The May 13 edition of "60 Minutes" ran a generally positive piece on former Massachusetts Governor and Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney. Correspondent Mike Wallace’s toughest questions were on topics where conservatives expressed concern, such as Romney’s inconsistent stances on social issues. However, one aspect of the interview involved Wallace’s question of Mitt Romney’s five sons with a less than subtle implication.
The veteran CBS journalist asked if any of them decided to "put on a uniform and go to war." When they admitted to not serving, a shocked Wallace noted, "not one agreed or thought about serving in the military." Wallace then asked Mitt Romney if he ever served. After Romney admitted to not serving, Wallace emphasized that the former governor’s "very high lottery number" never came up.
The implication on display is that Romney, a staunch supporter of the Iraq War, has not and will not sacrifice himself. The entire transcript is below.
MIKE WALLACE: While all of them have served their church doing missionary work around the world... has any one of you ever decided that you're going to put on a uniform and go to war?
JOSH ROMNEY: I feel guilty having not done it.
BEN ROMNEY: I've seen a lot and read a lot that has made me say, "my goodness, I hope I never have to do that."
WALLACE: Not one agreed or thought about serving in the military.
MATT ROMNEY: There are other sacrifices to make as well, and I hope to be able to make a sacrifice of that, you know, of that caliber at some point in my life.
WALLACE: Did you ever serve in the armed forces?
FORMER MASSACHUSETTS GOVERNOR MITT ROMNEY: I did not.
WALLACE: Why not?
ROMNEY: I was at college. Then I went off and served my church for two and a half years.
WALLACE: In a mission.
ROMNEY: In a mission.
WALLACE: And because of his high lottery number, he was never drafted to serve in Vietnam, something he says he regrets to this day.
Editor at Large
Comments Policy
MIKE WALLACE: While all of
May 14, 2007 - 17:20 ET by FlashmanMIKE WALLACE: While all of them have served their church doing missionary work around the world... has any one of you ever decided that you're going to put on a uniform and go to war?
So once Wallace realised he couldn't go after Romney's children for being privileged, elitist and not compassionate he decided to bring up the old chickenhawk argument.
I guess the "have you
May 14, 2007 - 20:46 ET by motherbeltI guess the "have you served" question is reserved for the men in the race, and their kids. Can anyone imagine asking Hillary why she never served in the military? Or how about Chelsea???? (We do have lots of women soldiers, you know). Yeah, right, that'll happen. Well if it did, she could resurrect her story about how she once tried to join the Marines and was turned down because of her eyesight and her age. Like she was just dying to put on the uniform and go fight for her country. Gag.
The question was legitimate.
May 15, 2007 - 04:56 ET by rb scottThe question was legitimate. The U.S. is involved in a war that Romney supports generally. He has five sons of a certain age who would be vulnerable were there a draft. It is also worth noting that Wallace has been very friendly (and fair) toward the Mormon Church over the years. Even friendly journalists ask tough questions and make trenchant observations from time to time. Wallace's question was not evidence of media bias. Not at all.
RB Scott
They would be vulnerable were
May 15, 2007 - 05:05 ET by UnsaneThey would be vulnerable were there a draft, but as much as it pains you, people join our military of their own freewill.
"HAV3 TH3 BRIDG3S OF INSANITY B33N CROSS3D AND FOR3V3R R3TRACT3D???." - Meshuggah, "3ntrapm3nt", from Catch Thirty Thr33 (2005)
So, in order to support the w
May 15, 2007 - 06:20 ET by SouthJersey1953So, in order to support the war on terror, you have to send your sons? I am sorry, but I do not follow your logic.
No RINOs in '08 - Vote for a true conservative!
Maybe this isn't the best e
May 14, 2007 - 17:25 ET by Night WatchmanMaybe this isn't the best example of NB exposing media bias.
I guess they're trying to say the Romney's are proud chicken hawks and that's OK.
Where are the "scathing&
May 14, 2007 - 17:29 ET by Mean Gene Dr. LoveWhere are the "scathing" interviews about Hillary's, Obama's, and Edward's absence of military service?
That is where the bias is.
This story had the purpose of showing that Romney and his family are devoted to their religion, but not as devoted to their country. It was a hit-piece.
"Believe what you want. You work your side of the street, and I'll work mine." --Frank Bullitt
Mean GThose three are again
May 14, 2007 - 17:47 ET by Night WatchmanMean G
Those three are against the war, there is at least no hypocrisy.
I think Wallace nailed it.
I would easily vote for Jim Webb before any of the above.
Have you given YOUR time, watchman?
May 14, 2007 - 18:17 ET by RJHave you given significantly of your time anywhere, watchman? Say, to a church organization? Perhaps to your community? How about to your country?
Or do you just let others do that as you sit by, cynically calling them hypocrits?
By the way, using your own logic, if you haven't served in the military, then you don't have the right to make judgments of any kind about war.
Those three are against the
May 14, 2007 - 20:52 ET by motherbeltThose three are against the war, there is at least no hypocrisy.-Night Watchman
So because they are against this war, there is no hypocrisy regarding whether they were in the military 5 or 10 or more years ago???? That's a bit of a stretch. Besides, if they are against war in principle, and that's why they never served in the military, who needs a President who doesn't believe in war? How would they ever have the nerve to send our military anywhere for anything? Oh, I guess a war decided upon by a Democratic President would be a good war, a worthwhile war.
Yes, like the high-altitude b
May 14, 2007 - 20:55 ET byYes, like the high-altitude bombing of Kosovo (no collatteral damage with that procedure----at least not to report in the NYT)
Supreme Court, National Security, Borders, Fiscal Restraint, my litmus test for President.
No they're not
May 15, 2007 - 10:09 ET by Mr. BishopThose "three" are not against a war. At least two of them voted for the war, and when the political opportunity arose for their dissent of the war to achieve a political upperhand, they jumped on it in a heartbeat. Don't be so naive as to think that Edwards and Clinton are standing on principles against Iraq. They're not. They are acting in typical hypocritical fashion.
As to the serving of Mitt Romney's kids or not -- let's get one thing perfectly straight: This country's military service is volunteer only. They have the choice to serve, or not to serve. They chose not to serve. I fail to see any reason that should reflect upon Romney. Does that philosophy then mean that my father is the perfect candidate for president since not only did he serve for 19 years, 4 of his 5 "of age" and "physically able" children did as well -- leaving only the 10-year old and his daughter with pins in her hips unable to?
"Stop global warming! Asphyxiate a liberal!" - Show us how far you're willing to go to stop "global warming"
Dude... lighten up..
Mean Gene,I agree, it was a &
May 14, 2007 - 18:23 ET by BlondeMean Gene,
I agree, it was a "hit piece".
Wallace also went off on a rant about the War in Iraq, repeatedly trying to get Mitt Romney to admit "that Bush had screwed up" (Wallace's words). Too bad Mitt didn't bite.
On the whole, Mitt and his family comported themselves extremely well. Wallace was the one who came off looking like an idealogue.
That's nonsense, watchman
May 14, 2007 - 17:33 ET by RJ"proud chickenhawks and that's ok"
Nonsense, watchman. Mormons are brought up with the idea that they will serve by doing missionary work. Wallace knows this and pushed one of the favorite phony liberal attacks anyway.
And serving a mission doesn't
May 14, 2007 - 17:42 ET by Mean Gene Dr. LoveAnd serving a mission doesn't necessarily preclude miliatry service. I served a mission for the LDS church and then Joined the USAF two years after I completed my mission. Many returned missionaries enter directly into college/marriage upon their return from missionary service. Most people that join the military do so between the ages of 17 and 21. The youngest age a missionary can return from a mission is 21, if one wants a commission, they need to graduate college prior to obtaining a commission as most missionaries have only one, maybe two years of college completed before they server their mission. If one returns from their mission and enters college, it is quite counter-productive to then enlist in the military.
"Believe what you want. You work your side of the street, and I'll work mine." --Frank Bullitt
Thanks for the excellent details, Gene
May 14, 2007 - 17:52 ET by RJThanks for the excellent details about how a young Mormon's choices evolve, Gene. Ignored by Wallace and "chickenhawk" liberals looking to score political points is that Mormons give of their time at a much higher rate than most Americans. Some, as you did, do go into the military afterwards, but it's not surprising or a negative that others don't.
RJ:As an MI officer I can tel
May 15, 2007 - 10:01 ET by BDRJ:
As an MI officer I can tell you my career field is filled with LDS due to two factors.
1.) The Mormon churches emphasis on language training provides exceptional candidates for MI folks in some fairly esoteric languages (Tagalog, Ibo, etc) which we find desireable.
2.) Mormons are very patriotic in general.
So this catholic kid says the LDS bashers should "Lay off."
Yes yes
May 15, 2007 - 10:05 ET by Mr. BishopYes -- it is a fairly undeniable fact, that most Mormons that do join the military end up in MI. The reasoning is exactly as you mentioned -- the languages they learn. Other then the language school in Monterrey that the military has, the one LDS mission prep center in Utah, where the languages are taught, is probably the best one around.
