Shirtless Mormons; Nudity Everywhere!

posted at 1:37 pm on September 14, 2007 by see-dubya

I just put up this Reuters item on the headline feed, about how public norms of modesty and nudity are changing, when what should I see but a Telegraph blog post about how buttoned-up Mormon missionaries (without official LDS approval) are unbuttoning a bit for a new calendar:

The 2008 calendar features “hunky young men of faith” who “explode with sexuality”. Although the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is not endorsing the exercise, it’s not a spoof.

Pass your cursor over the pic of soberly clad Kenny and he loses that polyester shirt. Should you feel inclined, you can also find out about his mission field in the Philippines. Spreading the word put him on “a path that leads to God”, providing him with “internal peace and happiness,” he says.

The calendar link is here; if you’re not Mormon, a gay guy, or a girl you won’t be interested. The rest of the Telegraph piece, however, contains a supremely creepy quote from a gay Catholic priest.

Meanwhile, money quote from that article on public nudity:

“I do think that general attitudes about nudity are becoming more relaxed, but these changes take time, which is why there’s still mixed responses,” said Paul Levinson, communication and media professor at Fordham University.

“We as a society are finally growing up and it’s a healthy thing,” he said.

Why is there an assumption that more acceptance of public nudity is a healthy thing, or that the abandonment of social codes that evolved over thousands of years is “growing up”? Putting aside serious conservative concerns–like the importance of modesty as a bulwark value of the traditional family–as we’ve seen in unforgettable photos at several Bay Area protests, there’s See Dub’s Iron Law of Public Nudity: people most interested in exposing themselves are almost always the people with the least justification for doing so.

Moronic exit question: does this calendar help or hurt Romney? Of course it shouldn’t either way, but does it?


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2

Spray on clothes!

RushBaby on September 14, 2007 at 4:23 PM

Stormy70 on September 14, 2007 at 4:10 PM

Gracias, Stormy. Upped my sitemeter count a bit. :-) (No naked exercise photos there, though.)

I’ll be back later, folks. Gotta go pick up my glasses (bifocals, to stress my old bagness).

baldilocks on September 14, 2007 at 4:24 PM

Buy Danish on September 14, 2007 at 3:55 PM

Move on, okay, he was there serving his church when others were serving (and dying) for their country. He already has been caught with two different stories on his “service”. Move on.
And no one ever goes to France and not eat a chocolate croissant.

right2bright on September 14, 2007 at 4:30 PM

There was one basketball player, a center can’t remember his name, wrote a book and said all of the BB players loved going to Salt Lake City, that was where the best woman “action” was. He said every ball player loved those Mormon women. New York, to uppity…LA to money hungry, but he said SLC, like taking candy from a baby. He wrote something about having a lot of dissappointed mormon boys on the wedding night…you did what? with who?

right2bright on September 14, 2007 at 4:34 PM

I’ll be back later, folks. Gotta go pick up my glasses (bifocals, to stress my old bagness).

baldilocks on September 14, 2007 at 4:24 PM

Grrr, I’m 46 and wear bifocals and do not resemble that remark…quit trying to give as 46 year old bifocal wearing people a bad image…

doriangrey on September 14, 2007 at 4:36 PM

Christoph on September 14, 2007 at 4:22 PM

There’s a big difference between public and private, and wearing clothes is part of being civilized. Of course wearing too many clothes, like women in Burkas, is uncivilized, which could appear to be a paradox but isn’t.

And I think men in suits are sexy, and so are photos of half naked guys with great broad shoulders, as long as it’s the top half that’s naked.

Buy Danish on September 14, 2007 at 4:39 PM

The “Christian Right” ogling hot humans and imbibing yuck substances? They’d never believe it.

baldilocks on September 14, 2007 at 4:18 PM

The only difference between this thread and any on a left-wing site is that every post isn’t devoted to spewing hatred of America and George W. Bush. We’re having far too much fun enjoying American freedom to degrade to that pathetic state.

BKennedy on September 14, 2007 at 4:40 PM

Buy Danish on September 14, 2007 at 4:39 PM

And that’s the majority opinion. However, nudity is still natural and good.

Christoph on September 14, 2007 at 4:43 PM

BKennedy on September 14, 2007 at 4:40 PM

F you, fascist!

Christoph on September 14, 2007 at 4:44 PM

The rest of the Telegraph piece, however, contains a supremely creepy quote from a gay Catholic priest.

Frankly, I find Damian Thompson to be even creepier for putting it into print.

The guy’s pic gives off an Uncle Ernie vibe.

The Ugly American on September 14, 2007 at 4:45 PM

Whoa, that is creepy.

Christoph on September 14, 2007 at 4:47 PM

F you, fascist!

Christoph on September 14, 2007 at 4:44 PM

Hah hah haa only a conservative could come up with a insult that is self censoring…Try harder or the libs will spot your conservative bias and mock your for pretending to be a lib…

doriangrey on September 14, 2007 at 4:48 PM

F you, fascist!

Christoph on September 14, 2007 at 4:44 PM

Sig Heil to the Chief, the Commander of the Nation…

I mean uh, Oh, Canada.

BKennedy on September 14, 2007 at 4:54 PM

He was there serving his church when others were serving (and dying) for their country. He already has been caught with two different stories on his “service”. Move on.

right2bright on September 14, 2007 at 4:30 PM

You really don’t like it when you are presented with cold, hard facts do you? You didn’t have anything to say about military service when you made your now infamous statement at 12:29 a.m on September 7th. You were talking about privilege, so this is just another dodge.

And no one ever goes to France and not eat a chocolate croissant.

I did.

Buy Danish on September 14, 2007 at 5:03 PM

Whatever–I still don’t like it.

And it may not be well known, but Salt Lake is not majority LDS anymore… with, of course, predictable increases in crime, drug use, etc etc etc.

What’s funny is that clearly, See-Dub is trying to muscle in on Allah’s religion thread-bait. *grins*

Vanceone on September 14, 2007 at 5:11 PM

Vanceone on September 14, 2007 at 5:11 PM

You mean posting about things that people either find entertaining or dear to their heart and passions? On a blog?

Shocking.

Christoph on September 14, 2007 at 5:14 PM

Do you suppose that Mitt Romney would finally be able to compete with Fred Thompson if he showed up at the next televised debates without his shirt on?

My collie says:

csdeven will respond in V, IV, III, II …

CyberCipher on September 14, 2007 at 5:20 PM

hot!!!!!!

The Sinner on September 14, 2007 at 5:25 PM

Just wait….coming soon, “Sexy Shirtless Prez Candidates ’08″

Hey, at least it’s not THIS

JetBoy on September 14, 2007 at 5:27 PM

Hey, can we NOT turn this thread into yet another Mitt vs Fred thread?

Cool your jets idgit Fredheads. Assuming Fred shows up for the debate, we’ll see what happens.

BKennedy on September 14, 2007 at 5:32 PM

Christoph, for your education, I was referring to the calendar, not See-Dub. And I note that once again, you displayed such anti_mormon bigotry that everyone shut you down earlier in this thread. For which I’m thankful, everyone.

