Politically Inocorrect to say about fat girls

What I'm about to say is politically incorrect to say about fat girls, and yet all so true.

I'm not going to name names, or tell of the circumstances of WHY I had to talk to a particular fat girl, but I had too. Talking to her was like talking to a brick wall that can bite back at you.

In the end I made a comment, just trying to break the ice (trying to break the ice off a glacier as I found out) that men were no good at nursery, (a nursery meaning any place where for whatever reason there were a bunch of children ages one and a half to four) and then I made the statement (after saying men were no good at nursery) "it's a woman's job"

She blew up, she wanted to lecture me, and I made it plain to her that I was not bowing down to political correctness nor was I questioning woman's suffrage. Regardless of that she needed to vent. Then she vented more, then she stopped, and I asked "can I now explain my point" and she said "no, I'm still thinking" and then she vented more. She lectured me that before I got married or even dated (not that she would ever get married and unlike her, I do date) I needed to understand that men need to be there for the children as much as the women, blah blah blah. I don't disagree with that, but she didn't care, not that she really cared about the point she was making anyways. She just wanted to justify her venom, and to be honest, I could see another Rosie O'Donnell (the fat angry woman that does not have enough men around to scream at because they are angry we don't find their fat bodies attractive)

Needless to say, like Rosie, before she allowed me to make my point, she was telling me to leave. Fine, I was only there because I had to be there to be quite honest, and while I won't say why I had to be there I will say that she should be grateful for the program that would require me to waist my time to have to go and talk to her in the first place. After all, it is the only way she could get men to talk to her.

Okay, maybe saying "it's a woman's job" was a bit off the current norm, but honestly, nursery stuff is a woman's job, just like having babies is a woman's job and construction work is man's work.

It is sad that in today's society women want to act like boys, and want to be treated like boys. What is sadder too, is that it is politically incorrect to say that fat ugly women are fat ugly women, what's so bad about that? Every time a guy sees a good looking woman he says "she's a good looking woman". I've heard guys describe women several times by saying things such as "oh she's that blond good looking gal who works in that building across the parking lot." SO how do you describe a fat ugly girl anyways? By describing other features? How about we start being honest and just say what we really think they are when we see them, fat ugly girls. Fat is not something that is permanent like a skin color. You are not born looking like a four hundred pound pig, you get that way by being a pig. And you can change it by stop being a pig.

I think it would be more helpful if we were honest and called fat ugly girls fat ugly girls right to their faces, it's no difference than telling someone who picks their nose "that's gross, stop it"

These are the effects of being a fat ugly girl:

Nobody but the truly desperate want them
They are subject to heart disease and other ailments
It slows them down physically
It usually makes them unattractive (especially when they have a bad attitude attached)
Being fat is probably caused by a physiological disorder that makes a person want to eat more than they should etc

Being nice to the fat ugly girl and not saying anything about them being fat and ugly can lead to the encouragement of them eating more and getting fatter

And for some reason as they get fatter, they tend to get more moody and less lady like in their attitudes (or in plain English they have bad attitudes just think Rosie)

If I were a fat ugly girl I would feel insulted by those who wouldn't call me a fat ugly girl, because then, where is the motivation for me to eat better and get some exercise?

Personally if I had it my way I'd drop all the fat ugly girls with bad attitudes off on some other planet.

My Tribute to Gordon B. Hinckley

My Tribute to Gordon B. Hinckley:

If you have not heard the news, Gordon B. Hinckley, President of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints past away on Sunday.

For years we have known that he was aging, but we wanted to believe he was immortal, he almost was till his wife past away in 2004.

Gordon B. Hinckley is a great man, and yet only half a person without his wife. That is not an insult to him, that is a strong compliment. His strong marriage made him a strong leader, and his wife was always there with him to boost his already charming personality.

Everyone talks about what a funny guy he was, the truth be told, she was funnier.