"Stop global warming! Asphyxiate a liberal!" - Show us how far you're willing to go to stop "global warming"
Dude... lighten up..
Concur. We used to send my
May 15, 2007 - 12:35 ET by BDConcur. We used to send my Russian linguists to Brigham Young University back in the day for advanced training.... But that was 10 years ago, and I am getting ancient...
Mean Gene Dr. Love - Mitt was
May 14, 2007 - 20:05 ET by ding7777Mean Gene Dr. Love - Mitt was 20 during his mission service - in France. Hey, maybe he tried to convert the Paris Peace talks Viet Cong delegates to Mormonism.
That's a particularly insipid post, ding
May 14, 2007 - 21:01 ET by RJThat's a particularly insipid post, ding....even for you.
Ding,Why don't you detail for
May 14, 2007 - 21:04 ET by BlondeDing,
Why don't you detail for us your two years of community service?
Or your two years of service to your faith?
Or your two years of military service?
Or your idiot history of trolling here?
An answer, any answer from you, might be a breath of fresh air.
Oops....sorry RJ, posted in the wrong place. Multi-tasking, none to well, I might add.
Blonde,Your post would have a
May 14, 2007 - 21:07 ET byBlonde,
Your post would have also worked as a question for Dennis Kucinich on your forum
Supreme Court, National Security, Borders, Fiscal Restraint, my litmus test for President.
It still fits, Blonde
May 14, 2007 - 21:09 ET by RJIt still fits, Blonde ;^>
Bruce,Yes, that forum post.
May 14, 2007 - 21:13 ET by BlondeBruce,
Yes, that forum post. I thought it was an interesting topic.
I liked your HRC questions....did you see anything regarding Bay Buchanan's new book about Her Thighness?
Hillary is going to flame out soon, I really can't wait to see it.
I heard a little of Bay on Ha
May 14, 2007 - 21:25 ET byI heard a little of Bay on Hannity during my commute home. If the Hildabeast flames out then what? Barrack(i have no experience but i rook marbollus)? A charge to enlist Gore?
BTW did all work out with 28? year employee?
Supreme Court, National Security, Borders, Fiscal Restraint, my litmus test for President.
If Hillary flames out, who ca
May 14, 2007 - 21:36 ET by BlondeIf Hillary flames out, who cares?
The book sounds rather fascinating.
As to the other, I'll pm you. Not something to be discussed, generally.
If Hillary flames out, who ca
May 14, 2007 - 21:39 ET byIf Hillary flames out, who cares?
correct answer, move ahead two spaces
Supreme Court, National Security, Borders, Fiscal Restraint, my litmus test for President.
Indeed
May 15, 2007 - 10:02 ET by Mr. BishopMy older brother served a mission in Poland for two years, and was in Iraq from 2004-2005. I, however, chose not to serve a mission for the church.
"Stop global warming! Asphyxiate a liberal!" - Show us how far you're willing to go to stop "global warming"
Dude... lighten up..
chicken hawksHillary Clinton
May 15, 2007 - 06:09 ET by dahliatraverschicken hawks
Hillary Clinton was decidedly for the war before she was against it. Remind me, now. What branch of the military does Chelsea serve in ...?
http://www.slate.com/id/2159572/
Justin Hart at MyManMitt.
May 14, 2007 - 17:32 ET by Ken ShepherdJustin Hart at MyManMitt.com was pleased overall. He doesn't even mention the military question, but I suspect pro-Mitt bloggers are likely to accentuate the positive in order to get more eyes to peep the YouTube excerpts and to play up Romney's press, as well as his standing in the primary.
How many Mayors have served
May 14, 2007 - 20:02 ET by MidAmericaHow many Mayors have served as city police?
How many Governors have served as State Police?
How many CEO's have served as guards?
Perfect comparison...(BTW - D
May 15, 2007 - 03:45 ET by SouthJersey1953Perfect comparison...
(BTW - Did Mike Wallace or any of his children serve? How can he ask any quesiton about the military if he didn't?)
No RINOs in '08 - Vote for a true conservative!
Please - refresh my failing m
May 14, 2007 - 20:27 ET by StickfarmPlease - refresh my failing memory.
When did the Defeatocrats hero Bill serve ?
I don't think one iota less of Mitt because he or his sons did not serve. Nowhere in the Constitution does it state that to be President and C-In-C that either you or children must have served.
The left (i.e., "main stream media") holds conservative candidates to far different standards than their own. If Hillary somehown wins (shudder.....) will they start questioning her when Chelsea is going to enlist ? Probably not.
Stickfarm
"The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing." - Edmund Burke
I don't remember Hillary enco
May 14, 2007 - 20:39 ET byI don't remember Hillary encouraging Chelsea to up.
Supreme Court, National Security, Borders, Fiscal Restraint, my litmus test for President.
Since the military regularly
May 15, 2007 - 09:56 ET by BDSince the military regularly polls at 80-86% conservative, I would guess lots of conservative mothers and fathers urge their children to join the military in approximately 6 times the rate of liberals.
Therefore, the question should be, what is wrong with liberal America?
Charlie Rangel wishes to draft his liberal kiddies so that he can have viable candidates in twenty years, but will not ask them to volunteer..... Same same the others...
I am shocked that one of my m
May 14, 2007 - 22:21 ET by Roger the ShrubberI am shocked that none of my more "progressive" comrades haven't posted that tired, over-used link to a web page showing all those brave Democrat(ic)s who served, and those damn, Nazi Neothug Chicken Hawks who didn't.
I mean, after all, the same old 3-year-old crap gets re-hashed by the various socialists, er, I mean, "progressives" who come here, so why would today be any different?
classy Mike
May 14, 2007 - 23:28 ET by bacadogHe doesn''t have any idea what the concept of performing missionary work is. So, he makes light of that nobel service, and presses on military service. You know, Christians preaching the word of God to heathens is only a minor lede. Dodging the draft, or avoiding service, now by-god, that's a story worthy of the msm.
Asshole.
Book of Mormon
May 15, 2007 - 02:10 ET by m1xramChristians preaching the word of God
Yes, this I know. How does that relate to the Book of Mormon? Let's not get confused here, the teachings of "prophet" Smith are not the Bible.
The truth of Christ was never hidden, his followers have been around since He left us and Christ is the only foundation of the Church.
If you haven't guessed it by now, I'm not voting for Mitt. Hope the Rebulicans come up with somebody soon.
m1xram
Here we go again
May 15, 2007 - 10:17 ET by Mr. BishopLet it go. I am really getting tired of the misinformation and the intentional smearing.
First -- he said word of God. He did not say Bible. That completely aside -- Mormons on their mission not only relate the Book of Mormon, they also share the Bible with people. Second, since you don't know anything about Joseph Smith, you wouldn't know that his teachings were about the Bible, in addition to the Book of Mormon. I am really getting tired of this nonsensical babbling about how Joseph Smith and the LDS church does not read/believe/teach the Bible. That is garbage, stop repeating it.
You don't want to vote for Romney? Fine, that's your choice. At this moment in time, I'd rather not vote for him, even being Mormon because of all the crap Mormon hating jacktards are throwing out at the drop of a hat. However, whether you choose to vote for Romney or not -- don't spread lies about his religion -- intentionally or otherwise.
"Stop global warming! Asphyxiate a liberal!" - Show us how far you're willing to go to stop "global warming"
Dude... lighten up..
mormon lighten up
May 15, 2007 - 19:46 ET by m1xramI'm just going by what I read on LDS.org and Mormon.org. Some of what I've read there doesn't jive with the Bible.
Never said I was a "Mormon hating jacktard" so I'll not take offense and assume you mean someone else. LOL Didn't say "LDS church does not read/believe/teach the Bible", just said the teachings of Joseph Smith were not the Bible, specifically relating to the Book of Mormon.
It's not a personal attack, or a smear, to point out what is true. People need to understand what they're getting into so they can make the best decision. For instance: if someone told me they were joining the KKK to become a Christian I'd have to point out that the KKK doesn't follow the teachings of Christ.
In the spirit of "lightening up" please note that I am NOT comparing the KKK to Mormons. Please feel free to examine Mormon.org and LDS.org in the context of the Bible and get back to me.
Everyone has a decision to make, choose what your heart tells you.
The last part is really really hard.
m1xram
m1xram
May 15, 2007 - 20:10 ET by RJI suppose you have every right to vote by religion, but in my opinion that's a poor way to choose the President of the United States. Does that mean that if Romney is the nominee you'll be sitting out, or throw your vote away on some write-in who doesn't offend your sense of "proper" religion?
As for me, I hope Romney is the nominee, because he has the talent and experience to lead this country well. But if he's not the nominee, I'll vote for whoever it is, even if I have to hold my nose and vote for Rudy. I won't like it, but it will be better than anything the Democrats offer.
canidates
May 15, 2007 - 21:37 ET by m1xramI'm looking for canidates who are like our Forefathers. Someone who believes, as they did, that God and the Bible are the foundation of our country. Still waiting for the Republicans to find such a person.