And I don’t get why some people bash the idea of serving a mission over the military as taking the cheap way out. When I was on my mission, I knew several fellow missionaries who got shot at, and one poor guy was deliberately shoved into traffic on a highway and a van hit him at 60 miles an hour. I served myself in some of the worst ghettos in the nation here, and lots of people I know were in places the US Military never goes–like upper Paraguay, etc. Sure, as a general rule, it’s safer than joining a military at war, but I guarantee you serving a mission is probably at least as tough as serving in, say, the Swedish military. It’s tough in a different kind of way. We dealt with restrictions military people don’t have, and it’s just as much volunteer (heck, even more–we weren’t paid for our work). So please, don’t bash Mitt or anyone else for their missionary service. I have just as much respect for Jehovah’s Witnesses and those who go into darkest Africa from other faiths as well.

Vanceone on September 14, 2007 at 5:50 PM

“anti_mormon bigotry”

I don’t have a problem with Mormons as people. I like Mitt Romney, which, if you’ve actually read my posts on him, you’d realize.

I respect Mormon missionaries and have stated that here and elsewhere for having the courage and resolve to do two year’s/eighteen month’s of unpaid missionary work advocating what they believe in, however much they disagree.

Joseph Smith, your founder, is a different matter. He was a liar, a fraud, a sexual abuser who preyed on people’s religious motivations for his own corrupt gain… as were many to follow him, especially his successor.

The Mormon faith is false. You believe evil doctrines and follow evil men. I will always oppose them.

Christoph on September 14, 2007 at 5:59 PM

WOW!!!

not a discussion i expected in a thread at hotair….

gberez on September 14, 2007 at 6:06 PM

WOW!!!

not a discussion i expected in a thread at hotair….

gberez on September 14, 2007 at 6:06 PM

You have GOT to be kidding =)

RushBaby on September 14, 2007 at 6:13 PM

Joseph Smith, your founder, is a different matter. He was a liar, a fraud, a sexual abuser who preyed on people’s religious motivations for his own corrupt gain… as were many to follow him, especially his successor.

The Mormon faith is false. You believe evil doctrines and follow evil men. I will always oppose them.

Christoph on September 14, 2007 at 5:59 PM

I think what comes off as bigotry is the “evil doctrines and evil men” bit. What you could say is about the same thing I say about Islam:

“Your prophet was a pedophile warmonger who established a sick warrior cult that subjugates women. His screeds were interpreted by literalists who have kept your societies locked for the most part in the 7th Century everywhere that Sharia has taken hold.”

I think your stance could better be handled by: “Joseph Smith was a marauding defrauder who, despite the fact he personally was a corrupt, horrid excuse for a human being managed to create a religion whose current followers are for the most part paragons of human virtue.”

BKennedy on September 14, 2007 at 6:39 PM

Vanceone on September 14, 2007 at 5:50 PM

Thanks for your comments. I admire anyone who is willing and able to endure the Spartan circumstances of mission life – and frankly I had no idea what it entailed until recently as I began to study Mitt’s bio.

Right2bright thinks a mission in France like Mitt pursued is something to be envied and scorned, and now she(?) is pulling the military service rabbit out of her(?) hat, ignoring the fact that most of the candidates have no military service at all.

Indeed, if military service were a prerequisite as right2bright is implying we would have a very small list of candidates to choose from on both sides of the aisle.

Finally, by definition, “deferments” are only temporary anyway.

Buy Danish on September 14, 2007 at 6:46 PM

Dude, I know Mormons and they are no better, no worse than the populace at large. They are not paragons of human virtue, smoking notwithstanding.

Some are (paragons) — I’ve met a few — and most aren’t.

The majority of higher leadership in the LDS church today are, I suspect, as dishonest as they ever were. Their dishonesty is highlighted by the fact they don’t even hold to their own church doctrines. Instead, they change them when laws or public pressures force them to.

I don’t wish to accommodate that religion. I would prefer to see its membership reduced because it teaches people that which isn’t true and leads them down a false path.

Where did you get the paragons of virtue thing anyway? Holy superiority complex. You’re Mormon, right?

I don’t know many people who would describe any group they belong to that way, with the perhaps the exception of their family.

Christoph on September 14, 2007 at 6:52 PM

And I don’t get why some people bash the idea of serving a mission over the military as taking the cheap way out. When I was on my mission, I knew several fellow missionaries who got shot at, and one poor guy was deliberately shoved into traffic on a highway and a van hit him at 60 miles an hour.
Vanceone on September 14, 2007 at 5:50 PM

In France? In the 1970′s?

But I’m sure that having a father (who returned from Vietnam claiming to have been “brainwashed” by the military) in an influential position in the Mormon church had no impact on where his son was sent on mission.

Hollowpoint on September 14, 2007 at 6:56 PM

Where did you get the paragons of virtue thing anyway? Holy superiority complex. You’re Mormon, right?

I don’t know many people who would describe any group they belong to that way, with the perhaps the exception of their family.

Christoph on September 14, 2007 at 6:52 PM

Actually I’m Catholic, and I concede my evidence is mostly anecdotal based on things I’ve heard from others.

BKennedy on September 14, 2007 at 6:56 PM

Fair enough.

Religious people of many kinds including Mormon or Muslim are more likely to be pious, to cover up their bodies, not drink alcohol, etc… while not bad in and of themselves this does not a paragon of virtue make.

I would argue the religion breeds self-delusion in at the core and we could discuss the reasons why this is so if you like. I am sure Mormons learn good things from their church: I did.

Yet I’m also sure they learn many untrue things and a deliberately sanitized version of their history. I don’t hate Mormons. I will not refrain from criticizing ideas I oppose.

My acerbic way of doing so is not limited to the LDS church, I assure you.

Christoph on September 14, 2007 at 7:03 PM

2 points…..

These young men have obviously completed their missions.

There is about as much wrong with this as there is Steve Young throwing footballs on Sunday.

Call me when we get the calendar full of half-naked hot Mormon chicks. Otherwise I’m not interested.

BKennedy on September 14, 2007 at 2:51 PM

What is your definition of “hot”. A hot LDS chick (to an lds dude) is dressed to the nines with a high collar, knee length shirt, and a blouse that covers the shoulders.

csdeven on September 14, 2007 at 7:07 PM

Indeed, if military service were a prerequisite as right2bright is implying we would have a very small list of candidates to choose from on both sides of the aisle.

Finally, by definition, “deferments” are only temporary anyway.

Buy Danish on September 14, 2007 at 6:46 PM

No one’s saying that military service should be mandatory. The question is- how far did they go to avoid military service, and was there special influence involved.

Were Rudy or (by some unfortunate miracle) Mitt to get the nomination, you can bet your bottom dollar the MSM would spend at least a straight week (if not month) “investigating” their deferments, either of which sound at least a little shady, Rudy’s moreso than Mitt’s. It would make the “draft dodger” allegations against Bush- who was actually in the military at the time- look like a small flash in the pan by comparison.

I don’t know how much impact such allegations and investigations would have, but I don’t doubt it would have at least some effect considering the current political climate.

Hollowpoint on September 14, 2007 at 7:07 PM

BKennedy on September 14, 2007 at 6:39 PM

Christoph is quite the Fundamentalist when it comes to his rejection of Mormonism.

