perverts, sicko's, degenerates calling themselves prophets, and apostles. You don't see it because you don't want to see it and you are a damn fool.

“Good day to you!”

Since: Oct 08

Earth

#19909 Feb 6, 2013
Dana Robertson wrote:
<quoted text>
He couldn't have married 5 women who were already married.
<quoted text>
That burden would be on you to prove.
<quoted text>
It was written they were to have only one wife, and there is zero record of Jesus ever having been married. Paul also wrote that you should marry only if you couldn't control your lust. That single people can serve the Lord better. No one has said Jesus was anti marriage, only that he taught against eternal marriage, and that he had better things to do then get married.
<quoted text>
Paranoia will destroy ya. We have copies of most of the gospels written before the Church put them together in one collection. They show no tampering. Failed again.
Says who? You? God endorsed monogamy and polygamy unions/relationships. He allowed Jewish men to have five wives. He allowed a half brother and half sister to marry each other, you know Abe and Sarah? God taught we're suppose to be married to him. And you think if God wanted wives he couldn't have them, even if they were married? He made a donkey talk and caused the box carrying the Arc of the Covenant to expel a power to kill men. God can do anything, even have the wives of mortal men if he so choose.
There is no burden for me to show Jesus was married. The RCC has went out of it's way long before anyone claimed Jesus was married, to show proof he wasn't married and never would have married. Ever considered that? Why would the RCC from it's earliest times try and prove Jesus was never married when it wasn't being contested that he was? The OT is full of marriage stories and polygamy and the NT is totally absent of marriage stories and polygamy. Never considered that either?
And um, we have what the RCC put together and called the new testament. We only have the writings from four of the twelve witnesses that walked with Jesus. Their writings are in the NT. Where are the writings of the other eight that testify of his birth, ministry, death and resurrection?

“Good day to you!”

Since: Oct 08

Earth

#19910 Feb 6, 2013
Dana Robertson wrote:
<quoted text>
No more than the LDS belief that God today was once a man. If true, he didn't create the heavens and the earth. Some other God would have had to do that. Add to that where God said said there were no God's before him, and there will be none after and the LDS teaching is now total BS.
You know what's total BS? You claiming to have been a Mormon and how now as an ex-Mormon you set yourself out to others as an expert of that religion and it's beliefs.
According to LDS teachings, having taken on a human form didn't lessen God's power at any point of his relationship with his father or his father and his father, etc. Each was perfect without fault. A rare character trait according to all the spirits that aren't perfect. That is Mormon 101 and you should know it and you don't.
Jesus was never as a 'mortal human' with faults. He was created as a spirit and he sought perfectiveness and attained it. He had no faults because he did no faults. He was as his father had been before him. Now it's Jesus's turn to become God the Father of his own place and time in the cosmos after the judgement day has happened. God the Father shall be here in his creations. Lucifer will be cast out into the cosmos where a place for him and his followers has been created for him to dwell in. Jesus shall go and create a time and place of his own and he will have a son, a son that is perfect and will learn to be as his Father Jesus is. Those are Mormon 101 teachings. And you don't understand them and you were a member for 30 years not paying attention to anything as often happens to kids born into that church. You took things for granted.

“Good day to you!”

Since: Oct 08

Earth

#19911 Feb 6, 2013
Dana Robertson wrote:
<quoted text>
Still full of it, and making excuses for perverts, sicko's, degenerates calling themselves prophets, and apostles. You don't see it because you don't want to see it and you are a damn fool.
Two thousand years ago, if I was a Jew and following a Jewish guy called Jesus and twelve apostles and prophets and you were a Jew, you would be stating the same thing to me then that you state now having heard what those apostles had done that you called ungodly, evil, perverts, sicko's and degenerates. You don't see it now and you wouldn't have seen it then 2000 years ago when God himself was walking in your own city.
History is replaying itself and it isn't a matter of coincidence.

“Too much LDS in the 60's”

Since: Sep 10

Marysville, CA

#19914 Feb 7, 2013
No Surprise wrote:
<quoted text>
Says who? You? God endorsed monogamy and polygamy unions/relationships. He allowed Jewish men to have five wives. He allowed a half brother and half sister to marry each other, you know Abe and Sarah? God taught we're suppose to be married to him. And you think if God wanted wives he couldn't have them, even if they were married? He made a donkey talk and caused the box carrying the Arc of the Covenant to expel a power to kill men. God can do anything, even have the wives of mortal men if he so choose.
There is no burden for me to show Jesus was married. The RCC has went out of it's way long before anyone claimed Jesus was married, to show proof he wasn't married and never would have married. Ever considered that? Why would the RCC from it's earliest times try and prove Jesus was never married when it wasn't being contested that he was? The OT is full of marriage stories and polygamy and the NT is totally absent of marriage stories and polygamy. Never considered that either?
And um, we have what the RCC put together and called the new testament. We only have the writings from four of the twelve witnesses that walked with Jesus. Their writings are in the NT. Where are the writings of the other eight that testify of his birth, ministry, death and resurrection?
Being ignorant for Mormonism again, I see. It was clearly against the Ten Commandments for a man to marry a woman who was already married. As for the RCC, it is all theory, with no proof. You just wish it was true.