So, why would voting for a person, with the values of the Forefathers, be a poor way to choose?
m1xram
m1xram, I am a Mormon, and
May 15, 2007 - 21:52 ET by Conservative Voicem1xram, I am a Mormon, and I am someone who believes in God and in the Bible and I understand our forefather's belief and use of the Bible to create our form of government. Most Mormons are conservative AND take the constitution very seriously. Take off the blinders and take out your ear plugs.
If you are looking for a Bible Thumper for President, good luck.
Bible Thumper for President
May 15, 2007 - 22:17 ET by m1xramOk CV.
Bush studied the Bible and so did Reagan. Before the 1940's most of the presidents believed and studied the Bible.
I think I'm seeing clearly and certainly do hear you. You're saying, "I don't like your comments," I get it. I've been accused of lying and smearing people a few times now. It's still unclear how.
I'm still not upset and am not trying to upset anyone.
m1xram
Bible thumper is different
May 15, 2007 - 22:21 ET by Conservative VoiceBible thumper is different from someone who just studies the Bible. As I read the Bible and learn from the Bible and study it. A Bible thumper is one who preaches from the Bible and declaring everyone who doesn't believe as he does is going straight to hell, and he is THE authority on how to interpret the Bible. President Bush and President Reagan never did that.
A Bible thumper is a Pharasee.
CV....Bible Thumper?I am conf
May 15, 2007 - 22:31 ET by BlondeCV....
Bible Thumper?
I am confused.
I am so totally appalled by the vitriol that I see here, on a daily basis.
My only suggestion is to try to suggest to the bashers that it gets taken over to a forum thread. I know you've done that repeatedly.
The way I see Bible thumpers
May 15, 2007 - 22:34 ET by Conservative VoiceThe way I see Bible thumpers is Bible Thumpers = Debra. I encourage all to read the Bible and live by its principles, but when we start getting all preachy and holier than thou, that declaring who goes to hell, that is a Bible thumper.
I am sick of this argument, as I know you are as well.
Bible thumper is a Pharasee
May 15, 2007 - 22:35 ET by m1xramAs per your semantics, I'm not interested in "Bible thumpers as presidents" then. I thought you meant a person who believes in the Bible.
m1xram
m1xram
May 15, 2007 - 21:54 ET by RJm1xram, you're being disingenuous. You've combined an open dislike for Mormons with a statement that you would not vote for Romney. Rather than making a choice based on experience and ability, you're making it on religion.
Several of our founding fathers were Deists, by the way......
you're being disingenuous
May 15, 2007 - 22:30 ET by m1xramI thought I said what I meant and why, and was sincere about it. I don't remember expressing "an open dislike for Mormons with a statement that you would not vote for Romney". Your statement does qualify as "falsely or hypocritically ingenuous" though because you imply that I don't like people who I wouldn't vote for. That's just not true. Mitt seems like a nice guy and so does Rudy.
Several of the Forefathers were not Deists, only two or three were. If you think John Locke was check out Wall Builders.
m1xram
Are you serious?
May 15, 2007 - 22:39 ET by Mr. Bishop"Several of the Forefathers were not Deists, only two or three were". Your statement.
Several (definition): being more than two but fewer than many in number or kind.
Looks like three cuts it as "several".
"Stop global warming! Asphyxiate a liberal!" - Show us how far you're willing to go to stop "global warming"
Dude... lighten up..
not Deists
May 15, 2007 - 23:13 ET by m1xramAlright, point taken. Let's say it this way: Almost all of them were not.
m1xram
m1xram
May 15, 2007 - 22:42 ET by RJm1xram, instead of quibbling over the word "several", answer this: how do you reconcile your religious bigotry that even ONE Founder was a Deist, given your open distain for any who don't follow the "right" religion?
And, yes, the word disingenuous fits your posts perfectly. For example, you said you would not vote for Romney in one of the same posts in which you denigrated his faith. Meanwhile, you're hiding behind the lie of pretending to be simply giving out information, when you know exactly what you are doing. That makes you a liar.
open distain
May 15, 2007 - 23:11 ET by m1xramI've gone from lying, to smearing, to open distain, all of which I've not done. You guys are leaving me with the impression that personal attacks are you're only argument. I'm still not upset but will have to discontinue before your heads spin off. BTW, that was not my intent either.
Now I'm even a religious bigot because I suggest we follow the Bible. LOL You guys are very hostile.
m1xram
No, just calling you on your insinuations m1xram
May 15, 2007 - 23:19 ET by RJNot hostile, just calling you on your insinuations m1xram. You feint and dodge, pretending you're not a religious bigot, but you are.
P.S. I'm not a Mormon, I just dislike religious bigotry, and I think it's the height of stupidity to choose a President based on religion.
tolerance
May 15, 2007 - 23:32 ET by m1xramI think it's the height of stupidity to choose a President based on religion.
That's your right to think that way, but I'm sticking with the foundation that the country was built on. Sorry, but that's my right.
If I was a bigot I would propose banning other religions, which I'm not. Tolerance is the Christian way. But you don't believe what I'm saying, do you?
m1xram
Fine
May 15, 2007 - 23:35 ET by Mr. BishopExplain to me how Romney does not support sticking to the foundation the country was built on. He believes in a country that worships God, and he believes and reads the Bible. What's your problem? According to your "definition" of what you are voting on -- he is the perfect cadidate for you.
"Stop global warming! Asphyxiate a liberal!" - Show us how far you're willing to go to stop "global warming"
Dude... lighten up..
back to the beginning
May 15, 2007 - 23:44 ET by m1xramBishop, that was my first post. Now we've gone full circle.
m1xram
Nope
May 15, 2007 - 23:49 ET by Mr. BishopThat is where you are mistaken. You have said, very clearly now -- your definition of the perfect candidate is one that believes in the "foundations this country" was made upon -- belief in God and the Bible. Your first post was erroneous in your assumption that Mormons do not believe, read, or teach the Bible. As your first statement was proven false -- you tell me -- what reason do you have for not voting for Mitt Romney, since he meets your criteria?
"Stop global warming! Asphyxiate a liberal!" - Show us how far you're willing to go to stop "global warming"
Dude... lighten up..
Book of Mormon
May 15, 2007 - 23:51 ET by m1xramYou're going to flame me, I know it. Rather than my incorrect interpretation, tell me where the Book of Mormon fits in with the Bible. Does it supersede the Bible? Does it augment the Bible?
m1xram
Have I ever?
May 16, 2007 - 00:01 ET by Mr. BishopHave I ever said anything in regards to the Book of Mormon superseding the Bible? No, haven't ever said that. I have always maintained that it supports the Bible, that is to be read in addition to the Bible. In other words, as has always been said by the LDS church: it is another testament of Christ.
Now, don't play innocent and say, "You're going to flame me, I know it." You've spent the better part of the last 2 hours on here trying to say that Joseph Smith did not teach the Bible. I provided your own words to this effect. You have also said you don't like Mitt Romney -- for whatever your reasoning.
Now, I will say it one last time, and I truly hope that everyone reads it:
I do not want to discuss religion. I am here to discuss politics, not religion. I will no longer answer any questions about my religion, and ask that people stop trying to push theirs on me, and stop trying to constantly bash people's religions on here. It's old, it's ridiculous, and it's really quite petty to do so.
"Stop global warming! Asphyxiate a liberal!" - Show us how far you're willing to go to stop "global warming"
Dude... lighten up..
end flame
May 16, 2007 - 00:26 ET by m1xramSorry, I was only asking a question to try and find out. I didn't want to make an incorrect interpretation.
I see that you will not accept my correction, thank you for your tolerance. I didn't mean to say Joseph did not teach the Bible. Feel free to post my original words again to prove your point. Make sure you leave out the correction.
I've spent hours discussing religion and now you tell me it was a waste of time.
Oh, and thanks for not flaming me by saying that I was bashing peoples' religion and being petty. Really appreciate that.
These things always turn into a flame war, don't they.
m1xram
No I don't, m1xram
May 15, 2007 - 23:43 ET by RJNo I don't, m1xram. If you were tolerant, you wouldn't be spending so much time questioning the faith of others.
Of course it's your right to vote as you choose. But if a man has high moral values it doesn't matter which religion he practices. Basing your vote on religious ideology rather than finding the individual who can best lead, defend and hold our country together is bigoted and foolish.
You still haven't answered my questions: would you vote for a Mormon? would you vote for a Deist?
I did answer you, must be i
May 15, 2007 - 23:58 ET by m1xramI did answer you, must be in another part of this thread. This thing is growing out of control. Anyway, the answer is no.
God's wisdom is found within the Bible, so the person who best understands it will be the best for the country.
m1xram
That's silly, m1xram. By your logic, the best person to
May 16, 2007 - 00:10 ET by RJThat's silly. By your logic, the best person to run the country would be a preacher. I guess you won't be voting any more....just give the country to the leftists...yes, THAT will show 'em how strong your values are....