I was raised in a traditional orthodox Christian faith, but my virtue pales in comparison to Romney, so I’m left to conclude that it doesn’t matter and I am in no position to “judge” as it were.

Christoph,

You sound far more, shall we say, “kooky”, than Mitt, so based on that alone I’m going to have to go with the “self-delusional” Mormon over the pragmatic Atheist, or whatever it is you view yourself as.

Buy Danish on September 14, 2007 at 7:11 PM

A hot LDS chick (to an lds dude) is dressed to the nines with a high collar, knee length shirt, and a blouse that covers the shoulders.

I don’t know, csdeven, some of the LDS chicks (there were lots) I’ve “known” — quotation marks intentional and mean exactly what you’d think they mean — were pretty hot even when not dressed in what you describe above or anything at all.

Christoph on September 14, 2007 at 7:12 PM

I was raised in a traditional orthodox Christian faith, but my virtue pales in comparison to Romney, so I’m left to conclude that it doesn’t matter and I am in no position to “judge” as it were.

Ever the intellectual genius.

“My virtue pales”… this forces you to conclude “that it doesn’t matter”

Without going over the merits, that process is what passes for thought between your ears.

Christoph on September 14, 2007 at 7:14 PM

A hot LDS chick (to an lds dude) is dressed to the nines with a high collar, knee length shirt, and a blouse that covers the shoulders.

Ha ha. Funny joke. Pity God wasted all that time making breasts, hips, and pretty faces when he could have just given humans an instinctual weaving capacity.

It does make you wonder if wardrobe is the main criteria Mormon men love, why it’s founder married 33-women including a 14-year old.

Her skirt must have been very long for him to be attracted. Yes. I’m sure that was it.

Christoph on September 14, 2007 at 7:19 PM

No one’s saying that military service should be mandatory. The question is- how far did they go to avoid military service, and was there special influence involved.

Hollowpoint on September 14, 2007 at 7:07 PM

I was referring to a very specific and particularly obnoxious series of comments from right2bright who has singled out Mitt for opprobrium on this topic.

I am not saying that it won’t be discussed by the MSM, but the Dems are going to look pretty silly if they start arguing this, and I certainly am not going to vote for McCain just because he is a genuine hero.

For all his heroism he is a cranky, difficult person who has made some very bad and unwise law that we are now stuck with – much to our detriment and much to my disgust.

Unfortunately Fred has considerable baggage on exactly this issue, and has a lot of splaining to do.

Buy Danish on September 14, 2007 at 7:26 PM

No, I served my mission in New Jersey in the late 90′s. And Hollowpoint, one of my best friends went to France. Trust me, it is no picnic. And no, the leaders or prominent men do NOT have any “Pull” on where their children get sent. In fact, the European missions are regarded as some of the hardest of all… due to the atheism and materialism of the people there. My dad served in Germany, and it was rough. It is, in truth, a Spartan existence. My dad served around the same time as Mitt, in the 70′s, and he tells of only having a 5 gallon water heater for 4 guys to all shower in the morning, a tiny apartment, and on and on. It’s NOT a picnic, nor a vacation.

I’ve personally had cops try to escort me out of town for preaching. I’ve had a city counsel try to ban us. And any time we want to build a temple, my church has to fight like tooth and nail to overcome bigotry like Christoph’s “evil doctrines, self-delusion, and we are being led by evil men” words. Put bluntly, that’s slanderous. We have a MUCH harder time than any Islamic group in the US, since there’s so much political correctness, while people like Christoph can rage on about how my faith is out to corrupt, mislead, blah blah blah….

Did you know I eat babies? It’s because my leaders tell me so! And sheeplike, I follow everything they say… And I sacrifice other peoples goats under direct orders of my evil church leaders, too! But I don’t bother paying for them first, of course. And I’m sorry, but you can’t feel my horns because I left them home today. In fact, President Hinckley (the equivalent of our Pope) just yesterday came to my house to pump all of my newborn daughters life-blood directly into his wasted, evil veins(cackling all the while), just because he rolls like that. And I was happy to do it! I and the other members of the 5th largest religion in America are corrupt to the core like that, obviously. Because we cannot see the TRUTH that some people can so clearly see; how they can tell me exactly what I believe and how it’s soooo, sooooo wrong. I LIKE being delusional, misguided, and worshipping what appears to be the devil-inspired doctrines so many people claim I have.

At least, that appears to be Christoph’s version of what I believe and do.

Back to reality, and not the fantasies some people peddle,
I will say that if you follow the LDS teachings, you will be a better person. No shame in that. Heck, I wish more Catholics, more Baptists, actually followed their faith’s teachings instead of paying lip service. Someone who follows a (good) moral path is, I think, more virtuous than not. That should be self-evident.

Vanceone on September 14, 2007 at 7:26 PM

SAT Question:

CRISTOPH is to MORMONS as CSDEVEN is to:

A. FRED
B. FRED!
C. THE PROSPECT THAT FORMER SEN. FRED DALTON THOMPSON WILL BE ELECTED PRESIDENT
D: ALL OF THE ABOVE

see-dubya on September 14, 2007 at 7:27 PM

the Dems are going to look pretty silly if they start arguing this

And I’m sure that’s exactly what they’re terrified of. This will cause them to refrain from attacking. For sure.

Christoph on September 14, 2007 at 7:28 PM

Funny, see-dubya.

The one problem with your post is the word “Mormons”. It should read “Mormonism” and then it’s completely accurate.

On the contrary, I know, have known, and have loved several Mormons. I don’t mind them.

I also have nothing against Mitt. On the contrary — I think he’s a very strong candidate because he’s a very capable man.

I can separate disagreeing with someone’s religion from the totality of who they are.

Christoph on September 14, 2007 at 7:30 PM

Christoph,

Kerist. It should be very clear that I am talking about the fact that my orthodox religious background did not produce a better person than Mitt’s unorthodox one, and THAT is the point.

Buy Danish on September 14, 2007 at 7:31 PM

Actually I’m Catholic, and I concede my evidence is mostly anecdotal based on things I’ve heard from others.

BKennedy on September 14, 2007 at 6:56 PM

The LDS do hold themselves to a pretty tight set of standards. This gives the impression that they think they are “holier than thou”, especially to those who have deep seated character flaws. But I can assure you they are not taught to feel superior to others. They see their own weaknesses as their enemy and are usually trying to rectify them. This is a never ending task as no one is perfect, and the second you overcome one, there pops up another. There are some who feel superior, but they have character issues as well.

csdeven on September 14, 2007 at 7:34 PM

As for modesty, there is nothing wrong with modesty, and I’m frankly rather ashamed that some people seem to be implying there is.

You see, I personally believe a modest person has much more self respect than someone who is acting sluttish. There’s no need for a burka or anything, but a nice modest girl is (usually) someone I’d rather marry. There ARE more things to dating and relationships than whether or not a girl has a nice rack, you know. Stuff like intelligence, wit, humor, and personality. I’d rather be able to talk to a girl and not have to avoid looking down because she’s hanging out all over the place.

Besides, the MSM and Dem’s all preach slutty behavior. Why would I want to join them?

