802eabf1b959ed99b243…

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?

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?

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 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?).

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.

For your convenience, the link is here.

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.

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.

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.

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)

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.

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.

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

Yeah, yeah, whatever, move on.

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.

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.

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?

Is no semi-porn thread safe!?!

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.

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.

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.

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!