But it's interesting how you're able to manipulate your values. "I must have exactly the same type of man as the Founders.....well, as long as it's not one of those awful Deists....they don't count."
That's what I thought. No Mormons, no Deists....it just took a long time to get you to finally admit it......
new president
May 16, 2007 - 00:48 ET by m1xramThat's silly. By your logic, the best person to run the country would
be a preacher. I guess you won't be voting any more....just give the
country to the leftists...yes, THAT will show 'em how strong your
values are....
That's not true, we could have another Reagan or Bush, couldn't we? They had and have lots of Biblical knowledge and were not preachers. And, there's lots of more out there.
m1xram
Here is what gets me. A vo
May 15, 2007 - 20:13 ET by Conservative VoiceHere is what gets me. A vote for Romney does not mean you agree with Mormon Doctorine, nor does not mean you are bound to join the Mormons. Yet we have people like you who make it a point to not only lie and smear, but make it a point to claim that if you like Romney you are going against the Bible and what the Bible says. Really? Last time I checked the Bible, wasn't there something about Caesar? Now to me, that means Jesus didn't care who is in office, it doesn't change your view on life or your religious philosophy...should be a lesson to you, to Debra, to trach, tumbler, and all others who think they need to beat people over the head about our doctorine...and who get bent out of shape when a Mormon calls them on it.
I am tired of dealing with small minded individuals.
Hey CV, I think you've got m
May 15, 2007 - 21:26 ET by tracheostomyHey CV, I think you've got me confused with Deb and Tumb as I can debate both within reason and beyond institutionalized talking points. Give it a try sometime.
Last time I checked the Bible, wasn't there something about Caesar?
I know what you're referring to. I was actually questioning earlier about the media making a candidate's religion an issue to begin with. Gore certainly had me fooled during 2000. That's the real me, not the caricature that's easier for you to beat up. >;)
Oh, by the way, did you know there was another reference to Caesar in the Bible?
Philippians 4:22
22 All the saints greet you, but especially those who are of Caesar’s household.
But WAIT CV! That would mean that Jesus cares about not only who's in the seat of ancient Roman power, but also the White House. . .right?
-PJ
"Trake: Your lofty convictions are another blemish on the rump of congregational sectarianism." -Tumbler 5/15/07
Of course
May 15, 2007 - 21:32 ET by Mr. BishopJesus cares for all people, regardless of their "station" in life. I surely hope that you were not trying to say that due to his "caring" of who is in the White House, that it becomes someone's religious duty to vote against someone because they are not the same direct faith as you (not saying you, specifically -- it's more general).
I have said before, repeatedly -- vote for whom you will, it's none of my business. While I certainly detest the idea of voting for, or against, someone based upon their religion, it is obvious there are those that hate the idea of a Mormon in the White House so much, they would rather vote against them, then against a liberal which they would hate in the White House even more. It seems counterproductive, and I am honestly glad that not everyone in this country feels the same way. Otherwise, we would most likely have a Democrat in the White House every election cycle since the only religion it seems, to the left, is global warming.
"Stop global warming! Asphyxiate a liberal!" - Show us how far you're willing to go to stop "global warming"
Dude... lighten up..
All you guy are seeing it in
May 15, 2007 - 21:41 ET by tracheostomyAll you guys are seeing it in such a negative light.
It's not about voting against the candidate.
I am saying that to me and for me personally: To vote for any one candidate may very well be a vote for a majority of issues in the overall package and ignoring the smaller ones. . .but a candidate's core convictions and the star he sails them by (Kolob) are not one of them. =D
-PJ
"Trake: Your lofty convictions are another blemish on the rump of congregational sectarianism." -Tumbler 5/15/07
Confused
May 15, 2007 - 21:53 ET by Mr. BishopWhat are you responding to, specifically. I was responding, specifically, to your comments concerning Jesus "caring who was in the White House". What does core convictions have to do with that?
"Stop global warming! Asphyxiate a liberal!" - Show us how far you're willing to go to stop "global warming"
Dude... lighten up..
Look at the fruit, not at t
May 15, 2007 - 21:54 ET by Conservative VoiceLook at the fruit, not at the tree.
Stop it CV, you're alluding t
May 15, 2007 - 22:18 ET by tracheostomyStop it CV, you're alluding to doctrine. >;)
If you want to know my real stance on it, it's this:
- I know the LDS church. I know it well. I know that their allegiance is to their leadership over defending and upholding the Constitution. Sure, you can pull the "Kennedy card" on me with this statement.
BUT my argument is: How faithful and loyal was Kennedy to the Pope? If they are faithful, then they should indeed consult the head of their faith first and often. . .no? If Romney was just a MINO, wouldn't he be feeling a little heat right now?
All I'm saying.
- I'm still holding out for Condi to throw her hat in at the last minute. I know. . .I'm dreaming. There's also alot of other candidates that will come on the scene and come out in the wash. I have time. Don't freakin' rush me.
- Just because Hannity endorses Romney doesn't mean I'm not a loyal Reagan conservative.
- I really don't like it when a candidate's religion is made an issue by the media to begin with. But there you are. If it's really such a valid issue (as in their core worldview), I'm going with the one who knows and follows the Biblical test of a prophet.
- If given a choice between a candidate who is genuinely uncertain about God, and one who is going dogmatically in the wrong direction, I'll choose the former over the latter.
- I was fooled about Gore in 2000. I actually fell for the Tipper kiss. So no, I do not vote "religion first" with that suspicion intact.
-PJ
"Trake: Your lofty convictions are another blemish on the rump of congregational sectarianism." -Tumbler 5/15/07
Condi? Why?
May 15, 2007 - 22:25 ET by Conservative VoiceCondi? Why?
Personally...
May 15, 2007 - 22:36 ET by Mr. BishopI would love to see her in the ring as well. If she ran, she would have so much going for her. You would no longer have the "woman" vote being decidely Democrat (yes, I know it could easily swing that way still), there is no way anyone can genuinely question her foreign policy or national security credentials (National Security Advisor and Secretary of State), and she would run RINGS around Hillary in the intelligence department. There are other reasons, and to be honest -- for the longest time, I suspected Bush was grooming Condi for a run at the White House by placing her in both those roles.
"Stop global warming! Asphyxiate a liberal!" - Show us how far you're willing to go to stop "global warming"
Dude... lighten up..
Bish check your stats, i beli
May 15, 2007 - 21:45 ET byBish
check your stats, i believe that there are about 3 times as many protestants than catholics in the US. I still understand your point.
Supreme Court, National Security, Borders, Fiscal Restraint, my litmus test for President.
On what?
May 15, 2007 - 21:51 ET by Mr. BishopI was merely pointing to the fact that if everyone voted against this religion, or that religion because it was not in line with their religion... it would cause for endless Democrat victories, since their only religion to vote for/against, is global warming (if you don't agree with global warming, you are a heretic, etc.). I know there are more Protestants than Catholics, but from what I read on here -- no one is basing on Protestant v. Catholic... it's narrowly defined religious philosophy they are complaining about. If it were as generalized as you speak of, then the Mormons would have no problem, since they fall under the Protestant wing of Christianity.
"Stop global warming! Asphyxiate a liberal!" - Show us how far you're willing to go to stop "global warming"
Dude... lighten up..
If it were as generalized as
May 15, 2007 - 21:57 ET by tracheostomyIf it were as generalized as you speak of, then the Mormons would have no problem, since they fall under the Protestant wing of Christianity.
What? I'll challenge that if you're really willing to go there. Nothing personal, but I personally know many lifelong Mormons who disagree with that statement.
-PJ
"Trake: Your lofty convictions are another blemish on the rump of congregational sectarianism." -Tumbler 5/15/07
He meant we are Protestant as
May 15, 2007 - 22:01 ET by Conservative VoiceHe meant we are Protestant as in not Catholic but Christian nonetheless. We believe the Church was restored, hence not a branch off the Catholic trunk.
Weren't the 17th century prot
May 15, 2007 - 22:04 ET byWeren't the 17th and 18th century protestants also apostate according to Joseph Smith?
Supreme Court, National Security, Borders, Fiscal Restraint, my litmus test for President.
Sigh, how many times does t
May 15, 2007 - 22:14 ET by Conservative VoiceSigh, how many times does this have to be said...Joseph Smith is NOT running for high office. Your religious disagreement with Joseph Smith should not matter as far as who to vote for. LOOK at the FRUIT, and not get hung by the tree.
CV did i ever say i would n
May 15, 2007 - 22:17 ET byCV did i ever say i would not vote for Romney based on his religion? No in fact i have said that if he wins the nomination i will vote for him (note my tag)
my last post was in response to your post just above it
Supreme Court, National Security, Borders, Fiscal Restraint, my litmus test for President.
Maybe so botg, I know you hav
May 15, 2007 - 22:23 ET by Conservative VoiceMaybe so botg, I know you have said as much...but I was trying to remind you and others that Joseph Smith isn't running for President.