Vanceone on September 14, 2007 at 7:34 PM

Christoph on September 14, 2007 at 7:28 PM

Logic is not one of their defining characteristics. The same people who slander General Petreus will call some of the candidates Chickenhawks if it suits their purposes (and fuels their insatiable rage).

Buy Danish on September 14, 2007 at 7:41 PM

Vanceone on September 14, 2007 at 7:26 PM

Christoph is a former member of the LDS church. He is obviously deeply hurt by some propaganda that he has been exposed to. He is the perfect example of why the Savior spoke in parables.

Mark 4:22-24

22″(O)For nothing is hidden, except to be revealed; nor has anything been secret, but that it would come to light.

23″(P)If anyone has ears to hear, let him hear.”

csdeven on September 14, 2007 at 7:42 PM

see-dubya on September 14, 2007 at 7:27 PM

Yer stretching dude. Christoph is a bigot. I am engaged in vetting a fake and a liar.

csdeven on September 14, 2007 at 7:43 PM

:::sigh::: so much for the beefcake

baldilocks on September 14, 2007 at 8:10 PM

Welcome to the fun religious thread!
baldilocks on September 14, 2007 at 4:05 PM

You just didn’t give it enough time.

SouthernDem on September 14, 2007 at 8:21 PM

Oh man. I hope Heather Armstrong gets home before this plays out. She’ll have a field day with it.

p.s. – Holy Hannah. They look so different in the rollover pictures…

Tanya on September 14, 2007 at 9:08 PM

This smells of “spoof” to me. Oh well, the Mormon gods keep changing their minds about things celestial so what the heck. Why not a change of heart down here in the terrestrial

Mojave Mark on September 14, 2007 at 9:20 PM

As for modesty, there is nothing wrong with modesty, and I’m frankly rather ashamed that some people seem to be implying there is.

You see, I personally believe a modest person has much more self respect than someone who is acting sluttish.

Vanceone on September 14, 2007 at 7:34 PM

I respect your views on this completely. I agree and disagree all at once.

I think modesty is a virtue and there’s no reason to put your ass in someone’s face so to speak. I’ll give you an example. Pretty much as I just described.

I’m eating at McDonald’s a couple years back. There’s this girl, pretty, probably 16, maybe 17 sitting with her friend. And you know how girls where short pants these days.

Well, she did plus cut off the wasteband of her jeans where a belt would normally go. When she sat down to eat her ass literally flopped out. I mean, this is no butt crack here, this is the virtually the whole thing and I’m trying to eat.

While I don’t particularly prefer teenage girls (far from it — they’re often silly… give me a woman from 25-35 any day, sometimes outside of that range and not always younger either) I’m not immune to noticing a 16-year old hottie’s naked butt 10 feet away in a McDonald’s either.

So I made an intentional effort to ignore this as did several other people who I am sure were uncomfortable. I’m certain the girl knew it was visible and this was her thing; maybe to attract, but mostly to intimidate. It was like a game.

Since I couldn’t think of much else while eating I said to heck with this and got up and spoke with her. Almost verbatim:

“Excuse me. Forgive the interruption, but… I just wanted to tell you I think you have a really nice ass and I thank you for sharing it with everyone.”

She blushed, looked totally embarrassed, and said thanks or something like it. Now she looked intimidated and not me.

I went back, sat, and ate my meal without hardly giving it another thought feeling much better about everything.

She took her jacket and covered up soon after this. Point made.

Moral of the story?

I don’t know. I just see your point. I would have a lot more respect for her if she wasn’t doing that because that was… well, I don’t know what it was.

But I also thought the controversy over Michelle Malkin’s photoshopped bikini photos was really stupid. That wasn’t her body.

But even the original person whose body it was did nothing wrong. She posed in a bikini and, intentionally, showed off her beautiful and God-given body. Or nature derived body. Whichever.

In a world where people hunt each other I can forgive a person for saying, “Hey, do I look good? What do you think of my cleavage”

Like Allahpundit, I believe we are part of nature and descended from primates. Naked primates. Naked-not-at-all-immoral-as-a-result primates.

I think nudity is a good thing and if you want a Biblical basis for this, if that’s important to you, you can look at the Garden of Eden. They were naked.

Yes, due to sin they were cast out and clothing became mandatory… but the ideal established by God was nakedness. For I don’t believe our bodies are shameful.

The ancient Greeks and their amazing culture similarly viewed nakedness as a virtue and athleticism a great virtue.

Will this missionary earn the wrath of his church? Probably. But in the grand scheme of things however much modesty may indeed be a virtue, so are youth and pride and fitness and on balance I’m okay with it. Personally.

Christoph on September 14, 2007 at 9:28 PM

You really don’t like it when you are presented with cold, hard facts do you? You didn’t have anything to say about military service when you made your now infamous statement at 12:29 a.m on September 7th. You were talking about privilege, so this is just another dodge.

And no one ever goes to France and not eat a chocolate croissant.
I did.

Buy Danish on September 14, 2007 at 5:03 PM

What the H*ll are you talking about the infamous statement. You don’t think I have said that I am upset that Mitt uses a poor excuse to go to France while his countrymen are dying(for a stalker, you don’t know much). Not as often as your reference to Freds red truck, but I made it. I made it quite clear that it is not the service, it is the dodging. I lost some good friends, while Mitt was in France…safe and sound, just where his dad would want him to be.
And please, you make me nervous stalking me. It is kind of creepy. And if you want to know what gender ask. You posted that I had two sons, that was wrong, why not ask and be right? On second thought, don’t, it really does make me nervous when someone starts talking about my kids, and what gender I am…this is a blog for posters to post their ideas. Not to stalk people. Stay away from me, your a creep. Csdeven did the same thing, at least he had the honor to apologize.

And I did make a mistake, thanks for bringing it up: I should have stated:

Everyone worthwhile goes to France and eats a chocolate croissant.

BTW, it is not called a dodge, it is called “piling on”.

Is Mitt still in double digits, or did he fall to single digits?

right2bright on September 14, 2007 at 10:16 PM

Joseph Smith, your founder, is a different matter. He was a liar, a fraud, a sexual abuser who preyed on people’s religious motivations for his own corrupt gain… as were many to follow him, especially his successor.
The Mormon faith is false. You believe evil doctrines and follow evil men. I will always oppose them.
Christoph on September 14, 2007 at 5:59 PM

This makes me laugh. Please provide me proof of “faith” being “false”. And again you throw around “evil” yet completely ignore all Biblical instructions on how to know if something is evil. Please point me to these “evil” goals, directives, plans, instructions, etc the LDS church is sponsoring and I would love to have you point out the “evil” men that Mormons here are following.

You, and your actions, could not be any farther away from the teachings of just about any prophet that has lived, save Mohammad. I think you need to look into converting.

The majority of higher leadership in the LDS church today are, I suspect, as dishonest as they ever were. Their dishonesty is highlighted by the fact they don’t even hold to their own church doctrines. Instead, they change them when laws or public pressures force them to.
Christoph on September 14, 2007 at 6:52 PM

You “suspect” and you would be wrong. But thank you for putting your bigotry on display once again. Please slander more people whom, from everything I have seen, are more Christ-like than you will ever be.