“Too much LDS in the 60's”

Since: Sep 10

Marysville, CA

#19915 Feb 7, 2013
No Surprise wrote:
<quoted text>
Two thousand years ago, if I was a Jew and following a Jewish guy called Jesus and twelve apostles and prophets and you were a Jew, you would be stating the same thing to me then that you state now having heard what those apostles had done that you called ungodly, evil, perverts, sicko's and degenerates. You don't see it now and you wouldn't have seen it then 2000 years ago when God himself was walking in your own city.
History is replaying itself and it isn't a matter of coincidence.
As that is all just speculation, it is total BS. 2,000 yrs ago if you were a cow, I would milk you and then eat you for supper. 2,000 yrs ago, if you were in africa, you would be living in a grass hut. Joseph Smith was no Jesus. Jesus was no pervert.

“Too much LDS in the 60's”

Since: Sep 10

Marysville, CA

#19916 Feb 7, 2013
No Surprise wrote:
<quoted text>
You know what's total BS? You claiming to have been a Mormon and how now as an ex-Mormon you set yourself out to others as an expert of that religion and it's beliefs.
According to LDS teachings, having taken on a human form didn't lessen God's power at any point of his relationship with his father or his father and his father, etc. Each was perfect without fault. A rare character trait according to all the spirits that aren't perfect. That is Mormon 101 and you should know it and you don't.
Jesus was never as a 'mortal human' with faults. He was created as a spirit and he sought perfectiveness and attained it. He had no faults because he did no faults. He was as his father had been before him. Now it's Jesus's turn to become God the Father of his own place and time in the cosmos after the judgement day has happened. God the Father shall be here in his creations. Lucifer will be cast out into the cosmos where a place for him and his followers has been created for him to dwell in. Jesus shall go and create a time and place of his own and he will have a son, a son that is perfect and will learn to be as his Father Jesus is. Those are Mormon 101 teachings. And you don't understand them and you were a member for 30 years not paying attention to anything as often happens to kids born into that church. You took things for granted.
Jesus was a God who became a man, not a man who evolved into a God. The whole time he was on earth, he was still God. The Mormon God was not. You don't know crap about LDS teachings if you think otherwise. "As man is, God once was." That is Mormonism 101.

“Good day to you!”

Since: Oct 08

Earth

#19917 Feb 7, 2013
Dana Robertson wrote:
<quoted text>
Being ignorant for Mormonism again, I see. It was clearly against the Ten Commandments for a man to marry a woman who was already married. As for the RCC, it is all theory, with no proof. You just wish it was true.
Please show me from the ten commandments where it was a command not to marry an already married woman. Waiting... in the mean time I know verses that state a married woman is to be a widow if she marries again.
And you're purposeful ignorance isn't attractive. The men of the church in Rome, they took from all they had and made a bound volume of scripture. They also only allowed the writings of four of the twelve witnesses to be in that bound volume, that's a historical fact you better adjust to. A couple more historical facts you purposefully don't wish to acknowledge as being true but are, is that there are no marriage stories in the NT and there were many in the OT. There is not a single mention of polygamy in the NT but the OT is filled with stories of polygamy.
A magic fairy didn't make it that way. The men in Rome decided what would be in the NT and what wouldn't be in the NT. That's another historical fact. And another historical fact is that those men of that early church that were deciding what to comprise the NT with and which not to include into it, they taught being single was godly. Being married to Jesus and the church (not a woman) would get you into heaven. That is proved because the hierarchy of that church in Rome for the first fifty popes remained single. The pope, the bishops, the cardinals etc all remained SINGLE.
There is no theory except for your purposeful ignorance of well substantiated facts.
If you think those facts are not facts, than take time to explain the following and prove your point.
Where are the written gospels of the other eight apostles that witnessed Jesus's life, his teachings, knew and spoke of his birth and baptism, of his death and his resurrection.
Explain why not a single mention of polygamy isn't contained in the NT.
Explain why a single marriage story between to people isn't in the NT.
Explain why the first fifty popes were all single.
Explain why the marriage between a man and woman wasn't addressed as a sacrament till the 12th century?
Waiting....

“Good day to you!”