CV we all know that Joseph
May 15, 2007 - 22:49 ET byCV we all know that Joseph Smith is not running, but did he teach that the Protestant (and Catholic) churches of the 17th and 18th centuries were apostate?
Supreme Court, National Security, Borders, Fiscal Restraint, my litmus test for President.
I emailed a response, thoug
May 16, 2007 - 00:00 ET by Conservative VoiceI emailed a response, though I am having a hard time seeing why this question is important. All religions assert theirs is true do they not? How does the position of my Church change on how Romney will govern?
CV,Don't you find all of this
May 16, 2007 - 00:08 ET by BlondeCV,
Don't you find all of this "misdirection" annoying?
I do.
We all see our world through our own filters.
And as I've said before, others are immoveable in their positions.
Very, especially when peopl
May 16, 2007 - 00:29 ET by Conservative VoiceVery, especially when people misdirect with an assertion to what I believe and they don't know what they are talking about.
I don't care how many "
May 15, 2007 - 22:07 ET by Mr. BishopI don't care how many "lifelong" Mormons you have known. I come from a Mormon family. I was raised Mormon. I grew up all over the country (literally), in various Mormon churches. I spent the last two years of my high school life in Mormon belt (the area from Southeaster Idaho to Central Utah). What you know as "many lifelong" Mormons, pales in any comparison to the amount I know, or have known. However, we're not here to play the, "I know more" game at all. If you want to know more about it... then visit here. The important parts are at the bottom. To make it easier, I shall quote the areas in question:
Some Christians divide the tens of thousands of denominations which consider themselves to be Christian into three main groups: Roman Catholics, Protestants and Eastern Orthodox. within this classification, the Mormon movement would be considered part of Protestantism.
Some make four divisions: Anglican, Eastern Orthodox, Protestant and Roman Catholic. Again, Mormons would be considered Protestant.
Others define Protestantism as consisting of those faith group who trace their history back to the Protestant Reformation and Luther's 95 theses. Some include the Restorationist denominations as a fourth or fifth group. Within this classification, the Mormon churches would be considered part of the Restorationist group and not Protestant.
Note, it is not until you get to a third definition, that Mormons are not considered Protestant. However, the question was based upon Mormons being Protestant, or Catholic. As such, we would have to look at the first definition, which would place Mormons as Protestants.
"Stop global warming! Asphyxiate a liberal!" - Show us how far you're willing to go to stop "global warming"
Dude... lighten up..
added your link to my faves t
May 15, 2007 - 22:20 ET byadded your link to my faves to look at later (i also added mx1s link to get both sides) i am looking for the truth of the doctrines it's why i asked CV the question above
Supreme Court, National Security, Borders, Fiscal Restraint, my litmus test for President.
One common misnomer is that P
May 15, 2007 - 22:38 ET by tracheostomyOne common misnomer is that Protestants are defined as such because they are not Catholics. This is untrue. The classic Reformed faith has a history that existed before Luther (who was himself an Augustinian monk, don't forget*)
The LDS are not historically Protestant, because most of the preachers during the time of the New York burned-over district had little relation to the classic reformation. Especially Charles Finney.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burned-over_district
I'm sorry Bish, your site does not understand the fact that Joseph Smith's influences could come from only one of two sources:
1. The ancient Hebrews of the BoM as the LDS believe, or. . .
2. The influences of the second great awakening, which was not the doctrine of Augustine ---> Luther ---> Classic Protestantism.
The site you linked to is also very good at equivocative language there. =)
-PJ
*and who'd he get his inspiration from? Hmm?
"Trake: Your lofty convictions are another blemish on the rump of congregational sectarianism." -Tumbler 5/15/07
Amazingly, the different re
May 15, 2007 - 22:48 ET by Mr. BishopAmazingly, the different religions that exist, for just Christianity, have many things in common with one another. It is entirely possible, that each and every single one of them, have some aspect of "truthfulness" involved.
However, what does any of that have to do with the topic at hand? I am not here to preach, nor am I here to condemn a person based upon their faith. I do not DO that. What I AM here for, is to say what I have been saying all along -- disregarding a person based upon their religion, is not a good way to vote. Now -- what was being discussed, before you just tried to change the subject just now, was on the generalization of voting Protestant v. Catholic. That was what I was responding to, that is what I based it entirely on. Whether you consider it a "misnomer", or not -- the three main Christian branches, if you will, are exactly as was described previously. As such, in order to place the LDS church under one of those three -- it goes toward Protestant.
Whether you, or anyone else, believes that Joseph Smith received the Book of Mormon, from the Lord, has no bearing on the topic of discussion that was taking place previously.
"Stop global warming! Asphyxiate a liberal!" - Show us how far you're willing to go to stop "global warming"
Dude... lighten up..
Amazingly, the different reli
May 15, 2007 - 23:09 ET by tracheostomyAmazingly, the different religions that exist, for just Christianity, have many things in common with one another. It is entirely possible, that each and every single one of them, have some aspect of "truthfulness" involved.
Not when it comes to soteriology. If that one major factor were the only one considered (as well as it should be), then there would be only two denominations within Christianity.
That cuts the variety down. . .alot.
But I'm glad to see you know when to back out on the "Mormons as Protestants" assertion. Appreciated. That was getting tiresome with the "just so" statements from your link.
And another thing. I don't disregard a person based on their religion. See my other comment on this. I am an undecided voter who is afraid of where Romney's chief allegiance lies. I'm even undecided on that. If he's a MINO, I might give him a shot if Giuliani doesn't balk at his Constitutionalist Supreme Court assertions (I think he's "pro-choice in name only").
So don't pigeonhole me. I am not Debra. As long as you are living, breathing, and talking to me, you are under the doctrine of "common grace". I am not God. I have no right to judge you (condemn), but I do have the right to make my own personal judgements (discern). There's a huge difference.
I also have the right to state the latter with certainty and conviction. If my statements threaten your convictions, then reinforce yours up with more facts. Don't fill up he thread with "bigot" ad hominem arguments.
-PJ
"Trake: Your lofty convictions are another blemish on the rump of congregational sectarianism." -Tumbler 5/15/07
Wrong
May 15, 2007 - 23:25 ET by Mr. BishopI never once backed out of any assertion. You're getting as tiresome as many of the many liberals that think they have won an argument, but have no evidence to back up a single assertion made. I have not now, nor have I ever, "backed out" of any assertion to Mormons being Protestant. You made a stupid statement that "you have known lifelong Mormons that would disagree", and I provided for you the definition by which most of the world views Protestant v. Catholic on. So, don't put words in my mouth.
I have never once said you disregard based upon religion. Looking back over my post, I don't say anything remotely close to that. What I do say, is that I do not preach my religion. I do not condemn anyone based upon their religion. I did say, that I do not think anyone should disregard a candidate based upon religion. I did not, not once, say you did that.
Finally -- You have come onto this thread now, as it is plainly obivious by your last two sentences, as a means to preach a religion, and find ways to shoot down others. You don't threaten my convictions, and I have no clue why you think you have anything remotely close to the ability to do that. You're extremely arrogant to assume you have that power over me. Also, can you show me anywhere, in this thread, where I have ever once said anything remotely close to "fill(ing) up he [sic] thread with "bigot" ad hominem arguments"? No, you cannot. One because you obviously don't know what ad hominem means (as I have found that most do not), and two -- I have yet to make a single "bigot" remark on anything in this thread. What I have said, over and over again, is don't tell me what I believe, and I think it's a bad idea to disregard a person for president, based upon their religion. WHERE did I ever once make a "bigot" ad hominem attack?
All I did, in response to a post from you, was ask for clarification from you, from a statement you made (to which you never did clarify), which you skipped over and immediately attacked me for a statement I made to botg, concerning his statement of Protestant v. Catholic. You asked for proof, to which I responded with proof, at which point you decided to take it upon you to try and "show" why my religion is wrong somehow. When I responded to your "misnomer" point, you seem to take offense at it. I don't really care, to be honest. I was civil with you, and yet, you come at me in this last post in full attack mode because your "point" did not stick. This is the exact reason I refuse to discuss religion. People take it way too personally, and I (unlike most it seems) respect people's religions far too much, to simply try and trash them at every turn. Congratulations.
"Stop global warming! Asphyxiate a liberal!" - Show us how far you're willing to go to stop "global warming"
Dude... lighten up..
Bish? Thought you'd have a re
May 15, 2007 - 22:51 ET by tracheostomynevermind =)
I replied
May 15, 2007 - 22:58 ET by Mr. BishopAlthough I replied, it was probably not in the manner in which you were looking for. I am not here for a religious debate. I never have been. I have been maintaining, from the beginning -- politics is about politics, and not religion. Your post was turning dangerously toward an area I do not like to discuss, and that is about personal faith. I do not discuss my personal beliefs because I have heard enough slander, read enough libel of my beliefs throughout my life, to where I just don't have any desire to discuss it anymore.