Yet I’m also sure they learn many untrue things and a deliberately sanitized version of their history. I don’t hate Mormons. I will not refrain from criticizing ideas I oppose.
My acerbic way of doing so is not limited to the LDS church, I assure you.
Christoph on September 14, 2007 at 7:03 PM

Yet, you quote from the LDS church’s own history books time and again pointing out mistakes/failings by early members. Funny how that sanitized version seems to have a lot of ugly human mistakes in it.

Oh yeah, good to know your bigotry is not limited to just those Mormons and their church.

It does make you wonder if wardrobe is the main criteria Mormon men love, why it’s founder married 33-women including a 14-year old.
Her skirt must have been very long for him to be attracted. Yes. I’m sure that was it.
Christoph on September 14, 2007 at 7:19 PM

Wow. You really need to be studied by Science, I do not think a more dense substance has ever been seen before.

He never stated it was the main criteria, much less that Mormon men love it. He only stated what he – and those Mormons like him – would define as “hot”. And that has nothing to do with what the founder of that church did, or how many wives he had. Yet in your perverted mind it does

Voidseeker on September 14, 2007 at 11:00 PM

Voidseeker, you’re a cultist.

Christoph on September 14, 2007 at 11:10 PM

Is Mitt still in double digits, or did he fall to single digits?

right2bright on September 14, 2007 at 10:16 PM

Mitt has the highest double-digits in the early primary states, so I think he’s fine. I am concerned about your obsessive love for utterly irrelevant national poll numbers though.

I also find your idiocy regarding Mitt’s mission repulsive. He went on a religious mission. What part of that don’t you understand? How the hell dense are you. Mitt didn’t go on a freaking party cruise. Presumably unlike you, when he goes to do work for a religious mission, he doesn’t skirt the rules and wolf down chocolate croissants just cause he’s in France.

BKennedy on September 14, 2007 at 11:18 PM

Voidseeker, let me ask you a few questions, and see how much you have to twist and lie to not answer them all and draw the logical conclusion.

1. Did Joseph Smith have more than one wife?
2. Did he have many wives?
3. Were some of them teenagers?
4. Did they claim they had sexual intercourse with Joseph Smith — something believable on its face?
5. Is JosephSmith.net maintained by the Mormon Church?
6. Does JosephSmith.net mention any of the wives of Joseph Smith other than Emma Hale?
7. Does this not conclusively prove sanitizing — a white wash?
8. When you search for his two youngest wives on JosephSmith.net — both 14 — Nancy Winchester and Helen Mar Kimball — what do you find?
9. Hint.

Your founder is evil. I will never get that through your thick cult-addled brain.

As long as I warn off others from time to time I can live with that.

I invite you to read my 2:17 PM comment in great detail. Study it. Learn from it. It’s a logical consequence of your church’s teachings. And this is what you would have me believe.

Christoph on September 14, 2007 at 11:19 PM

It’s not an official church production by any stretch of the imagination, but it’s a darn good summary.

Here’s a great preçis on Mormon teaching. You’re welcome to believe it.

But I sincerely believe it’s untrue and as such I oppose it.

Christoph on September 14, 2007 at 11:26 PM

Christoph on September 14, 2007 at 11:19 PM

Hey Cristoph, we get it: Joseph Smith was a degenerate polyamorous asshat.

I fail to see how that reflects badly on modern day Mormons, who are by and large good, decent, honorable people.

I’d give the same pass to Islam vis-a-vis Muhammad if Islam wern’t still stoning people and waging Jihad against the kuffar.

BKennedy on September 14, 2007 at 11:27 PM

For the record, Voidseeker and others, I believe God can work in many circumstances, even in the Mormon church however untrue its doctrines are.

Go ahead, watch that one. You will like it. Promise.

Christoph on September 14, 2007 at 11:45 PM

right2bright on September 14, 2007 at 10:16 PM

You are hysterical – literally and figuratively.

You keep bringing up stuff you may have said to other people at other times (or more likely are pulling out of thin air) expect me to know all about them, and then accuse me of “stalking” you. Unbelievable.

On second thought, don’t, it really does make me nervous when someone starts talking about my kids, and what gender I am blah blah blah

What???? You mentioned you “spent a half a mill” to send your kids to law school and I suggested they could help you with your pitiful blogging skills. That was it. I never said another word about them, and believe me, I have zero interest in them or any aspect of your personal life.

As for your sex, you launched into a hilarious feminist manifesto and accused me of being “sexist” over absolutely nothing. From that very blonde response I gathered that you are a “she”. If you aren’t then say so. If you are, what the hell are you complaining about?

Oh, and I have never said anything about Fred’s red truck. You must be confusing me with someone else, which doesn’t surprise me because you are clearly very confused.

The good news is that you are “worthwhile” because you’ve eaten chocolate croissants! Good for you!

Buy Danish on September 14, 2007 at 11:47 PM

Carrying on my video theme in case anyone is still watching (first video a cartoon dissection of Mormon theology, second a heartfelt testimony to Mormonism turning a well-known man and his family’s life around) this video is just fun.

Whatever side you’re on or if you’re on the sidelines, here’s 6-minutes of Mormon/Christian amusement.

Christoph on September 14, 2007 at 11:58 PM

Ugh. Just finished watching that video. Until the last 10-seconds where he blew it.

Christoph on September 15, 2007 at 12:00 AM

I also find your idiocy regarding Mitt’s mission repulsive. He went on a religious mission. What part of that don’t you understand? How the hell dense are you?


BKennedy on September 14, 2007 at 11:18 PM

Very?

The key to right2bright’s irrational rage is right here:

I lost some good friends, while Mitt was in France…safe and sound, just where his dad would want him to be.

Buy Danish on September 15, 2007 at 12:08 AM

Buy Danish, in agreement with your theme (“Very?”) at 12:08 PM and with BKennedy at 11:18 PM and in your defense against right2bright, I will say I have seen you almost invariably illogical, “dense”, and bordering on retarded not completely bright, but I have never seen any evidence you are a stalker. I don’t buy it.

Christoph on September 15, 2007 at 12:14 AM

I also find your idiocy regarding Mitt’s mission repulsive. He went on a religious mission. What part of that don’t you understand?
BKennedy on September 14, 2007 at 11:18 PM

Take it easy BK I will explain…again. He chose to go on a mission, it was his choice to serve the country or serve his church. A CHOICE, get it, A CHOICE. He can’t face up to the fact he made the choice. Here is his quotes from his lips to God’s ears.

Which one did Mitt Romney say? “I was not planning on signing up for the military. It was not my desire to go off and serve in Vietnam…” OR “I longed in many respects to actually be in Vietnam… it was frustrating not to feel like I was there as part of the troops.” Give up? He said ‘em both!

By his denying and then lying (or vice verse), he makes it apparent that he knew what he was doing. And now (or then) covering up. If he said he was objecting to the war on religious grounds, no problem. I would have no problem with a Quaker, it would be up front and honest. But he had a choice, and he chose the mission, in France, to get out of service (look again at his quotes), when others went in his place. Only a select few (during the Vietnam war) from each state went on a mission, Mitt was fortunate enough to be chosen from the State of Michigan to go(Mitt Romney as a “minister of religion or divinity student,” protected him from the draft between July 1966 and February 1969). Coincidently, while his father was governor of Michigan…just by chance I am sure. And not to serve in Guatamala, or Africa, or Asia, but France…Mitt is a lucky guy.
BTW, I am not to happy with Rudy getting his “clerk” status reviewed, having a judge write a letter saying his service to the courts is of great national interest (not exactly what was written but same idea). He also allowed people to go to serve the country, while he clerked for a judge (in selective service cases)…and dined on those great New York bagels.