Once while reading a statement about their time courting and preparing for marriage, and their early married life, the phrase "at the bottom of the Depression" came along, and she stopped, and stated to the audience something to this effect "He always wants me to say that everything good that happened to us happened at the bottom of the Depression" and she got a chuckle from the audience. Then they showed a clip of him speaking where he was talking about their courtship and early married life and the phrase came up "at the bottom of the Depression"

Before getting married to her, he called her and said they had to cancel the wedding because he only had forty dollars with him. She said, "good, I get a husband and forty dollars, let's do it"

I firmly believe that after she past on, that he was staying for us, the members of the church, we needed him. He could have asked the Lord to take him home if he wished, the church would be in good hands. But he stayed for a while, enduring a loneliness and longing for his wife that we all felt.

For this reason, we rejoice with him, he is with his eternal companion and his Lord.

In my own life, I can't begin to list the things that he has done that have affected me personally. The first thing I can say is he signed my mission call to Guatemala. That's not a lot to brag about when compared to the fact that he sent well over several hundred thousands of others out on full time missions as well, and pined each call with his own signature, but for me personally, it brings me much pleasure to know I was sent by him.

I spent two years in Guatemala, and in fact on my 20th Birthday, President Hinkley and his wife came to celebrate. I don't think they knew it was my 20th Birthday, but I knew, and God knew. President Hinckley just listens to God being a prophet and all, so I consider his visit one special gift from God for my 20th birthday.

He always joked about being old and about ready to die, on my 20th birthday he made that joke about being the last leaf on the tree, and "the wind is blowing"

At the end of my mission he announced in General Conference, that many smaller temples would be built. I wrote in my journal that a temple would be built in Sacramento and one in Quetzaltenango Guatemala. Since then a temple has been built in Sacramento and one is being planned in Quetzaltenango.

President Hinckley made several trips to Sacramento during his presidency. One in 2001, to search for a spot to build a new temple in Sacramento, another time in 2004, to break ground for the temple, where he said "it's a good thing were building a temple here, this ground would be no good for farming, this soil is bad!"

Finally in September 2006 he came to dedicate the temple. He mentioned that he was now in his 97th year, and that he was now an old man, and that he didn't know how much longer he was good for. He mentioned that this would probably be his last time in this part of California.

At the dedication he placed mortar in the final stone of the temple called the Cornerstone. Often while taking friends who are new to the church or not of the church to see the temple, I take them to that cornerstone. That is where I show them where Gordon B. Hinckley, a Prophet of God, once stood.

The last time I saw President Hinckley though he came to Sacramento, was at the October 2003 General Conference. I often noted that that was the last conference that his wife attended, and I saw him walk up to her after the final session was over and they walked off together. I never knew that would be the last time I saw him as well, but knowing that she's his worthy other half, I would have it no other way, for now to imagine Heaven has come a lot easier. For now, Brother and Sister Hinckley walk hand and hand, never to be separated again. Neither the man is without the woman nor the woman without the man in the Lord.

Truly

"We thank thee Oh God for a Prophet"

and in boasting, I think I've had one of the best

God Bless the Hinckleys for their selfless service to better our world

Brian Terrill

Mitt Romney is not Mormn after all

Mitt Romney is not Mormon after all, he's Jewish!

Mormons believe that God and Jesus appeared and talked to Joseph Smith in the Spring of 1820. They also believe that God talks to prophets today.

Christians believe that God talked to Jesus. Mormons are Christian as well as being Mormon.

But Jews are not Christian. Jews believe in prophets, but some if not most, put emphasis on Moses. Because he was the prophet who talked to God "face to face"

Mitt Romney says that God has not spoken to anyone since Moses.

Follow this link to watch:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kqjrmb7YSPM

Oh another point of Mormonism, besides believing that God talks to prophets, is that we are entitled to personal revelation, God speaks to us, this is part of Mormonism. Romney doesn't talk to God, but Mormons do.

Mormon Polygamy Not Unconstitutional

Mormon Polygamy is not unconstitutional.

I'm speaking of the historical practice of polygamy.