"Stop global warming! Asphyxiate a liberal!" - Show us how far you're willing to go to stop "global warming"
Dude... lighten up..
Then don't discuss your perso
May 15, 2007 - 23:18 ET by tracheostomyThen don't discuss your personal beliefs. Let's go ahead and take it back away from that then.
Many here believe that religion is a peripheral issue (a minor) when voting for a candidate.
I believe that a candidate's most heartfelt convictions, moral base, and worldview are among the biggest issues (a major).
IMO, Romney supporters who are trying to push the candidate's most cherished and personal beliefs are not voting for the man. . .but for a shopping list.
Why not both?
-PJ
"Trake: Your lofty convictions are another blemish on the rump of congregational sectarianism." -Tumbler 5/15/07
What the???
May 15, 2007 - 23:29 ET by Mr. BishopThis is absolutely BS -- SHOW me where I ever ONCE discussed my personal beliefs! I told someone NOT to tell me how I believe. Where have I ever once discussed my personal beliefs on religion? I never do that.
As for your mentioning of Romney's supporters -- I cannot speak for them, as I am not one of those you are attempting to discuss. What I can say, is that just because someone would be related to me, is no reason I would vote for them. The same holds true for most everything else. I vote based upon political ideals -- I have said this from the beginning.
"Stop global warming! Asphyxiate a liberal!" - Show us how far you're willing to go to stop "global warming"
Dude... lighten up..
Continued at the end of threa
May 15, 2007 - 23:45 ET by tracheostomyContinued at the end of thread. I'm really not as hostile as you think I am.
-PJ
"Trake: Your lofty convictions are another blemish on the rump of congregational sectarianism." -Tumbler 5/15/07
Sorry Bish,I did get your poi
May 15, 2007 - 21:58 ET bySorry Bish,
I did get your point the first time. And after rereading your original post my answer was baseless.
Supreme Court, National Security, Borders, Fiscal Restraint, my litmus test for President.
vote for an American who believes in the Constitution
May 16, 2007 - 00:01 ET by misterbillHere is a brief article by that American. IMHO, he is the best non-candidate, hopefully candidate.
if you are willing to vote fo
May 15, 2007 - 21:36 ET by Conservative Voiceif you are willing to vote for a Mormon, then I have misjudged you trach as being narrow minded like Debra, but I know you are among the anti-Mormons who post here.
What's with this anti-Mormon
May 15, 2007 - 21:50 ET by tracheostomyWhat's with this anti-Mormon labeling?
I don't run around saying "they all smell" and like generalizations.
All I care about are their core doctrines.
My best friend once said something applicable to this very conversation.
"If there were a church with the doctrine of the classical Reformers, the reverence of the Catholics, and the moral family values of the Mormons, then I'd join in a hearbeat."
I agree. My goal is to someday help make that a reality.
-PJ
"Trake: Your lofty convictions are another blemish on the rump of congregational sectarianism." -Tumbler 5/15/07
CV,That's it. I've lost it.
May 15, 2007 - 21:59 ET by BlondeCV,
That's it. I've lost it.
Voting, just because. <insert idiotic bigoted statement here>
As if we were all fourteen year old horny and stupid little girls.
This is idiotic.
That's it...five minutes and I'm out.
When I read these fools who vote based on religion
May 15, 2007 - 22:04 ET by RJWhen I read these fools who vote based on having the "right" religion, the word vacuous comes to mind.....
Blonde, I know its insane.
May 15, 2007 - 22:10 ET by Conservative VoiceBlonde, I know its insane. This argument is getting old and I am losing my patience. The President's religion DOESN'T MATTER folks! Its his fruit!
make up your own mind
May 15, 2007 - 21:59 ET by m1xramFrom CV: Yet we have people like you who make it a point to not only lie and
smear, but make it a point to claim that if you like Romney you are
going against the Bible and what the Bible says.
What have I lied about? I posted:
..from their site. Do you agree with the information above from Mormon.org? If so, please provide Biblical references to support your argument.
Then I posted:
Please, don't believe what I say. Go to Mormon.org and LDS.org and make up your own mind by reviewing their concepts with what's in the Bible.
m1xram
"the teachings of &quo
May 15, 2007 - 22:05 ET by Conservative Voice"the teachings of "prophet" Smith are not the Bible."
that is baseless, a smear and a lie.
I'll tell you where you lied m1xram
May 15, 2007 - 22:06 ET by RJI'll tell you where you lied m1xram. You denied that you were basing your vote on religion. That's a lie.
You denied that you were basing your vote on religion
May 15, 2007 - 22:38 ET by m1xramWhoa! where did I deny that? Point to the post.
m1xram
m1xram
May 15, 2007 - 22:49 ET by RJSo you ARE basing your vote on religion? Which is it?
If I am wrong, tell me right here that you would vote for a Mormon for President.
you're getting it now
May 15, 2007 - 23:18 ET by m1xramRJ, yes, I value Biblical values. Don't know how the confusion came in. I'm looking for a Christian canidate.
m1xram
Another feint, m1xram
May 15, 2007 - 23:25 ET by RJThat's another feint.
Again, would you vote for a Mormon for President?
Christian Canidate
May 15, 2007 - 23:35 ET by m1xramSorry, didn't mean to. The answer is no.
m1xram
Finally, the big question m1xram: why not?
May 15, 2007 - 23:47 ET by RJFinally, the big question m1xram: why not?
flamed
May 16, 2007 - 00:08 ET by m1xramRJ, I'll get seriously flamed. I've already been accused of lying, smearing, being a religious bigot, having open distain, etc. Now you want me to put my head in the rope and pull it tight. LOL
If this discussion had been more tolerant, I'd have been willing to comment.
Others, feel free to make up random assertions as to why.
m1xram
You haven't been flamed m1xram
May 16, 2007 - 00:23 ET by RJFunny how you want "tolerance", when you exhibit none yourself.
You haven't been flamed, m1xram. If you were, you'd know it. I've been pointing out your religious bigotry and your reluctance to be open with what you were attempting to do. And while I think you're extremely narrow-minded and make a poor conservative, I haven't been angry during this discussion.
reading my mind
May 16, 2007 - 00:43 ET by m1xramRJ, while you're reading my mind, tell me what I'm attempting to do. And while you're not flaming me, by calling me a religious bigot and narrow-minded, point to the post where I retaliated with a personal attack. Glad you're not angry, hate to see what you'd write then.
You even accuse me of being intolerant. If I stay here much longer you'll have me murdering people downtown.
m1xram
m1xram, question, don't tak
May 16, 2007 - 01:11 ET by Conservative Voicem1xram, question, don't take this as a flame, because I can tell you are sensitive to people disagreeing with you,
how is not voting for someone based on the fact they are Mormon not narrowminded or intolerant or a religious bigot?
Here is the thing, on things I know to be right about, I am closed minded. I am closed minded about capitalism, it works, it may not play nice, but its the most fair system. I am closed minded about Rush Limbaugh...I love the guy. I am closed minded about Al Gore...he's a snake. Get my point? In other words, if you are right wear your badge of narrow-mindedness with honor and pride....but if that stings, then chances are you are in the wrong and should re-think your position. So please, stop playing the victim card. I really am not trying to push your buttons with this, please read this the the tone of concern and kindness.
Well gee...
May 15, 2007 - 22:12 ET by Mr. BishopWe have you, on one hand, who knows nothing about the church, telling me what I believe in, and trying to tell others what we believe in. On the other hand, we have CV and myself, who are members, who do have our Bibles, who learn from our Bibles every Sunday. Somehow... I think I'll take my own word on what my church believes and teaches, versus what you interpret without any experience.
"Stop global warming! Asphyxiate a liberal!" - Show us how far you're willing to go to stop "global warming"
Dude... lighten up..
you lost me
May 15, 2007 - 22:46 ET by m1xramBishop, you lost me. The information came from Mormon.org. Contact them if it is a misstatement, the link should take you to the correct page.
I'm curious though, what's wrong with the information from Mormon.org?
m1xram
No
May 15, 2007 - 22:52 ET by Mr. BishopThe problem is your interpretations. Not what is written... your constant interpretation of what is written. I have spent a lifetime now, in this church. I know what we believe, and what we do not believe. You trying to interpret what we believe, is the annoyance. Do you get it now?
You haven't, since the beginning of this whole conversation, grasped that the LDS church studies the Bible AND the Book of Mormon together. You really just don't seem to care.
"Stop global warming! Asphyxiate a liberal!" - Show us how far you're willing to go to stop "global warming"
Dude... lighten up..
interpretations
May 15, 2007 - 23:39 ET by m1xramOk, without another personal attack, can you explain what I got wrong about the information from Mormon.org?
m1xram
Haven't yet
May 15, 2007 - 23:55 ET by Mr. BishopYou have become increasingly tiresome. I have shown you twice now -- how your information has been incorrect. You don't want to read? Fine -- that's your own problem. I will not show you again. When you learn how to read what is in front of you, and not interpret, then come back and talk to me. Until such time, there is little point in carrying on a conversation with you since your only mission on this thread, is one of disruption.