You may think highly of people who dodged the draft during a time I suspect you were just a gleem in your dads eyes. But us who lived through it, and lost close friends, do not think highly of draft dodgers. It has nothing to do with service, the vast majority did not serve, but it has to do with honoring your committment as a citizen.
I am sure if Mitt went into the service he would have served as bravely as his father did…

What was your other weird statement…”your obsessive love” for poll numbers. What numbers did I quote?…do you mean asking if Mitt is still in double digits? Yeah, sound like an obsession to me.

right2bright on September 15, 2007 at 12:41 AM

Voidseeker, Vance csdeven, et al., here is another very good example of the Mormon church white washing its history to make it palatable.

I know not one of your will watch the video. Of course, the odds went up now that I said that… but you still won’t watch it.

Christoph on September 15, 2007 at 12:44 AM

Christoph on September 15, 2007 at 12:14 AM

Stalker in the sense that he lists selected posts (who keeps a copy of all posts?). He states something about some post, and when I mention I posted something else he claims not to know all of my posts. Yet he has copies of my posts. He makes irrational conclusions (like believing that I have secret testimony from Mitt) and then hounds me about it. He is very weird (at least a few times) about my gender, I would find it amusing, but I have posted on this for over a year and people will ask others about gender, but not talk in a third party, it is just strange. He attempted to guess my kids gender. Any one of these would not be unusual, but taken as a whole, I say it is strange. Over a year of posting, and only one other person was this fixated on me (not only me), and that was a person called Honora. She would move from person to person, study their postings, then try to find a typo, like saying an abstract is always before, never after (which is baloney, and he was on the wrong site). Honora was dumped because she was so fixated on hijacking a thread, and did not use logic. Usually when a post is over, we all move on to other, we don’t drag baggage from one post to the next.
Or his psch. of my postings, trying to find a reaon like this:

The key to right2bright’s irrational rage is right here

, when he has no idea who he is posting about. The personal attacks, and personal slanderous words. Most don’t get that nasty. Hence the word stalker.

Maybe stalker is not a good word, maybe fixation would be better.
But then, he is a Mitt supporter and they are…sincere in their tenacity.

I’m sure he is a nice guy, it would be fun to meet him, I have a feeling if we were mano a mano he would not be so aggressive.

right2bright on September 15, 2007 at 1:08 AM

Christoph on September 15, 2007 at 12:14 AM

Well gosh, I feel so blessed now. If not for you some people might have thought that right2bright’s insane accusations had merit.

And speaking of “bright”, do you not realize that your preaching is unwelcome? Do you know what an “emotional I.Q.” is? You are a total dullard in that regard.

I know you think that you are engaging in a great intellectual exercise and that by dint of your brilliant arguments you’ll eventually bring us all to see the light according to Christoph, but all you are doing is demonstrating how arrogant, pushy, and insensitive you are.

right2bright,

At the risk of you accusing me of “stalking” you again, Mitt Romney was not a “draft dodger”. He had a deferment and he was eligible for the draft when his deferment ended.

Since you claim to know so much about Mitt Romney I can only conclude that you know perfectly well that the draft dodging accusation is false. Guess what that makes you?

Goodnight.

Buy Danish on September 15, 2007 at 1:08 AM

Buy Danish on September 15, 2007 at 1:08 AM

Then why did he request a deferment if he was immune to the draft? Why not let someone else receive the deferrment?

right2bright on September 15, 2007 at 1:20 AM

Stalker in the sense that he lists selected posts (who keeps a copy of all posts?).

not2bright,

Hot Air keeps a copy in “the vault”. They are terribly inconvenient I know since they provide a record of your lunatic and constantly shifting statements.

Considering the fact that you indicate that you have been here for a year, one would think you’d have figured this out by now.

I don’t have time to deal with the rest of your nonsense as I have to get up very early and I will be gone all day tomorrow.

Meanwhile, please try to get over the fact that I assumed that your children were boys – an easy error to make since we had been discussing Mitt’s 5 sons. It makes absolutely no difference to me what gender your children are, and it was completely irrelevant to anything under discussion.

By the way, you assume incorrectly that I am a man, but unlike you, I will not lose a moment’s sleep over it.

Buy Danish on September 15, 2007 at 1:24 AM

Then why did he request a deferment if he was immune to the draft? Why not let someone else receive the deferrment?

He was not “immune to the draft”. What are you talking about?

Do you know what the word “defer” means? Think about it and maybe you’ll be able to figure this out all by yourself!

Buy Danish on September 15, 2007 at 1:28 AM

Where is the chick calander?

Tim Burton on September 15, 2007 at 2:58 AM

Take it easy BK I will explain…again. He chose to go on a mission, it was his choice to serve the country or serve his church. A CHOICE, get it, A CHOICE. He can’t face up to the fact he made the choice. Here is his quotes from his lips to God’s ears.

A religious mission doesn’t sound like something Mormons CHOOSE to do. Csdeven has stated numerous times that it is not uncommon for Mormons to complete one year of college, go on their mission, and return later. This means either all Mormons are horrible at prioritizing their life, or that religious missions are mandatory at a certain age, happening to coincide with the year after college. Moreover, I’m sure Mitt wasn’t sipping Champagne in gay Paris, he might have been in the slums of some unknown French town full of muggers and thieves. Or the slums of Paris, whis are probably just as bad.

As to the so called dueling Mitt quotes, considering the source is from an anti-Romney website, combined with the fact I really don’t care one lick about who did or did not want to go during Vietnam. Service was compulsory without a deferment, so I’d rather not split hairs over preferences regarding events from thirty years ago.

BKennedy on September 15, 2007 at 3:32 AM

BKennedy,

LDS missions are not mandatory, but it is a goal for all males to serve an honorable mission as soon as he reaches 19 years of age. Mitt would have been planning his life from around 8 years old. His parents, teachers, and peers, would all have been encouraging him to do the same. As you have noted, missions are not 2 years of partying. It is a very demanding commitment that is not taken lightly. The missionary pays for his two years himself. Rent, food, clothing, etc. Usually the missionary starts saving as soon as he is able to work. I had the honor of personally knowing an elder, 19 years old, who sold his fully restored Corvette in order to fund his mission. The entire two years of their mission is limited to proselytizing 24/7. He has a companion missionary and they have to be together at all times. They get up early in the morning and go to bed late at night. They rarely call home. They get one day a week for laundry etc. This is called their “P” day. As mentioned, their involvement in the simplest activities is restricted.

Having said all that, there have been situations where the pressure from family is so great for a male to go on his mission that it is in effect mandatory. A huge majority go on missions because they believe, and it is taught, that they have a duty to God to serve their mission. Mitt and his family would have been planning this since before the Vietnam war started, and it is a part of LDS life to do so.