The First Amendment starts off by saying:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;

and Congress, did just that, they made a law prohibiting the free exercise of religion, in particular, Mormonism as it was at that time period. Mormons practiced polygamy. It was a part of their religious creed. At a point, Utah was a territory of the United States under direct jurisdiction of Congress and this is the law that Congress past:

'Every person having a husband or wife living, who marries another, whether married or single, in a Territory, or other place over which the United States have exclusive jurisdiction, is guilty of bigamy, and shall be punished by a fine of not more than $500, and by imprisonment for a term of not more than five years.'

This law was specifically aimed at Mormons because everyone knew they were the polygamist. Even today someone can tell me I'm a Mormon if I tell them "everyone thinks I have seven wives and can't drink Mountain Dew if I tell them what religion I belong to"

So Congress made a law, specifically to deny the free exercise of a religion.

The Supreme Court made several arguments in favor of Congress, one of which was to define religion by quoting Thomas Jefferson:

"Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man and his god; that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship; that the legislative powers of the government reach actions only, and not opinions, -- I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should 'make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,' thus building a wall of separation between church and State."

That would be one aspect of the free exercise of religion but religion goes a lot further than that. Anyone who reads the Bible can tell you that God actually gives laws to govern the practice of plural marriage. Thomas Jefferson was not saying that the free excise of religion was simply a man's right to have opinions, nor is that the way it is written out. It would be pointless to protect the free exercise of religion if religion only meant one's opinion, because the freedom of speech already protects that. Actions are a part of religion as much as opinions are.

For example, a Seventh Day Adventist doesn't want to work on Saturday. By law, the employer can't discriminate based on the persons religion, but they don't work on Saturday, and let's just say for an example, Jeff, a Seventh Day Adventist told his boss before being hired "I don't work Saturdays because of my religious beliefs"

Could the boss fire Jeff? Some would say yes, some would say no, I say no because he was informed of Jeff's religious beliefs prior to being hired, and those religious beliefs came with an action of not working on Saturdays. Jeff's right to have the opinion that Saturday is the Sabbath is not the only thing protected by the First Amendment.

A point closer to the Ratification of the Constitution, the Quakers did not believe in taking up arms, they were not told "I respect your opinion but pick up a gun and shoot" their "actions" were protected as well.

"Polygamy has always been odious among the northern and western nations of Europe, and, until the establishment of the Mormon Church, was almost exclusively a feature of the life of Asiatic and of African people. At common law, the second marriage was always void, and from the earliest history of England polygamy has been treated as an offence against society...."

While most of our culture has evolved primarily from European tradition, our laws are not determined by European tradition. The American system, unlike the European system, separated religion from government.

Not every person in Europe was opposed to Polygamy. Martin Luther stated the following:

"I confess that I cannot forbid a person to marry several wives, for it does not contradict the Scripture. If a man wishes to marry more than one wife he should be asked whether he is satisfied in his conscience that he may do so in accordance with the word of God. In such a case the civil authority has nothing to do in the matter."

Martin Luther was supported by Philip I of Hesse who later with Luther's sanction became a polygamist.

King Henry VIII who started the Church of England, was a practicing polygamist in secret prior to his divorce from Catherine of Argon which led to his separation from the Catholic Church.

I would not even begin to tell the stories of the Catholic church and their so called Celibate Priesthood. It has through history been more like a Priesthood of anti Marriage folk. Several Popes have had illegitimate children. Considering the political impact that these fornicating popes had on European culture, I wouldn't take their anti Polygamy stance too seriously.

I would make the point that common law would void the second marriage, and so it should, but we are talking about a religious right, it has nothing to do with Common Law, and under Common Law, a second marriage may be void, that does not necessarily mean it is illegal, just not recognized.

"From that day to this we think it may safely be said there never has been a time in any State of the Union when polygamy has not been an offence against society, cognizable by the civil courts and punishable with more or less severity."