"Stop global warming! Asphyxiate a liberal!" - Show us how far you're willing to go to stop "global warming"
Dude... lighten up..
Not really
May 15, 2007 - 22:26 ET by Mr. BishopWhy should I examine Mormon.org? Why should I examine LDS.org? I have lived the religion every day since my birth. You did not say, originally, "the teachings of Joseph Smith were not the Bible, specifically relating to the Book of Mormon." What you originally said was, "Let's not get confused here, the teachings of "prophet" Smith are not the Bible". That statement says that Smith did not teach the Bible. This is erroneous and completely false. You make the assumption that all Joseph Smith taught, was the Book of Mormon. This is an incorrect statement. He taught the Book of Mormon, yes, but he taught to read it together with the Bible. As such, any statement you make to the contrary, or in some way ignoring of the Bible's relevance to the LDS faith, is where you go over the line from "relaying information", to just plain garbage.
Your smearing comes from relaying information, intentionally, or unintentionally, that is designed to make a false statement about the LDS faith, and present that belief as a valid statement to those who do not know.
Let me be perfectly clear -- I don't care for what reason you choose to not vote for Romney. Your statements lean toward it being because he is Mormon, then you backpedal and say it is another reason (of which you have no evidence). You don't like Romney for being Mormon, fine... vote how you will. However, I will say again -- voting against someone because of religion, is a lousy way to vote.
"Stop global warming! Asphyxiate a liberal!" - Show us how far you're willing to go to stop "global warming"
Dude... lighten up..
smeared religion
May 15, 2007 - 23:00 ET by m1xramSorry if you don't like my clarification. It is truely what I meant.
Mormon.org and LDS.org are what outsiders, like myself, go to find more information. If that information is incorrect I'll take your word for it, as you say, "you've lived it all your life."
Wow, if anything I grab from the official web site is a smear, I guess there is no discussion possible. Please correct...
..as soon as possible so others are not accused of smearing your religion falsely.
m1xram
No... that is NOT what I said
May 15, 2007 - 23:10 ET by Mr. BishopYou are really having a problem with the simple words? Perhaps that is why we are having such problem. I said, very clearly, the problem is with your interpretations of the words. I have said that very clearly. You make another error in your interpretation of words when you say that I say the website is in error. I never said anything along those lines. I said your interpretation has been in error from the beginning. Your statement, in the beginning, as I specifically documented for you, so you could not screw it up (and yet, somehow, you managed), is where the smear comes in. You did NOT quote from the website. You did NOT quote from any LDS source. You did NOT speak from anything, other then a blanket statement made, about a subject you know (clearly) nothing about. You said, and I quoted for you, "Let's not get confused here, the teachings of "prophet" Smith are not the Bible". I made this quotation very easy for you to find. You said it. They were your words. This is smear, as this is false information, designed to project an bad image, to those that do not know. Nowhere on that website, nor any LDS website, will you ever find anything remotely close to the statement YOU made. THAT is the smear, as I plainly provided for you before. What does what YOU have posted as the last quote, have anything to do with what I have been saying?
"Stop global warming! Asphyxiate a liberal!" - Show us how far you're willing to go to stop "global warming"
Dude... lighten up..
valid link
May 16, 2007 - 01:07 ET by m1xramThe link goes to Mormon.org, I clicked on it, it works. The title on the website says: The Restoration of Truth, The Great Apostasy. The quote is the last paragraph.
I accept the fact that you will never forgive me for my smear, as read in the original post, even though I've posted the clarification.
I have no other interest that trying to get the statement from "The Great Apostasy" (found at the link) to jive with what's in the Bible. But you say you're not intereseted in discussing religion, so we should end things here.
m1xram
Why does Romney's belief th
May 16, 2007 - 01:23 ET by Conservative VoiceWhy does Romney's belief that an apostasy took place matter? And please, do not assume that you will never be forgiven just because he or I have pointed out the smear...are we not told to forgive all? Are we also not told that when there is a problem with our brother we should resolve it?
I have been frustrated and offended with all of the on and on never ending of people who post assertions about what I believe as a way to convince people not to vote for Romney, but I do not hate you. I do not hate Debra, or anyone here. But please note, and I am saying this to you as well as to others like you, your constant harp on my religion does not make your religion more true, nor does it help us as conservatives unite together and be united Americans. You are playing right into the hands of the media and the liberals who want us to be divided. The stakes are high.
Hey, don't be offended. Man
May 16, 2007 - 01:57 ET by m1xramHey, don't be offended. Many people do not believe in God at all. Others argue about who God is. These disagreements in belief led to dozens of Church splits. God tells us to be one with each other and here we are arguing until 03:00.
Keep the faith, I'm going to bed.
m1xram
Finally something we can agre
May 16, 2007 - 02:20 ET by Conservative VoiceFinally something we can agree about :)
If you have genuine questions m1, botg, or trach, feel free to post me, I will do my best to answer them there. But if you are just trying to provoke, then please don't bother.
Let us unite together, and end this great divide between us.
revelation
May 16, 2007 - 01:45 ET by m1xramBishop, I think I found the pertinent information. After reading your comment, went back through it all and found what I missed.
That's what I wanted to know, thanks. Unfortunately I don't believe it. I think that the Old / New Testament stands on its own. Jesus clarified the law and told us what happens at the end.
I guess that's like the Jews who mostly do not believe the New Testament, but you wouldn't make fun of them would you. I think we should support God's chosen people.
Some people argue that:
..aplies to the whole New Testament. I'm not sure I agree. Sorry, I know you don't wish to discuss religion.
m1xram
I never once backed out of an
May 15, 2007 - 23:43 ET by tracheostomyI never once backed out of any assertion. You're getting as tiresome as many of the many liberals that think they have won an argument, but have no evidence to back up a single assertion made. I have not now, nor have I ever, "backed out" of any assertion to Mormons being Protestant.
Well okay, but if you have no evidence, then wouldn't the smart move be to. . .?
You made a stupid statement that "you have known lifelong Mormons that would disagree", and I provided for you the definition by which most of the world views Protestant v. Catholic on. So, don't put words in my mouth.
From a non-Mormon site?? C'mon, you can do better.
I have never once said you disregard based upon religion. Looking back over my post, I don't say anything remotely close to that. What I do say, is that I do not preach my religion. I do not condemn anyone based upon their religion. I did say, that I do not think anyone should disregard a candidate based upon religion. I did not, not once, say you did that.
Okay, I'll grant that. I'm really sensitive to NB members who wanna get on the wagon with each other and label me a Debra clone. She takes snapshots of people who have not yet died and takes the position of God; condemning them on the spot. I believe people can change (and have changed). I am not God, but I do have the duty to urge others to both repent and defend the scriptural and historical evidence of my faith.
I'm asking you to please respect that.
Finally -- You have come onto this thread now, as it is plainly obivious by your last two sentences, as a means to preach a religion, and find ways to shoot down others. You don't threaten my convictions, and I have no clue why you think you have anything remotely close to the ability to do that. You're extremely arrogant to assume you have that power over me.
Then why don't we calm down and examine why Romney's supporters keep downplaying his most sacred; cherished beliefs. There's a valid problem with that, and you're not willing to admit it (but maybe after this post you will be).
It's like walking up to him in person and saying his mother doesn't matter as much as your own personal shopping list. Get it?
Also, can you show me anywhere, in this thread, where I have ever once said anything remotely close to "fill(ing) up he [sic] thread with "bigot" ad hominem arguments"?
Apologies. See above. Like yourself, I don't want this going a certain direction either.
You asked for proof, to which I responded with proof, at which point you decided to take it upon you to try and "show" why my religion is wrong somehow.
If you mean the link, that's not proof. It is simply a "just so" statement. I remove the accusation of attacking me personally, but not your incredibly lame link. Hopefully you'll be willing to dish up something better. I'm open to that.
When I responded to your "misnomer" point, you seem to take offense at it. I don't really care, to be honest. I was civil with you, and yet, you come at me in this last post in full attack mode because your "point" did not stick.
But it does. You're clinging to common historical misconceptions and "just so" statements from a site that has "tolerance" as it's only goal without consideration of anything else. Like say. . .my links!
This is the exact reason I refuse to discuss religion. People take it way too personally, and I (unlike most it seems) respect people's religions far too much, to simply try and trash them at every turn. Congratulations.
I maintain that you do not have to emotionally "attach" yourself to this issue. You can walk away any time. I don't even know your real name. This isn't about you.
All I'm attacking are your arguments.
-PJ
"Trake: Your lofty convictions are another blemish on the rump of congregational sectarianism." -Tumbler 5/15/07
Just wanna point out somethin
May 15, 2007 - 23:56 ET by tracheostomyJust wanna point out something kinda crazy here. . .
This is the exact reason I refuse to discuss religion. People take it way too personally, and I (unlike most it seems) respect people's religions far too much, to simply try and trash them at every turn. Congratulations.