So, it is true that Mitt received a deferment, but he did not receive it the way she is intimating he did. He has said that he had no desire to join, but longed to help out. This makes sense in the relativity of the LDS life. Duty to God is a high priority as is duty to country. Knowing many LDS folks it is my belief that Mitt made a tough choice based on the plan he had made for his life since long before US involvement in Vietnam began.

R2B is spinning Mitt’s choices in the worst possible light, when in reality, Mitt’s choice was based on his fervent beliefs (much like those who decide to go to college to be lawyers), and are driven to fulfill that dream, and at the same time, be torn by unforeseen events that make it very tough to continue on your path.

csdeven on September 15, 2007 at 7:45 AM

right2bright on September 15, 2007 at 1:08 AM

He states something about some post, and when I mention I posted something else he claims not to know all of my posts.

I have a very good memory of what you said to me in response to what issues I have addressed. When I am unsure I can go back and check the record.

It is a method that would serve you well since you don’t remember what you said from one minute to the next, and habitually make up brand new versions of what you said, and what I said. You may want to learn to use the “find ” function, which enables you to find your own comments easily.

As just one example of how your re-write the facts, you were complaining that I cut into a conversation you were having with csdeven. That is totally false. I responded to what I term your “infamous” quote on 12:59 a.m. on September 7th. That was the very first comment you made on that thread, and any conversations you had with csdeven followed later. You would have saved all of us a lot of time if you had gone back and read what you said.

Regarding the “abstract” discussion, on two occasions I demonstrated that it was an ‘article’ but you were incapable of absorbing that simple fact, which illustrates your inability to comprehend the most basic and indisputable information. You further claimed that you linked to the article but you did not, and that is also in the original thread.

He makes irrational conclusions (like believing that I have secret testimony from Mitt) and then hounds me about it.

You claimed you had court testimony. I did not “hound” you about it, I listed it as part of a long list of your b.s.

He is very weird (at least a few times) about my gender

r2b, I was making fun of your feminist manifesto. That is not “weird”, and indeed you are rather weird to obsess over this.

He attempted to guess my kids gender

I did not give it a moment’s thought. For whatever reason I thought they were boys and said that your “sons” could help you out. That was the sum total of that and it is bizarre that you find some hidden meaning there that you are now obsessing about.

Usually when a post is over, we all move on to other, we don’t drag baggage from one post to the next.

The Mission Calendar described what mission life was really like. I pointed it out to you since you continue to paint Mitt as a draft dodging ne’er do well. It was perfectly appropriate. Deal with it.

Over and out.

Buy Danish on September 15, 2007 at 8:30 AM

I came back looking for more hot shirtless Mormons and I found “teh hawt” had changed back into “Mormons are a cult”.

Is no semi-porn thread safe!?!

Lehosh on September 15, 2007 at 8:43 AM

He was not “immune to the draft”. What are you talking about?
Buy Danish on September 15, 2007 at 1:28 AM

“Immune”, you don’t know much about the draft in the sixties do you? You didn’t know that he received special deferment from the draft for being a “minister of religion or divinity student,” something given only to a select few from each state (during the Vietnam war). He was chosen for Michigan, like I said, a real coincidence with his father being governor and all. What are the odds?

right2bright on September 15, 2007 at 8:52 AM

r2b,

I see you have not looked up the meaning of the word, “defer”.

I’ll be back tonight. Perhaps by then you’ll have figured this out.

Buy Danish on September 15, 2007 at 9:04 AM

csdeven on September 15, 2007 at 7:45 AM

Finally, the best description of what happened. Read this BK and Buy Danish, and you will learn how to answer a debate civilized.
Thanks csdeven, you have earned a degree in debate. And didn’t have to use one curse word or put down (“worst light” is accurate). Not one straw man, you just have to concede one point (although you probably won’t) it was an unusual coincedence that he was chosen. Their was a limited number of missions given out during that time. Several reasons, one is that the world was torn apart and they did not want to put their boys in harms way (prudent), the church did not want to look like anti-war (they understand service), they did not want to appear to give kids preferential treatment (they did go to high school with kids who were drafted). So the number was severly limited, only a handful from each state were selected. No doubt Mitt was an extrodinary student, but there were many, many others in the same position…without the political clout. I know you don’t believe in influence, but it is way to coincendental for me not to believe.
I put him in the same category as Rudy, and many others that shifted their lives to avoid service during that time.

Thanks for answering the post academically and with reason.

right2bright on September 15, 2007 at 9:04 AM

Buy Danish on September 15, 2007 at 8:30 AM

Yeah, yeah, whatever, move on.

right2bright on September 15, 2007 at 9:06 AM

As the Vietnam War raged in the 1960s, Mitt Romney received a deferment from the draft as a Mormon “minister of religion” for the duration of his missionary work in France, which lasted two and a half years.
Before and after his missionary deferment, Romney also received nearly three years of deferments for his academic studies. When his deferments ended and he became eligible for military service in 1970, he drew a high number in the annual lottery that determined which young men were drafted. His high number ensured he was not drafted into the military.

There is your definition of deferment, you probably thought it meant defer of payments…stupid.

right2bright on September 15, 2007 at 9:12 AM

Yeah, yeah, whatever, move on.

right2bright on September 15, 2007 at 9:06 AM

Ha Ha. I think r2b is Eli Pariser.

Defer: To put off, postpone.

When his deferments ended and he became eligible for military service in 1970, he drew a high number in the annual lottery that determined which young men were drafted. His high number ensured he was not drafted into the military.

No doubt you think that was because of his father’s “influence” also.

Buy Danish on September 15, 2007 at 9:28 AM

Buy Danish on September 15, 2007 at 9:28 AM

The mormons negotiated with the selective service as to how they could “limit” the number of missionaries. The selective service did not recognize the missionaries as a viable way of getting out of the draft. So LDS met with the SS and devised a limiting plan for missions during this time. Hence it no longer was random (regarding who was chosen and where they served) just during that time.

Here is a question for you to answer (seeing as I educated you on deferment during the war): What political influential man helped negotiate that agreement with the selective service?

Tick Tock, Tick Tock, Tick Tock…

(and read the way csdeven answers a post, it was well done)

right2bright on September 15, 2007 at 9:36 AM

Buy Danish on September 15, 2007 at 9:28 AM

A 30 month deferment until his number was drawn. Three or four years of deferment? Very unusual for that time. Very.

right2bright on September 15, 2007 at 9:41 AM

Still waiting for a stampede of Mormons to rush to watching those videos… even the one that is staunchly pro-Mormonism… but no… nothing.

Christoph on September 15, 2007 at 9:54 AM

R2B,

Please note, that you should be presenting your arguments in an unbiased way. You are provoking the responses you are getting with your innuendo.

And no I will not give any credence to your suggestion that Mitt’s assignment to France, or his mission call was brought about by his fathers influence. You may live it that world, but the LDS I know do not seek those favors nor would they accept them. You are basically saying that missions calls are bought and paid for. The reality is that there is a group of people who make these decisions and those decisions are a matter of personal prayer. If you understood the depth of commitment to God and their honorable service to him the LDS have, you would know that any influence would be shunned and typically reported to those in authority. The LDS LIVE their faith. It isn’t something they do just on Sunday. That attitude is one reason they are viewed as a little fanatical at times.