Since: Oct 08

Earth

#19918 Feb 7, 2013
Dana Robertson wrote:
<quoted text>
As that is all just speculation, it is total BS. 2,000 yrs ago if you were a cow, I would milk you and then eat you for supper. 2,000 yrs ago, if you were in africa, you would be living in a grass hut. Joseph Smith was no Jesus. Jesus was no pervert.
No, not speculation. You support the belief of a single God without living prophets/apostles/etc. I believe in three separate beings that make up a Godhead of power and I support the possibility that living prophets/apostles have and do exist.
Two thousand years ago as you are now, you would be a Jew tied fast to a single God and to the Laws of Moses and prophets etc contained in the Jewish religion.
Two thousand years ago as I am now, I left the laws of Moses to believe in a Godhood of Gods and in a living prophet with apostles.
You would have been saying to me than as you say to me now and for all the same reasons.
You would see my so called 'prophet'(pretending he was single as you believe) being followed by a bevy of females tending to his personal needs. You would have suspected him of carnal intercourse and sexual perversions because no single worthy Jewish man would allow females to follow and tend to his personal needs as that prophet was allowing to be done. And if he was a married Jew, you would have accused him of adultery and fornication and if you believed in monogamy and he had several wives you would have called him all the filthy names you have called Smith.
And as time went on and the apostles made their human errors, you would have used each and every instance to claim their sins and faults were ungodly and evil or wrong and it proved to you they were followers of a false prophet that had sex with females be he married or not married.
That is who you would have been 2000 years ago by who you are now.

“Good day to you!”

Since: Oct 08

Earth

#19919 Feb 7, 2013
Dana Robertson wrote:
<quoted text>
Jesus was a God who became a man, not a man who evolved into a God. The whole time he was on earth, he was still God. The Mormon God was not. You don't know crap about LDS teachings if you think otherwise. "As man is, God once was." That is Mormonism 101.
No, wrong. I am trying to help you understand your own Mormon teachings, can't you appreciate that at all?
Jesus Christ has been God since his existence began, how ever it happened. His was a special birth in the pre-existence according to Mormon teachings. The rest of us were born gods because our parents were gods. But of all the gods existing in the pre-existence according to Mormon teachings, Only the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit were allowed to use the titles GODS as in commander and chief.
As a God Jesus Christ came here to this earth as the rest of us to take on a body of flesh to be subjected to chaos to see what choices we would make. As God in the flesh, according to Mormon teachings, Jesus knew his decisions. But he was still subjected to temptation as we go through and experience.
As man is God once was means God allowed himself to take on mortal flesh and be subjected to temptations. As God is man may become means we have the potential to become a god because our parent, our Father in heaven is THE GOD. That is Mormon 101.
And that is what Jesus meant when he stated there is no god beside him or before him or after him. He said God the Father gave to him all that is to be his own. That he was to be the God of all of what is for us. That means God the Father gave no power to any other being to be the God that Jesus Christ is. That is Mormon 101.
God the Father specifically states in Revelations that at judgement day, all things will be given to His son Jesus the Christ who is our God and our salvation. That is Mormon 101.

“Too much LDS in the 60's”

Since: Sep 10

Marysville, CA

#19920 Feb 7, 2013
No Surprise wrote:
<quoted text>
No, not speculation. You support the belief of a single God without living prophets/apostles/etc. I believe in three separate beings that make up a Godhead of power and I support the possibility that living prophets/apostles have and do exist.
Two thousand years ago as you are now, you would be a Jew tied fast to a single God and to the Laws of Moses and prophets etc contained in the Jewish religion.
Two thousand years ago as I am now, I left the laws of Moses to believe in a Godhood of Gods and in a living prophet with apostles.
You would have been saying to me than as you say to me now and for all the same reasons.
You would see my so called 'prophet'(pretending he was single as you believe) being followed by a bevy of females tending to his personal needs. You would have suspected him of carnal intercourse and sexual perversions because no single worthy Jewish man would allow females to follow and tend to his personal needs as that prophet was allowing to be done. And if he was a married Jew, you would have accused him of adultery and fornication and if you believed in monogamy and he had several wives you would have called him all the filthy names you have called Smith.
And as time went on and the apostles made their human errors, you would have used each and every instance to claim their sins and faults were ungodly and evil or wrong and it proved to you they were followers of a false prophet that had sex with females be he married or not married.
That is who you would have been 2000 years ago by who you are now.
Speculation, that proves nothing. The Apostles were not the moral pig Smith was. Jesus was never married. Your wishful thinking isn't ever going to make Smith a real prophet.