You're telling me that you're upset because people take something that they are personally convinced is a life-and-death issue. . .as a life and death issue.
Is that what you're trying to tell me? If it is, that is not very tolerant of the issue that people are hanging their very mortality on.
-PJ
"Trake: Your lofty convictions are another blemish on the rump of congregational sectarianism." -Tumbler 5/15/07
You know what? Read whateve
May 16, 2007 - 00:08 ET by Mr. BishopYou know what? Read whatever you want into the statement I made. I am tired of making my statements any more clear for the likes of people who are intentionally trying to cause fights, as well as those who are intentionally trying to take something the wrong way.
I am sick to death of people trying to push their religion on me, on these forums. I am sick to death of people doing whatever they can, to try and bash someone's religion, in an attempt to make themselves feel better. I don't agree with anything tumbler says on illegal immigration, and I don't agree with his view on religion. I don't like his constant attempts to decry everyone as heretics for not being Catholic, anymore then I really enjoy Debra's constant attempts to decry Mormons as following Satan. I really just get annoyed by all of that. I don't see why it is that it is heading that way. I don't comment on tumbler's religious beliefs because they are HIS beliefs. The only response I give to Debra is correcting false information that she spreads about the LDS church. I don't comment on other's religions.
If I wanted that, I'd go to a religious forum, and discuss religion there. I don't because far too many people are way too ready to declare everyone else not following their beliefs as being condemned to Hell. Frankly, I am just plain tired of all the religious superiority that I keep seeing on a POLITICAL forum.
"Stop global warming! Asphyxiate a liberal!" - Show us how far you're willing to go to stop "global warming"
Dude... lighten up..
You will not sit there and de
May 16, 2007 - 00:16 ET by tracheostomyYou will not sit there and deliberately mischaracterize me. My statements stand on their own. I clearly stated that we don't have to discuss where you stand in your personal faith. I agree it's supposed to be about Romney.
Can't you at least do that?
It's not my fault the media is making religion an a-list political issue. Blame Falwell for that. EDIT: Or the resulting atheist backlash, or Islamicism. I hate religion in politics! But since it's an issue, it has to be dealt with.
I made a statement and I want someone to explain it to me. It doesn't have to be you Bish. You can tap out if you wanna. But I want to get to the truth about something that I have not resolved personally. Do you hear me? I don't have the answer to the Romney question.
Why are his supporters downplaying his personal convictions as if they're not important? They're certainly important to himself as well as the media.
I'm not dogmatic about this issue here. But it needs to be agreed on that Romney's camp has a problem with this that must be dealt with.
-PJ
"Trake: Your lofty convictions are another blemish on the rump of congregational sectarianism." -Tumbler 5/15/07
"You will not sit there
May 16, 2007 - 00:59 ET by Conservative Voice"You will not sit there and deliberately mischaracterize me."
Yet it is ok to mischaracterize Mormon beliefs?
"Why are his supporters downplaying his personal convictions as if
they're not important? They're certainly important to himself as well
as the media."
Why is a person's religion important trach? That is what I, Mr Bishop and others have said over and over. And please note, Mr Bishop and I aren't Romney supporters, though Romney is growing on me.
"They're certainly important to himself"
So, how does his faith effect yours? Why do you keep downplaying "judge them by their friuts"?
"...as well as the media."
This is a no-brainer. Do you notice how often the media points out to everyone that Senator Harry Reid is Mormon? What? crickets you hear? That is because the media doesn't care. But they know people like you care, and so they play the religion card to divide us, you are playing right into their hands.
Let me speak frank. Lets suppose we had a Ronald Reagan candidate, a real strong conservative. Lets suppose this clone of Ronald is exactly like Ronald, only he is belongs to a religion that believes God is green and speaks with a really high pitch voice. But his morality, his position on when we should go to war, how we should fight that war, his position on taxes, and spending,were the same as mine...and he was able to hold his own with class in any debate...I would vote for him! Because his fruits tell me he is OK.
Are all the people you voted for of your religion, and believe as strongly as you with no deviation? No? Because I dare say it didn't matter to you, yet somehow the fact Romney is Mormon matters now. His religion (tree) DOES NOT MATTER, his FRUIT does.
Case in point, if Harry Reid were running for President, even though he goes to my Church, I would not vote for him, his FRUIT isn't good.
Yet it is ok to mischaracteri
May 16, 2007 - 01:23 ET by tracheostomyYet it is ok to mischaracterize Mormon beliefs?
More evidence that the religion is personal. ^^^ You attack the doctrine, that is then interpreted as a personal attack. This is despite the fact that Mormons are sketchy about doctrinal matters outside of thier own soteriology. Every time, they still get defensive when any of it is questioned.
Why is a person's religion important trach? That is what I, Mr Bishop and others have said over and over. And please note, Mr Bishop and I aren't Romney supporters, though Romney is growing on me.
Point taken. But that's my question. Why is a candidate's religion so important to the media? I sincerely asked first and have no honest answer. It appears since the country is so divided over ethical issues, then religion becomes more of a priority. Can you agree with that?
So, how does his faith effect yours? Why do you keep downplaying "judge them by their friuts"?
Because I don't want to attack your misuse of scripture, okay? I'm trying to use velvet gloves and you're making it hard.
This is a no-brainer. Do you notice how often the media points out to everyone that Senator Harry Reid is Mormon? What? crickets you hear? That is because the media doesn't care. But they know people like you care, and so they play the religion card to divide us, you are playing right into their hands.
I agree that might be an issue. But I'm still undecided. I'm not the final say here. That's why the vote is divided among many. . .right? That's a good thing, right?
Let me speak frank. Lets suppose we had a Ronald Reagan candidate, a real strong conservative. Lets suppose this clone of Ronald is exactly like Ronald, only he is belongs to a religion that believes God is green and speaks with a really high pitch voice. But his morality, his position on when we should go to war, how we should fight that war, his position on taxes, and spending,were the same as mine...and he was able to hold his own with class in any debate...I would vote for him! Because his fruits tell me he is OK.
I would be sketchy about him. Sorry. Let's say your Reagan clone was a Scientologist. I've argued that in the past. Everyone goes crazy about Scientologists and their religious history, I don't see it as much different from Mormonism if you look forward 100 years.
Why? Doctrine. Every Jesus or prophet I come across I will test as the Bible tells me to. So a Spirit introduces him or herself and tells you "Hi, this is a fact; do this, do that." How do you know that spirit is any more trustworthy that someone you meet at a bar or in a dark alley?
as you with no deviation? No? Because I dare say it didn't matter to you, yet somehow the fact Romney is Mormon matters now. His religion (tree) DOES NOT MATTER, his FRUIT does.
:sigh: For every tree is known by its own fruit. For men do not gather figs from thorns, nor do they gather grapes from a bramble bush. The fruit is not paid exclusive attention to ---> apart from the tree. Get it? You are deliberately omitting the tree and saying "Just pay attention to the fruit." That's not what the Bible says! You're either taking it all out of context to suit your presupposition, or someone fed it to you. Read with an open mind and know the whole story.
-PJ
"Trake: Your lofty convictions are another blemish on the rump of congregational sectarianism." -Tumbler 5/15/07
Mr Bishop ---I say this with sincerity--
May 16, 2007 - 00:32 ET by misterbillMr Bishop --I say this with sincerity--I have followed quite a bit of these threads. You have shown infinite patience. You are more of a gentleman than I. I am a Christian, I am a Catholic, I am a conservative (who happens at this time to be a registered Republican), I am, as are all of you, many things. Ultimately, I am me, a product, largely of my upbringing and proudly, of my own making. I have been quite disappointed in the trend of this blog to become a central point for "my religion's better than yours". By and large I respect all religions. As an American , I do not normally worry about any person's religion when they run for office. As a matter of fact, quite often, I do not worry about their party either. (See Lieberman, a fine example.) I have allowed my temper to get the best of me on four separate occasions in my 46(?) weeks on this site. I am a bit embarrassed by it. I should rise above it. I am only human, I cannot, to some degree, help myself when I see the arguments being held. However, the people that bother me are the ones who try to take this site and proselytize or in some cases , insult those of another sect. Your last sentence(Frankly, I am just plain tired of all the religious superiority that I keep seeing on a POLITICAL forum.", tells it all. I have for a while been poking around at other sites. I have been spending less and less time here and more and more time reading various newspapers and my favorite "The National Review". This was CLEARLY the best of all the sites when I first started blogging. The staff writers and editors are outstanding. Many of the members have outstanding personal experiences to share. My particular favorites are those of you in uniform who serve the rest of us at this time.
You mentioned a few names. They are clearly the same names I would choose. We have enough to suffer with the drive through Libs without having those of the same political bent as us diverting all the threads to religion. I am going to continue on for a while, but if it remains the holy cathedral of "my religion is better than yours" I most certainly will stop participating.
In closing, I have very much enjoyed your posts. I hope the patience you have shown will carry you through for a while longer. Perhaps the editorial staff will push us all back in line.