State laws don't apply to United States Territory, Utah was a Congressional Jurisdiction and under such, the First Amendment Applied. Utah was not a state at the time, the state laws of New York would not apply in any way to Utah if it was a Federal Territory or State.

The dictionary defines the type of exercise such as the free exercise of religion as the following:

carry out or practice;

So it is in fact according to the dictionary, the practice of religion that is upheld by the Constitution.

But the Supreme Court forgot to read the dictionary:

Laws are made for the government of actions, and while they cannot interfere with mere religious belief and opinions, they may with practices.

The Supreme Court simply ignored the definition of exercise, having a mere opinion is not an exercise.

They also stated:

This being so, the only question which remains is, whether those who make polygamy a part of their religion are excepted from the operation of the statute. If they are, then those who do not make polygamy a part of their religious belief may be found guilty and punished, while those who do, must be acquitted and go free. This would be introducing a new element into criminal law.

There is a simple way to solve this problem, don't make it a part of criminal law for a man to marry multiple consenting wives.

Marriage is a contract between two or more parties, marriage was the first legal contract ever created. In the ancient past marriage contracts between a man and multiple wives was legal. It was not until Roman Law came into effect that this type of marriage was made illegal. So I say what would be better is if we rethink the English law, the Common law, etc because they all go back not to the Bible but to the Romans, who while banning plural marriage were practicing the divorce game, that is, getting married, finding someone else, getting a divorce, and marrying the other, and continuing it on from there.

Divorce is where the state steps into and violates the obligation of the marriage contract. The Law of Contract was also a part of the Common Law. It was protected in our Constitution. States were not to get involved and stop the obligations of a contract. It can be well stated that one of the first most common types of contract law were polygamist marriages.

Regardless of what the Congress and Supreme Court have ruled, polygamy is not illegal as a religious practice. Civil Law simply doesn't have to pay attention to it just as civil law pays no attention to Bill Clinton's adulteries in the White House. Or it can be respected as a binding contract between multiple parties.

Mormons For Ron Paul

Mormons For Ron Paul

At least me and two other Mormons that I know are in favor of Ron Paul. Why?

I'll tell you why I won't vote for any Democrat: Universal Health Care vs the Constitution. There is no provision in the Constitution for Universal Health Care. Besides that, all the welfare ideas of both Democrats and Republicans have proven to do nothing. President Johnson' war on poverty has not wiped out poverty, instead it has made things worse.

On top of that, we are still paying for the New Deal, which also never got anyone out of poverty except a few elite.

What people don't realize is that when we look to the Federal Government to help us out for every financial problem we have, they do it with money, OUR MONEY! Stop thinking that they are going to tax the rich, that class envy garbage is just communism, as you can see, we've been flirting with class envy so long now, and now we are debating the name "God" and if it is constitutional or not. One simple reason, class envy is Communist Propaganda.

It doesn't matter who the government is going to tax, the important thing to know is this, when the government goes deeper in debt, inflation goes up.

The government currently is trillions of dollars in debt. Would you ask a regular person who was trillions of dollars in debt to help you out of a financial bind? Of course not. But, you think the government has the money right, they can just make more dollars right? RIGHT!

The problem is, to pay off debts, they make more dollars, more paper dollars to pay of the creditors overseas (China is one of the biggest and they are using the interest to build a big military so they can attack Taiwan and us if we get involved).

When the government makes more paper dollars, inflation goes up because the dollar's value declines compared to other currencies. If our paper dollars are worth nothing, our creditors overseas will begin to demand currency of another sort, such as Euros.

Also when our dollar becomes weakened compared to currency overseas, prices go up. That is why it cost more for things like gas (it was a dollar a gallon ten years ago, now it's averaged around $3.20) food and other things. Prices go up when our government prints more dollars to pay off its debts.

And the democrats just want to spend more.