“Too much LDS in the 60's”

Since: Sep 10

Marysville, CA

#19921 Feb 7, 2013
No Surprise wrote:
<quoted text>
No, wrong. I am trying to help you understand your own Mormon teachings, can't you appreciate that at all?
Jesus Christ has been God since his existence began, how ever it happened. His was a special birth in the pre-existence according to Mormon teachings. The rest of us were born gods because our parents were gods. But of all the gods existing in the pre-existence according to Mormon teachings, Only the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit were allowed to use the titles GODS as in commander and chief.
As a God Jesus Christ came here to this earth as the rest of us to take on a body of flesh to be subjected to chaos to see what choices we would make. As God in the flesh, according to Mormon teachings, Jesus knew his decisions. But he was still subjected to temptation as we go through and experience.
As man is God once was means God allowed himself to take on mortal flesh and be subjected to temptations. As God is man may become means we have the potential to become a god because our parent, our Father in heaven is THE GOD. That is Mormon 101.
And that is what Jesus meant when he stated there is no god beside him or before him or after him. He said God the Father gave to him all that is to be his own. That he was to be the God of all of what is for us. That means God the Father gave no power to any other being to be the God that Jesus Christ is. That is Mormon 101.
God the Father specifically states in Revelations that at judgement day, all things will be given to His son Jesus the Christ who is our God and our salvation. That is Mormon 101.
I'll let the LDS leaders answer you:

"God himself was once as we are now, and is an exalted man, and sits enthroned in yonder heavens!!!... We have imagined that God was God from all eternity. I will refute that idea and take away the veil, so that you may see," (Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, p. 345).

God the Father had a Father,(Joseph Smith, History of the Church, vol. 6, p. 476; Heber C. Kimball, Journal of Discourses, vol. 5, p. 19; Milton Hunter, First Council of the Seventy, Gospel through the Ages, p. 104-105).

Remember that God, our heavenly Father, was perhaps once a child, and mortal like we ourselves, and rose step by step in the scale of progress, in the school of advancement; has moved forward and overcome, until He has arrived at the point where He now is.
Orson Hyde - Mormon apostle
Journal of Discourses 1:123

He is our Father-the Father of our spirits, and was once a man in mortal flesh as we are, and is now an exalted Being. How many Gods there are, I do not know. But there never was a time when there were not Gods and worlds, and when men were not passing through the same ordeals that we are now passing through.
Brigham Young - Mormon prophet
Journal of Discourses 7:333

God is a natural man... Where did he get his knowledge from? From his Father, just as we get knowledge from our earthly parents.
Heber C. Kimball - First Presidency Counselor
Journal of Discourses 8:211

But if God the Father was not always God, but came to his present exalted position by degrees of progress as indicated in the teachings of the prophet, how has there been a God from all eternity? The answer is that there has been and there now exists an endless line of Gods, stretching back into the eternities.
B. H. Roberts - Mormon Seventy and LDS church historian
New Witness for God 1:476

“Too much LDS in the 60's”

Since: Sep 10

Marysville, CA

#19922 Feb 7, 2013
Mormon prophets have continuously taught the sublime truth that God the Eternal Father was once a mortal man who passed through a school of earth life similar to that through which we are now passing. He became God-an exalted being.(p.104)

Yet, if we accept the great law of eternal progression, we must accept the fact that there was a time when Deity was much less powerful than He is today.(p.114)

Thus He grew in experience and continued to grow until He attained the status of Godhood.(p.115)
Milton R. Hunter - Mormon Seventy
The Gospel Throughout The Ages, p.104,114-15

God is an exalted Man... The Prophet taught that our Father had a Father and so on.
Joseph Fielding Smith - Mormon prophet
Doctrines of Salvation 1:10,12

Professing to be wise, they became fools, and exchanged the glory of the incorruptible God for an image in the form of corruptible man...
—Romans 1:22-23

You can't lie about the teachings of the LDS church with me. You can only lie to yourself.
dogs101

Owensboro, KY

#19923 Feb 7, 2013
I don't know

Tell me when this thread is updated: (Registration is not required)

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
LDS Apostle visited Tonga (Feb '14) 39 min tongangodz 11,837
Romney's loss closes out 'Mormon moment' (Nov '12) Aug 27 swedenforever 12
Warren Jeffs 19th wife reveals horrors she face... (Oct '13) Aug 25 Sinforosium 5
doubtors are everywhere of Both Bible and Book ... Aug 24 eugene Perri 1
LDS Church's humanitarian efforts honored in Bo... Aug 23 Holy Sage Munroe 1
Mormon school removes gay-marriage cards at store Aug 22 Bryan Fischer s H... 7
Other christian denominations: What they do on ... Aug 21 ELIAS IBARRA 30
•••
Enter and win $5000
•••

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

•••