So you have no one but yourself to blame for the reactions you are getting from Danish and BK. And I have been following this, you have been talking out both sides of your mouth. Do some research. Learn how the LDS think. I promise you if you do that, you wont come back here making the vile accusations you have been making.

csdeven on September 15, 2007 at 10:48 AM

Christoph on September 15, 2007 at 9:54 AM

They wont because they have heard it all before and they realize you have a personal ax to grind and you’re trying to validate it by getting others to buy into it. You have a personal problem with JS. It’s nothing new. The LDS have been weathering attacks like this since JS’s first vision. You and your bigoted ilk can never seem to be completely content within yourselves with the knowledge that JS is a fraud. You have this compulsion to force others to listen to you. Why is that? The LDS church turns out a pretty good product (so to speak). Having faith that JS actually experienced all the spiritual things he said he did isn’t damaging people. JS is pretty harmless, except for you. I know you never met him so he could not have personally offended you. And that begs the question: What exactly is your malfunction?

The answer is, from a strictly spiritual perspective, is that you are being driving by a less than righteous influence and you have a thirst for others to share in it. There is influence for good and evil in this world. You have forgotten the parable of the bad tree that cannot produce good fruit. The LDS are a force for good in this world. There roots are the teachings JS said he received from God. Yes, some of those teachings have been changed over the years, but the basic tenets of the LDS faith are unchanged. Those tenets are what is producing those good, decent people.

You are trying to exorcise your demons on JS and demand that the rest of us take part. Believe me, you will never satisfy that thirst until YOU personally come to grips with what you believe. If JS is a fake, then accept it and move on. He is beyond hurting you, but you seem intent on extracting a pound of flesh from him. Therein is where we find the evidence that you are not being motivated by goodness when it comes to JS.

csdeven on September 15, 2007 at 11:06 AM

csdeven, watch the one video, the one I referred to as positive. Consider this my gift to you. You will like it (I did too) and that is a promise.

For your convenience, the link is here.

Christoph on September 15, 2007 at 11:37 AM

The only problem with being born into an LDS family is that these types of conversions are harder to have. That is probably what your problem is. You took it for granted and are now listening to the rational of people who have serious personality flaws. You and I know that one day you will be faced with the errors of your ways and the destruction of faith that you cause. I just hope that you accept and repent of it.

csdeven on September 15, 2007 at 12:08 PM

csdeven on September 15, 2007 at 10:48 AM

Are you saying that the Mormon church and the Selective service did not agree to limit the number of Mormons that would be on mission during the Vietnam war?

The LDS you know, is not the LDS during the 60′s. They suspended their mission program, and replaced it with a negotioated one. Right?

We will take this one step at a time.

right2bright on September 15, 2007 at 1:23 PM

csdeven on September 15, 2007 at 10:48 AM

And you are unbiased? All arguments are biased, that is what an argument is…you are Morman defending your faith, I am not. How can you be unbiased with your blind committment to your church? And I would not expect anything else from a faithful person. You have a church that depends on faith, and belief in wars that never took place (no bones-200,000 people killed, no war implements), geography in the book of mormon that doesn’t exist, coins that don’t exist (neophit coins), languages that don’t exist, american indians who are supposed to be Israelites (and now DNA proves different), They should excavate some of their “sites” (why not excavate the Hill Cumorah?) to prove their beliefs. But faith is good enough. And that is about a “biased” as you can get. That’s okay, faith is good. Strong enough faith and you don’t need proof, so goes some of the attacks on me.

You believe the LDS leaders are above reproach. I think they are men, and as the bible states, all men are fallible.

So you have no one but yourself to blame for the reactions you are getting from Danish and BK.

Who was blaming someone else? They did not even understand the principle of deferment during the war, they pulled out some dictionary explanation, which they now know is not accurate when speaking of the Vietnam deferments. Listen, Cheney did the same thing, if you don’t think a choice between service to the country and service to the church is no big thing…okay. We disagree. I never said bought his way out of service (now you are going back to your old ways), I specifically rejected that, have your secretary, Buy Danish, find that. I said influenced. You and I disagree. Why get nasty about it? You think the leadership of LDS is perfect, I don’t. We can disagree about that can’t we?

You have no idea of my relationship to the LDS church. You have no idea of what I know about the LDS church.

I understand their committment to Joseph Smith, and their committment to that polygamist Jesus (how many wives did Jesus have?).

right2bright on September 15, 2007 at 1:57 PM

right2bright on September 15, 2007 at 1:23 PM

I have no idea how the government dealt with the LDS. It may be an issue for you but it is not for me. Considering your dishonesty on several subjects, I am not going to engage you in anything unless you can substantiate it with facts. So, if is your intention to start the lying and disinformation “one step at a time”, save it for someone who thinks you might have something relevant to say on the subject.

csdeven on September 15, 2007 at 6:05 PM

right2bright on September 15, 2007 at 1:57 PM

What makes you think I am a Mormon? I never said I was. All I have ever said is that I am very familiar with them and their lifestyle.

You believe the LDS leaders are above reproach. I think they are men, and as the bible states, all men are fallible.

So are you. So that must mean you are a wrong about the LDS faith, you know it, and you continue with these accusations anyway. Perhaps the reason why you suspect others of such behavior is because it is what you do and you feel everyone else must do it also?

I never said bought his way out of service

Yes you have. Do you think buying and paying for favors with influence is somehow better than money exchanging hands? In the world of people of honor, both forms of payment are equally distasteful.

You have no idea of my relationship to the LDS church. You have no idea of what I know about the LDS church.

I know for the most part, you are completely ignorant of the reality of living an LDS lifestyle. Most of the rest of the tripe you write you get from anti-Mormon resources.

I understand their committment to Joseph Smith,

Really? And what exactly is that commitment?

csdeven on September 15, 2007 at 6:21 PM

Christoph on September 15, 2007 at 11:37 AM

Thanks for that Glenn Beck interview – it was very interesting and heartwarming. I only know him from his radio show which I sadly can no longer get. I’ve always liked him and found him entertaining, but I had no idea how genuinely NICE he is. He gives conservatives (and Mormons) a good name.

Strong enough faith and you don’t need proof, so goes some of the attacks on me.

right2bright on September 15, 2007 at 1:57 PM

What?? Faith has absolutely nothing to do with my argument with you and I am certainly not relying on “faith” to “prove” my points.

My argument with you is that you lack any substantive “proof” to back up the numerous and wild accusations you make about Mitt, your nonexistent deductive reasoning, your revisionist history, and your flights of fancy.

They did not even understand the principle of deferment during the war, they pulled out some dictionary explanation, which they now know is not accurate when speaking of the Vietnam deferments.

I know exactly what a “deferment” is. You seemed to think it was a permanent reprieve. I tried to guide you to the dictionary so a light bulb might go off and you’d realize that deferments are only temporary, and that Mitt was eligible for the draft.

Perhaps you think that he or the LDS church had some role in ending the war too – maybe timing it so that there was zero chance that he would have to serve?

Buy Danish on September 15, 2007 at 7:36 PM

Comment pages: 1 2