Republicans talk about less government, but we could get rid of the IRS altogether and still fund the federal budget as it was in 2000, Clinton's last year in office. We could get rid of the IRS and replace it with nothing and still be able to do that. But as it stands with George W. Bush and those times when the Republicans had the majority in the House and the Senate, the government that they promised would get smaller, got bigger. We went from a bloated Jackass to an obese elephant.

The Bush administration has promised to uphold the Constitution, but so far, the only part of the Constitution they have upheld was the part of the electoral college, because it came in Bush's favor.

This is a sensitive subject, but I'm really irritated with the defense of the Bush administrations actions with those so called "Enemy Combatants" in Cuba. Bush has suspended habeas corpus, and held them without a trial, and all this time has been using torture.

Some people would say "I don't care if they use torture if it gets information from a terrorist"

First off, cruel and unusual punishment is a violation of the Constitution and International law. Second, if someone admits that they are guilty under torture, maybe they made that confession to get out of being tortured in the first place. That's one of the key reasons the founding fathers made the constitution so that no cruel and unusual punishment would be used and also why no one was to be forced to testify against themselves. It was also the reason why they were not to pass double jeopardy on an individual.

The thing that we should all worry about the most, is this, a tyrant always begins as a hero. Darth Vader started his career as a hero, even when he turned to the dark side in Attack of the Clones, it was to go after bad guys. But he turned on everybody, there was not a single person important to him that he did not attack, torture, dismember or kill.

The fictional tragedy of Darth Vader is a good illustration of how actual good guys can go bad.

Even Great Britain was never really that bad, but there came a point where we decided we did not want to be a part of them anymore because it was bad enough.

If our government, which I believe for the most part, has been the best this world has seen, begins to torture bad guys and say "you are with us, or you are with the terrorist" forcing any conscientious decent to be treated as an act of terrorism, what is next? It will get to the point that you can not question the government no matter what they do.

I believe our government has started on the path of tyranny. So they haven't gone after a large number, not yet anyways. All tyrannies start their tyrannical ways by taking on small groups first.

Now that takes me to Mitt Romney. Mitt Romney like myself is a Mormon. If President he will swear an oath to uphold the Constitution of the United States. As a Mormon, he is suppose to believe that the United States Constitution is a Divinely Inspired Document.

But Mitt Romney does not believe in the Constitution. In a Debate, Mitt Romney was asked if water boarding was torture. His answer was "I don't know if water boarding is torture" but quickly made his safe slick remark (he's full of safe slick remarks) that he did not believe in torture. How stupid is that? Could I say "I don't know if twisting your ankle is torture" and expect to be taken serious?

McCain chewed Romney out for not knowing if water boarding was torture. Romney quickly pointed out that he would get advice regarding the subject (everyone but a spinmyster knows what torture is) Romney also defended his stupidity on water boarding by saying that presidential candidates should not discuss interrogations methods in a presidential race. Sure you should, because I want to make sure I'm not going to vote for another guy who's going to torture people and call it not torture.

Romney also said he wouldn't mind wiretapping mosque and churches to find terrorist. This of all people from one who has been both a Mormon Bishop and a Stake President, and knows the need for confidentiality inside the confides of a church building. I'm sure glad he never was my Bishop or Stake President, if he thinks it is okay to wiretap churches, why not just tell everybody in America all the sins and confessions you heard in confidentiality (protected by the Constitution)

Romney won't abolish the IRS, like every typical Republican politician all he's promising is tax cuts. When we need to abolish the IRS and start clean, he promises tax cuts.

The worst thing about Romney is, nobody really knows what to expect out of him. He won't say what he really believes. I don't believe him when he says he is a convert to the pro life movement. I believe he talked the pro choice talk when he knew it would get him elected in Massachusetts, and I think he knew he would give himself once in the governor's office, a pro life record so he could run for the Republican ticket and say "but look at my record".

He says he won't distance himself from his church, but he has. With all the attacks on the Book of Mormon, his response has been "why can't people just accept that there are many faiths in America"

If it was me, I'd point out that the Book of Mormon is a pro America book that today goes throughout the world spreading Christian American ideas across the globe. This is the fact on the matter.

A certain Book of Mormon character comes to mind, Captain Moroni, who seeing the threat of tyranny on the freedoms of his ancient American people, took his coat and wrote:

In memory of our God, our religion, and freedom, and our peace, our wives, and our children (Alma 46:12)

The Book of Mormon speaks prophetically of the Founding Fathers of this country in this manner:

And I beheld that their mother Gentiles were gathered together upon the waters, and upon the land also, to battle against them.

And I beheld that the power of God was with them, and also that the wrath of God was upon all those that were gathered together against them to battle.

And I, Nephi, beheld that the Gentiles that had gone out of captivity were delivered by the power of God out of the hands of all other nations. (1 Nephi 13:17-19)

I'm sure there are some in America who will wonder why he hid this from the country. The answer is this, he's worried that the Book of Mormon might make him lose. It wouldn't make me lose if I was running for President because I would not be running just to be elected. That is I think, the problem with Mitt Romney and all the other candidates, Republican and Democrat, except for Ron Paul.

Ron Paul calls it as he sees it. Ron Paul actually looks at the Constitution before voting. He's never voted for a tax increase, he never voted for an undeclared war, he's willing to make the substantial cuts it will require to save our economy from the socialist ruin that we have put it in.

Ron Paul would not go after terrorist in Iraq, but what he would do, is he would arm you so that you could defeat the terrorist at home when they tried to attack you. This is where you think "But I want to take the fight to their turf" well, guess what, the military intervention in Iraq since 9/11 has not made us safer from terrorist attacks here at home. In fact, being there has made things worse. More people want to be terrorist now because we attack a country with false premises.

Ron Paul would abolish the tyrannical IRS. That alone will save 10 billion dollars off the federal budget not to mention restoring your constitutional rights.

Ron Paul does not suggest small cuts here and there, but he would consider whole departments.

Realistically, take the Constitution, read what powers are actually given to the Federal Government. The Constitution itself gives all power not spelled out in it to the federal government to the states and to the people, and there are only fourteen or fifteen powers that the Federal Government is given in the Constitution.

A lot of the issues that are being debated in presidential debates really if we followed the context of the Constitution, should be debated on the state level. Abortion, the death penalty, universal health care, stem cell research, medical marijuana being produced and used in the same state etc.

Why have universal health care (not a constitutional provision at all) on the federal level when the only states interested are blue states such as Massachusetts and California. Why do people in a state like California need a federal health care program? California itself is the sixth largest economy in the world, most of the wealth in this country exist in this state alone, if the state decides to have universal health care, it can do it (not that I as a California resident would agree to it but I would rather have it debated at the state level than the federal level) all that is done by sending all our money to Washington is create more bloated bureaucracy.

I'll talk more about this at another time, until then

AntiMormons tagging me as a cult

Here is another bizarre example of Anti Mormonism:

The Marks of A Cult

It starts off, with various pastors (some look more like KKK members) who define Christianity in their bizarre ways. One makes the claim that the scriptures define the church, that the church does not define the scripture. Not for anything but every time I talk to someone who is anti Mormon and point out a text of the Bible AS IT READS, they have to redefine it.

It goes on and shows two Mormon Missionaries knocking on the door of a Presbyterian woman. I had to laugh because she actually tells the missionaries to "read the Bible" and then tells them to pray from God's Holy Spirit to guide them to the truth. If they were real missionaries they would have already done that. As for the woman? Let me make it clear once again, Mormons do read the Bible, more than Evangelicals do. Evangelicals pay their pastors to read the Bible for them.

They also go to bash other churches such as Jehovah's witnesses as being a cult. I don't agree with their interpretation of the Bible, but I will say, the Jehovah's witnesses DO read the Bible more than these protestants who are calling them a cult as well. Basically, if you read the Bible more than a typical protestant, you belong to a cult.

At the end the "Christian man" talking to his Mormon friend explains that because we worship another Jesus that we can't be brothers in Christ. Talk about cultist nonsense. It is they not us who are inspired by Satan.

They are the one's who turn from the Bible. But you can't point that out to them, they don't want to hear it from a cultist.

The often tag us "cultist" as such for not following with traditional or historical Christianity. If you are talking about Christianity as taught by Jesus Christ (the one and only Jesus Christ) we follow that. If you are talking about the Nicene Creed and the philosophies of men, we split with you, we believe in scripture not in the Nicene Creed. That is where we differ, not in the Bible (well we do differ in the Bible too, because we read it where they just say they read it)

I can point out other aspects of "historical Christianity" that we don't follow:

The world is flat

The world is the center of the Universe

There is no other place on the other side of the ocean (taught by Christianity before Columbus, part of the reason why the Christian church did not put the First Epistle of St. Clement into the Bible as Cannon was because he said that the other world on the other side of the ocean impassible to mankind was governed by the same laws that God gave to them)

Taking black Muslims from Africa for the slave trade was good

and the all to often Nicene Creed which is man's definition of deity not God's

Anti-Mormons can talk the Bible talk all day, but they can't walk the walk.

Antimormons losing it, now we have proof!

Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity are part of the Mormon cult plot to take over the world. All they have to do is defend Mitt Romney and not Huckabee.

I'm not making this one up, here's the video link:

Rush Limbaugh Endorses Mitt Romney

This is not the only one out there. Old Ed Decker, the god of the Antimormon movement is taking aim at Romney as well. This is part of what he says:

Mitt Romney has a few secrets he really doesn’t want you to know…

Mitt isn’t just a member of the Mormon Church.

Mitt Romney is a Temple Mormon, a High Priest, and as such he has sworn blood oaths of sacrifice, obedience and consecration to the church and the soon coming, long prophesied "Kingdom of God."

Just for full disclosure, I'm a Temple Mormon, not a High Priest but an Elder, and yes, Mitt Romney is a Mormon High Priest (it's a matter of public record that he has been both a Bishop and Stake President, both position requiring one to be a Mormon High Priest)

For full disclosure, all those 19 year old guys that you see riding bikes that you know are Mormons, they are also "Temple Mormons" so are most members who have been in the church for over a year. I also don't think it has been any big secret that Mitt Romney and his wife were married in an LDS temple after his mission to France. Nope that's not a secret either. Time Magazine talked all about it.

But no, there are no blood oaths in the temple. That is where Ed Decker lies. He might try to sue me like he tries to sue anyone who calls him on his lies, he even tried to sue other anti Mormons for calling him on an issue once, that's how evil and vindictive he is.

Ed Decker is the one that has secrets to hide from his Evangelical supporters. Ed Decker would have you know that he was once a Mormon elder. Not to knock the calling but any adult male who has been active for a certain period of months can become a Mormon elder. It's not a position that requires one have an in-dept knowledge of church doctrine.

It is a position that requires you to be faithful to your wife though, something Ed Decker had a problem with when he was married to a Mormon woman. Yes, you have the truth, Ed Decker is to Antimormonism what Bill Clinton is to the Democrats, a liar, adulterer, and one with a blindly devout following. Why do Democrats love Bill Clinton so much who knows, the same can be said of Ed Decker. He's not the doctor on Mormonism that he pretends to be, instead, he just makes up stuff and for a strange reason, Evangelicals want to believe him. (That is, some evangelicals, not all of them buy into him)

He's a Biblical retard after all is said and done. He once said that Mormons teach that Satan is "the god of this world" and that is not a teaching found in the Bible. Paul writing to the Corinthians said this:

In whom the god of this world hath blinded the minds of them which believe not, lest the light of the glorious gospel of Christ, who is the image of God, should shine unto them. (2 Corinthians 4:4)

Jesus refers to Satan as "the prince of this world" (John 14:30)

The Evangelicals who read this should take the hint, stop bashing Mormonism, read the Bible, and in the end, you will be a Mormon too.